Smaug! (2nd Hobbit Trailer)

[Alejandro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLgnkRxlKCg

At least he's the huge wyrm he's supposed to be. :)

[thorgrim29]

Wait, was that Orlando Bloom twice? As Legolas and the guy who says not to wake the dragon

[Tebryn]

If Smaug doesn't give his Boast I am going to be so sad.

[Mordar]

Initiate stream of consciousness now:

Disappointing CGI ninjas elves...solid realistic (fantasy) dwarves...Gandalf..."Orlando Bloom has Ruined Everything (http://www.amazon.com/Orlando-Bloom-Has-Ruined-Everything/dp/0740749994)"...why so much bad CGI, Peter Jackson? You're better than that...barrel scene replaces goofy mines section from first movie...please more dwarves and "real" elves...hey, that's a dragon!

Terminate stream of consciousness.

- M

[JoshL]

Wait, was that Orlando Bloom twice? As Legolas and the guy who says not to wake the dragon

Second time was Luke Evans, as Bard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1812656/ But, yeah, it made me double take too. Lots of Lee Pace in the trailer! I am excited and as ever optimistic.

Oh, yeah, and DRAGONS!!!!

[Corvus]

Initial thoughts - Bard looks too much like a dark haired Legolas.

And TOO MUCH ELF in general. Its a book about dwarves (and one hobbit), not a bunch of tree hugging flower eaters.

[Pokonic]

Quite a bit of Elf showcase here. Spiders. Goblins being goblins. Smaug turning around and being all dragony. Otherwise, not much else.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Oh, yeah, and DRAGONS!!!!

DRAGONS!!!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Also, who's the Elf girl?

[Corvus]

Also, who's the Elf girl?

Taurial. They created her for the movie. From the rumours she is also going to be a love interest, but no word on for whom. My guess, by the looks, legolas. And will probably die as well is my hope.

[Drakeburn]

Taurial. They created her for the movie. From the rumours she is also going to be a love interest, but no word on for whom. My guess, by the looks, legolas. And will probably die as well is my hope.

Probably during the Battle of the Five armies, I'm guessing.

And I'm actually bit glad that Beorn might be in the movie. He was one of my favorite characters from The Hobbit.

[Bulldog Psion]

Hmph. Looks like another one I'll be giving a pass on, though Smaug looks a little interesting.

I love how predictable Jackson is. Turning the subtle creepiness of Beorn (whom I liked, incidentally, even though I thought he was a bit menacing in a way) into some kind of histrionic Cujo scene as they try to force the door shut against his ravening jaws, blah blah blah.

What a ham the man is. He proves that there are ham directors, not just ham actors. :smallyuk:

[ShadowFireLance]

HELL YEAH! Smaug! Whoo! Yes! a Decent DRAGON!
*Jumps up and down like a fan girl*

[Muz]

If Smaug doesn't give his Boast I am going to be so sad.

Oh, he'd better. Though I wonder if they'll keep Smaug speaking out of any of the trailers so it's a surprise to viewers who haven't read the book, since dragons that are actually intelligent and speak seem to be a lot scarcer in movies than dragons who are just big flying dinosaurs that can breath fire.

I'm finding myself growing more and more disappointed with what they've apparently done to the barrel scene, the more I think about it. That's supposed to be a sneaky display of Bilbo being clever, not a running battle escape. We already had one of those getting away from the goblins.

[BWR]

Changing even more from the book, and Smaug looks pretty bad here. Bad as in bad, not bad as in cool.
I am not optimistic, especially considering what they did with the last movie.
Bah!

[Cikomyr]

Taurial. They created her for the movie. From the rumours she is also going to be a love interest, but no word on for whom. My guess, by the looks, legolas. And will probably die as well is my hope.

I hope not. Legolas' true love is the son of one of the 13 dwarves...

[t209]

Changing even more from the book, and Smaug looks pretty bad here. Bad as in bad, not bad as in cool.
I am not optimistic, especially considering what they did with the last movie.
Bah!
Maybe it's still in post production and need to clear it up before release?
Plus, don't believe in trailers and we knew that dwarves, humans and elves will squabble eachother over loot. Then, audience will probably view Thorin as scrappy.

[Korgor]

Smaug - looking a little bit T-Rexish in the head to me, though, think this needs to be a bit thinner... still, nice trailer...

[Eldan]

Too many pogo-elves.

Also, I didn't like the dragon design much. The eyes look like orange lights in a cheap monster figure on a carneval ride.

[MLai]

LOL Orlando Bloom ruins everything, even other actors who are not Orlando Bloom!
Why the heck did PJ hire a pretty boy who looks just like Orlando Bloom to be Bard? We have enough elves we don't need pretty boys as humans too. I imagined Bard to look much manlier.
This is the man whose arrow pierced an airborne dragon. That's like shooting down a HIND with a pistol.

[lord_khaine]

ARRRGG, i got enough of Legolas in the second LoTR movie, what the &%#" is he doing in this one :smallmad:

[Killer Angel]

LOL Orlando Bloom ruins everything, even other actors who are not Orlando Bloom!
Why the heck did PJ hire a pretty boy who looks just like Orlando Bloom to be Bard?

At least, we have moustache...


I imagined Bard to look much manlier.
This is the man whose arrow pierced an airborne dragon.

He used a bow. Like Legolas. So they had to be phisically similar!

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, I'm going to ruin everybody's day and say:

Yay Legolas!

He was always my favourite anyway, ever since I first read the books.

Lots of Elves? Fine. (I mean it's not like there was a whole section of the Hobbit set in an Elf country or something or that Elves played a fairly important role in the plot in that section and at the end or anything... oh wait.) Better than lots of humans any day of the week.

I can also see why they added a female elf character, since y'know, there weren't any females in the Hobbit at all in any capacity, so sprinkling a few in where there's room to do so doesn't hurt at all.

And you're giving Bard flak because he isn't a grizzled generic action-hero knock off? Please. I mean, it's not like you have thirteen Dwarves or anything if you must fill that particular quota (and for my money that quota can stay empty and dead). I'd take a "pretty boy" (sic) over that tired old cliche any day of the week, if I were forced to choose.

(I seriously wonder how much of the flak Orlando Bloom gets is because he seemed to be popular with the ladies and/or because the "girly-elf-man" got to do all the really cool things in the LotR movies...)

Looking forward to wizards verses Necromancer.



I thought the last movie - and the LotR films before that were fantastic.

(And, for the record, I still count LotR as my favourite book and am an unshamed Tolkien fanboy.)

[Dienekes]

Well, I'm going to ruin everybody's day and say:

Yay Legolas!

He was always my favourite anyway, ever since I first read the books.

Lots of Elves? Fine. (I mean it's not like there was a whole section of the Hobbit set in an Elf country or something or that Elves played a fairly important role in the plot in that section and at the end or anything... oh wait.) Better than lots of humans any day of the week.

I can also see why they added a female elf character, since y'know, there weren't any females in the Hobbit at all in any capacity, so sprinkling a few in where there's room to do so doesn't hurt at all.

And you're giving Bard flak because he isn't a grizzled generic action-hero knock off? Please. I mean, it's not like you have thirteen Dwarves or anything if you must fill that particular quota (and for my money that quota can stay empty and dead). I'd take a "pretty boy" (sic) over that tired old cliche any day of the week, if I were forced to choose.

(I seriously wonder how much of the flak Orlando Bloom gets is because he seemed to be popular with the ladies and/or because the "girly-elf-man" got to do all the really cool things in the LotR movies...)

Looking forward to wizards verses Necromancer.



I thought the last movie - and the LotR films before that were fantastic.

(And, for the record, I still count LotR as my favourite book and am an unshamed Tolkien fanboy.)

Ehh for me it was because Bloom was quite easily the worst actor in the Fellowship. Everything he did was just sort of wooden. He did look the part though. Though I admit some of the weirder ridiculous action movie moments being given to him for no reason rubbed me the wrong way. I know Legolas didn't take down the Cave Troll, or take down a mumakil. I also know that pretty consistently in the books Gimli won their little killing competitions, so why did Legolas become an action hero and Gimli only gets shown killing mooks in brief?

Also, the badass pretty boy is just as cliched a character as the grizzled veteran. Honestly, probably moreso given Hollywoods penchant to prettying up everything and everyone.

As to an added romance, ehh, romance bores me. I hope it doesn't take too much time from the rest of the show.

I actually am a bit interested in the fight with the Necromancer though. Could be cool.

Also, is it just me or has the cgi gotten worse since the LotR movies? Some of the things here don't look real, which was very rarely the problem in LotR.

[hamishspence]

In Unfinished Tales, when discussing Elves and their role in the 3rd Age (and that of the Elven Rings) Tolkien suggested their role was somewhat secondary.

And also that "Legolas probably achieved least of the Nine Walkers".

Interesting to note.

[SmartAlec]

Taurial. They created her for the movie. From the rumours she is also going to be a love interest, but no word on for whom.

I'd heard Fili's name brought up in that context.

[Korgor]

On the CGI, I've been hearing that in quite a few places now, but the suggestion that seems to suit this best is that this isn't the final, polished version thereof - I still say Smaug needs work! but yes, Wizards Vs Necromancer is going to be great...

[Dienekes]

On the CGI, I've been hearing that in quite a few places now, but the suggestion that seems to suit this best is that this isn't the final, polished version thereof - I still say Smaug needs work! but yes, Wizards Vs Necromancer is going to be great...

You see I'd believe this if I didn't think that the CGI for Part 1 was also worse than what was in LotR. And there really isn't any way to make elves move like that and make it look real.

[Aotrs Commander]

In Unfinished Tales, when discussing Elves and their role in the 3rd Age (and that of the Elven Rings) Tolkien suggested their role was somewhat secondary.

And also that "Legolas probably achieved least of the Nine Walkers".

Interesting to note.

Well, to be fair, in Rolemaster, they only pegged him at about level 8 (slightly higher than the hobbits as I recall off the top of my head), whereas Aragorn and I think Boromir too, were quite a bit higher (and obviously Gandalf was).

Still, I wasn't gonna complain that Legolas got to do some really cool stuff in the movies. I am okay with the changes PJ made (some were better than others), because I didn't think that they detracted too much from the narrative (and some were because you had to pander at least a little to the non-fantasy-reading general public who could be amazingly unperceptive. Of of my friend's acquintances went to see the first LotR movie and though the ending was a bit crap because he didn't know it was a trilogy... Mildy vexing, but not unlivable with, considering how much else PJ got right.)



And - thought this is probably practically sacreligious to say it, if popular RPG opinion seems anything to go by, but I've always preferred Elves to Dwarves anyway.

(Yes, this is still me saying this even after the hilarious Elf-vampire-greatsword experiment thread of the WotC boards and the cracks I make about them.

Often the joke is made about Elves hugging trees, to which I often counter with the fact, if we indeed assume that all Elves practise using longbows, the natural extrapolation of that is that when an Elf hugs a tree, it's probably only so she can hit you over the head with it...)




Hey, did we know that the Master of Laketown is Steven Fry? That should be priceless...

[Korgor]

Nice one - I'm still impressed they managed to get Sylvester McCoy in there!

[Dienekes]

Well, to be fair, in Rolemaster, they only pegged him at about level 8 (slightly higher than the hobbits as I recall off the top of my head), whereas Aragorn and I think Boromir too, were quite a bit higher (and obviously Gandalf was).

Still, I wasn't gonna complain that Legolas got to do some really cool stuff in the movies. I am okay with the changes PJ made (some were better than others), because I didn't think that they detracted too much from the narrative (and some were because you had to pander at least a little to the non-fantasy-reading general public who could be amazingly unperceptive. Of of my friend's acquintances went to see the first LotR movie and though the ending was a bit crap because he didn't know it was a trilogy... Mildy vexing, but not unlivable with, considering how much else PJ got right.)

You see I wouldn't have minded Legolas getting to do awesome stuff if it meant everyone got to do awesome stuff. But it never really went that way. When there was a big target, Legolas took it down. Gimli, the warrior-poet who was the only member of the Fellowship Aragorn trusted to make it all the way to Mordor with Frodo is gone, and replaced with a walking short joke. Aragorn got to face a much smaller troll than the one Legolas killed, it kicked his ass. Then during one of the crowning moments of the strength of man, the siege of Helm's Deep. Man is supposed to ward off the enemy, but nope elves show up to save them, because it would be impossible for man to do it themselves. Why? The elves don't appear in the books. The excuse is that elves had an allegiance with man, well so did dwarves where were they? It became blatantly obvious that Jackson loved the elves more than the other races by the end of the trilogy which while not a game breaker is a bit annoying for us who don't.


And - thought this is probably practically sacreligious to say it, if popular RPG opinion seems anything to go by, but I've always preferred Elves to Dwarves anyway.

DWAARVES! To Hell with elves! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrLMob39qI)

I actually didn't mind the elves until I read the Silmarillion. They seem all aloof and superior because, I thought, they were. They were the perfect race so I can imagine it must be trying to deal with those who are not.

Then I read the Sil and realized the elves have screwed up in worse and bigger ways than man could ever dream of. And yet, they still give man a hard time, and act all superior. Jackass hypocrites the lot of them.

[Drakeburn]

I'm not exactly sure what the deal is with all the unnecessary stuff (elves shooting at the dwarves in the barrels, Legolas, etc), but my guess is it helps lead it all up to the big battle (The Battle of the Five Armies).

Although that doesn't really explain Legolas

[Eldan]

Often the joke is made about Elves hugging trees, to which I often counter with the fact, if we indeed assume that all Elves practise using longbows, the natural extrapolation of that is that when an Elf hugs a tree, it's probably only so she can hit you over the head with it...)

This is why I prefer the Bosmer, who are not allowed to use any plant products or the god of trees will take away their humanoid shape again.

Yes, they are almost pure meat eaters and have to make all their clothing and weaponry from either metal or horn and leather.

[KnightDisciple]

I'm not exactly sure what the deal is with all the unnecessary stuff (elves shooting at the dwarves in the barrels, Legolas, etc), but my guess is it helps lead it all up to the big battle (The Battle of the Five Armies).

Although that doesn't really explain Legolas

The explanation is simple and two-fold.

1.)Jackson wants MOAR ACTION SEQUENCES! MOAR! MOAR!

2.)Jackson wants 3 movies for MOAR MONEY! MOAR MOAR!

[Reverent-One]

Although that doesn't really explain Legolas

He's one of Thranduil's (the Elf king) sons.

[Cikomyr]

Someone knows when, in the story, the movie will cut-off?

[Spacewolf]

From the trailers I'd guess after Smaug destroys the hidden door.

[SmartAlec]

Then during one of the crowning moments of the strength of man, the siege of Helm's Deep. Man is supposed to ward off the enemy, but nope elves show up to save them, because it would be impossible for man to do it themselves. Why? The elves don't appear in the books. The excuse is that elves had an allegiance with man, well so did dwarves where were they? It became blatantly obvious that Jackson loved the elves more than the other races by the end of the trilogy which while not a game breaker is a bit annoying for us who don't.

The truth is a lot more pragmatic.

Originally, Arwen was intended to bring Anduril down South to Aragorn, and fight alongside him at Helm's Deep. The Battle of Helm's Deep was one of the first scenes filmed, and there were several sequences of Arwen fighting there. The Elves that fought at Helm's Deep were her escort, and Elrond's personal expression of his support.

But in later script revisions, it was decided to shift giving Aragorn his sword to the third movie, when it became most relevant. However, this left Helm's Deep with a load of Elves in it still - the Elves who formed Arwen's escort. The film you see on screen is the result of Jackson reworking things to save as much of his original footage as possible.

This is why:

- The Elf contingent is led by Haldir of Lorien, when he claims to be leading the troops from Rivendell
- The Elves all wear metal armour, quite unlike Lorien Elves
- There are very few scenes with Haldir in, as all of his are reshoots, and they don't look quite 'right'
- Haldir dies, and is never mentioned again
- In fact, no Elves seem to survive Helm's Deep; they just vanish, even though many seem to manage to make it to the keep during the retreat from the Deeping Wall
- Elrond just kind of shows up at Dunharrow in Return of the King, without warning
- Aragorn has that odd flashback to seeing Arwen in Rivendell during Two Towers, because otherwise we wouldn't see her at all
- The Arwen scenes in Rivendell are a bit anemic

[Lost Demiurge]

Ohhoooo... Smaug! They actually showed Smaug's head! YES!

Okay, I know people out there are gonna gripe, but there's no way they'd make it look "Right" to everyone. You say dragon to anyone in the world, you get back a whole lot of different answers that are all, unmistakeably, dragons.

As for me, I'm happy. THIS can be Smaug, I don't mind a bit. Can't wait for him to deliver the classic lines...

[JoshL]

My guess is they will finish off Smaug in this movie, and the third will be the Battle of the Five Armies and the conclusion of the Necromancer story. I don't think they would finish the Necromancer, and one of the big bads needs to fall. Unless they kill Azog (to let Bolg lead the army in the third movie, as he should), but switching Orcs mid-stream might not work so well.

That's my guess anyway. Can't wait to find out!

[Corvus]

DWAARVES! To Hell with elves! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrLMob39qI)

I actually didn't mind the elves until I read the Silmarillion. They seem all aloof and superior because, I thought, they were. They were the perfect race so I can imagine it must be trying to deal with those who are not.

Then I read the Sil and realized the elves have screwed up in worse and bigger ways than man could ever dream of. And yet, they still give man a hard time, and act all superior. Jackass hypocrites the lot of them.

I've always been on the side of the dwarves, which is why I've always enjoyed that clip - shame they stopped making more.

The problem with elves is that too many people have ripped off Tolkien's elves without having read the Silmarillion, so they only get the sanitised LOTR/Hobbit version of them. They don't realised just how messed up the elves were and what a disaster they made of things and so we get the cheap holier-than-though, better at everything that everyone, immortal firstborn clones running around everywhere.

And sadly Peter Jackson seems to have fallen into that trap too.

[Mordar]

You see I wouldn't have minded Legolas getting to do awesome stuff if it meant everyone got to do awesome stuff. But it never really went that way. When there was a big target, Legolas took it down. Gimli, the warrior-poet who was the only member of the Fellowship Aragorn trusted to make it all the way to Mordor with Frodo is gone, and replaced with a walking short joke. [SNIP]

It became blatantly obvious that Jackson loved the elves more than the other races by the end of the trilogy which while not a game breaker is a bit annoying for us who don't.
.

See, I'm going to disagree just a little bit. It's not necessarily that Jackson loves the elves so much as hates the dwarves. Not only do we have the "walking short joke" presentation (in Two Towers, particularly), Gimli is the only major character to not get a "feature fight". Consider:

Fellowship

Aragorn - Several, but the opening sequence in Parth Galen and at the Gates of Mordor come most immediately to mind;
Boromir - Defending Merry and Pippin at Parth Galen;
Frodo - Well, hrm. I guess the struggle with the Ring, and Gollum (though he loses that fight every time?) :smallconfused:
Gandalf - Losing to Sauruman and defeating the Balrog;
Legolas - The Oliphant at Minas Tirith (the cave troll in Moria was a team fight, particularly in the extended cut, even though Legolas gets the killshot);
Merry - While the Witch King isn't a solo, he is featured here;
Pippin - Okay, nothing here...but he's a Hobbit.
Sam - Shelob


Other Characters

Arwen - Not a fight, but the flight from the Wraiths;
Faramir - Heroic "death" scene;


What does Gimli get? Upstaged in Balin's Tomb by Legolas, shown as a laggard anchor during the chase for Merry and Pippin, incapacitated by a warg on the way to Helm's Deep, rescued from the water (after his one moment of being heroic) by Aragorn and Legolas, tossed to the bridge so Aragorn could show his strength...and so on. Heck, a dead character in Return of the King (Boromir) gets more kudos than Gimli!

Big bunch of dwarf shafting, I tell you.

Now, we get to watch a whole movie of the elves handing it to the dwarves. Orlando Bloom has ruined everything.

- M

[Reverent-One]

Now, we get to watch a whole movie of the elves handing it to the dwarves. Orlando Bloom has ruined everything.

- M

You mean where the Elves are going to be both be in the wrong and fail to stop the dwarves anyway? Doesn't quite count as "handing it to the dwarves" for me.

[Mordar]

You mean where the Elves are going to be both be in the wrong and fail to stop the dwarves anyway? Doesn't quite count as "handing it to the dwarves" for me.

Well, the elves will look better being wrong (when they are), shown as "having a good point", get better action sequences, and generally get all of the crowning moments of awesome...until our little hobbit thief manages to slip the "dwarves in refrigerators" out through the back door.

Now, I hope I'm wrong...but it looks to me (and frankly, based on the book as well) that the dwarves will spend much of their time here needing to be rescued from spiders and/or elves.

Clearly, plot armor and Bilbo will carry the day for the dwarves, but they'll look bad for it...so combined with Legloas getting to come in and shine, I'm going to ask that you consider that the party will make both succeed in making it to the Mountain and get their lunch handed to them by the elves. The fact that the elves are supposed to be at least somewhat the "bad guy" just makes it worse.

Now, I will say that The Hobbit really does present the dwarves in a bad light much of the time...a once great race brought low by greed and stuffy tradition, constantly needing the help of Bilbo, whom they originally thought to dismiss as useless...so the whole "dwarfsal in distress" motif isn't a Jackson issue.

- M

[Reverent-One]

Well, the elves will look better being wrong (when they are), shown as "having a good point", get better action sequences, and generally get all of the crowning moments of awesome...until our little hobbit thief manages to slip the "dwarves in refrigerators" out through the back door.

The part about the elves "having a point" is likely, as elves aren't mustache twirling villains, and the point they're likely to have is something of a continuing theme, but given that Jackson gave the dwarves action scenes they didn't have in the book and made them more competent (hey, they actually start out with weapons on the quest to kill a dragon), I'm wouldn't bet on the bolded part.

[t209]

Often the joke is made about Elves hugging trees, to which I often counter with the fact, if we indeed assume that all Elves practise using longbows, the natural extrapolation of that is that when an Elf hugs a tree, it's probably only so she can hit you over the head with it...)
Actually,



Hey, did we know that the Master of Laketown is Steven Fry? That should be priceless...

LOTR states that Elf do cut down trees, but sustainable way that we (mostly) use today. It also states that Elf do not need nourishment as much as humans (maybe that could be the reason for dwarves trading only in metal and not farming).
Oh, Stephen Fry and possible hatedom from the master's jerkass behavior.

[Dienekes]

The part about the elves "having a point" is likely, as elves aren't mustache twirling villains, and the point they're likely to have is something of a continuing theme, but given that Jackson gave the dwarves action scenes they didn't have in the book and made them more competent (hey, they actually start out with weapons on the quest to kill a dragon), I'm wouldn't bet on the bolded part.

Actually, weren't the Wood Elves essentially mustache-twirling villains in the Hobbit? I mean, they keep giant spiders as pets that try to eat all passersby. When the dwarves defended themselves against the spiders the elves capture them and blame them for murdering their pets even though it was self defense. And then at the end once the dwarves have won they show up to try and take the gold for themselves because "screw you we're elves and we want it."

[Reverent-One]

Actually, weren't the Wood Elves essentially mustache-twirling villains in the Hobbit? I mean, they keep giant spiders as pets that try to eat all passersby. When the dwarves defended themselves against the spiders the elves capture them and blame them for murdering their pets even though it was self defense. And then at the end once the dwarves have won they show up to try and take the gold for themselves because "screw you we're elves and we want it."

No, the spiders weren't the elves' pets, in fact that's part the reasons why the Elf-king imprisoned them, because the dwarves riled up the spiders. Though mainly it's for trespassing and being unwilling to state their business.

[MLai]

I've always been partial to the Uruk-Hai myself. It's why TTT is my most watched movie of the trilogy. Followed by FOTR.
The cartoony CGI orcs of the new trilogy... makes me sad. :smallfrown:

[Tengu_temp]

Oh hey, more Radagast. That's what everyone wanted!

Other than that, looks alright.

[Hopeless]

Oh hey, more Radagast. That's what everyone wanted!

Other than that, looks alright.

Lets see he warns Gandalf that Dol-Goldur may be a trap and shows signs he's actually sane enough to be afraid of the place... never did understand why people disliked Radagast because of how he appeared I'm not a Tolkien expert but I did understand animals and so on is his specialty whilst Gandalf's speciality is fireworks and interfering not so sure of the order mind you!:smallbiggrin:

Something attacks Gandalf from above and it doesn't look like a ghost... should I spoiler that?

Legolas's eyes look wrong... is that how they define that he's physically younger in this trilogy of movies?

Tauriel... okay have no problem with another character even a new one if it helps the story... I wonder who Gandalf recruits to storm Dol-Goldur?

Yes I probably got the name of the place wrong, but I believe the gauge of how whether a dragon is done right is if someone feels the urge to wet themselves in terror.... I hear someone associated with the Happy Hobbit or whatever those young ladies call their youtube video claim someone will definitely fill that role!

Anyone catch the reaction of the actors to the Happy Hobbit video of their reaction to this trailer?

Or was that Laughing Hobbit?

Apologies if I got their Youtube name wrong.

[lt_murgen]

No, the spiders weren't the elves' pets, in fact that's part the reasons why the Elf-king imprisoned them, because the dwarves riled up the spiders. Though mainly it's for trespassing and being unwilling to state their business.

The elves didn't want to mess with the spiders. And if Bilbo hadn't kept crashing their garden party, they probably would have let the spiders eat the dwarves.

[Mordar]

The part about the elves "having a point" is likely, as elves aren't mustache twirling villains, and the point they're likely to have is something of a continuing theme, but given that Jackson gave the dwarves action scenes they didn't have in the book and made them more competent (hey, they actually start out with weapons on the quest to kill a dragon), I'm wouldn't bet on the bolded part.

You're absolutely correct on the troll scene...I thought the film did a very nice job of increasing competency of the dwarves while still keeping the spirit/value of the scene. I'm most interested to see how the Lonely Mountain interaction post-Smaug is handled to see how he handles the race interactions for much the same reason.

Still, based on the trailer, I'm holding to my point about the action scene advantage and the "wow" factor being pretty tightly connected to elves in general or Legolas in particular.

- M

- M

[snoopy13a]

Actually, weren't the Wood Elves essentially mustache-twirling villains in the Hobbit? I mean, they keep giant spiders as pets that try to eat all passersby. When the dwarves defended themselves against the spiders the elves capture them and blame them for murdering their pets even though it was self defense. And then at the end once the dwarves have won they show up to try and take the gold for themselves because "screw you we're elves and we want it."

No, the spiders aren't their pets. The spiders are there because Sauron (aka the necromancer) has moved into the neighborhood and his evil allows them to flourish. The elves do not like the spiders.

The elves imprison the dwarves for trespassing and won't consider freeing the dwarves until the dwarves will explain why they are there. The dwarves refuse to talk and neither side budges until Bilbo frees the dwarves.

The elves arrive at the end primarily to aid the men of lake-town. After Smaug destroys the town, the elves arrive--they are friends and trading partners with the men--to bring supplies. The elves and men travel to get the treasure--initially believing Thorin & Co. are dead.

[hamishspence]

No, the spiders aren't their pets. The spiders are there because Sauron (aka the necromancer) has moved into the neighborhood and his evil allows them to flourish. The elves do not like the spiders.

And, it's precisely the dwarves suggesting that they're the elves' pets, that gets the elves really angry- and probably why the elves were so quick to throw them in prison.

[Traab]

In all honesty, the dwarves were idiotic tools throughout the book anyways. They had no plan, they couldnt handle pretty much any threat before the big final battle, they riled up the goblins in the mountains, the spiders in mirkwood, the dragon at lonely mountain, the dwarves effing sucked.

As for the elves, the dwarves were trespassing in an unfriendly kingdom. Had they stayed on the damn road they wouldnt have been arrested. They riled up a large nest of monsters that the elves had been struggling against already, then refused to explain why they were doing all this. The dwarves deserved to get locked up. They werent mistreated in any way. They got plenty of food and shelter, they just couldnt leave the cell until they talked. No torture, no starvation, nothing but a holding cell.

[Mordar]

In all honesty, the dwarves were idiotic tools throughout the book anyways. They had no plan, they couldnt handle pretty much any threat before the big final battle, they riled up the goblins in the mountains, the spiders in mirkwood, the dragon at lonely mountain, the dwarves effing sucked.

All true and accurate in the Hobbit. They are a cautionary tale about greed, entitlement and not following directions when you consider that a stay-at-home dilettante/man of leisure is necessary to get them out of pretty much every bit of trouble they create.

That doesn't mean I can't take my feeling about the mistreatment of Gimli in the LotR films and transfer it to this film series :smallwink:

- M

[Traab]

All true and accurate in the Hobbit. They are a cautionary tale about greed, entitlement and not following directions when you consider that a stay-at-home dilettante/man of leisure is necessary to get them out of pretty much every bit of trouble they create.

That doesn't mean I can't take my feeling about the mistreatment of Gimli in the LotR films and transfer it to this film series :smallwink:

- M

Oh yeah, gimli got robbed. I enjoyed some comedic moments, but it would have been nice if he hadnt been the butt of all the jokes. Take his talk about dwarven women, I liked that because you could see he was having fun amusing eowyn with not so tall tales, but the short jokes at his expense and things like getting pinned by the warg, those were just belittling his character.

[Tengu_temp]

Lets see he warns Gandalf that Dol-Goldur may be a trap and shows signs he's actually sane enough to be afraid of the place... never did understand why people disliked Radagast because of how he appeared I'm not a Tolkien expert but I did understand animals and so on is his specialty whilst Gandalf's speciality is fireworks and interfering not so sure of the order mind you!:smallbiggrin:


Book Radagast is a wise, dignified nature wizard. Movie Radagast is a forest hobo whose every other line is a setup for a lame joke. The only other character butchered so badly by the movie adaptation is Denethor, who was reduced from a tragic figure struggling with madness to a disgusting old man with a laughable death scene.

[Dienekes]

Book Radagast is a wise, dignified nature wizard. Movie Radagast is a forest hobo whose every other line is a setup for a lame joke. The only other character butchered so badly by the movie adaptation is Denethor, who was reduced from a tragic figure struggling with madness to a disgusting old man with a laughable death scene.

Radagast? The guy with one appearance, used as an unwitting pawn by Saruman and then doesn't do a thing against the coming of Sauron? When was he wise and dignified? I mean, admittedly his none appearance is better than the cartoon who wears bird **** as hair dye.

[Aotrs Commander]

The only other character butchered so badly by the movie adaptation is Denethor, who was reduced from a tragic figure struggling with madness to a disgusting old man with a laughable death scene.

I would debate that Denethor was ever a tragic figure and not just an arrogant asshat who got exactly what he deserved, personally. I certainly never felt anything but mild contempt for him, anyway.

[SmartAlec]

I would debate that Denethor was ever a tragic figure and not just an arrogant asshat who got exactly what he deserved, personally. I certainly never felt anything but contempt for him, anyway.

Yeah, I'll go with that. Denethor is all about pride, and he's there to reflect three characters in the book. The first is Gandalf, and we get to see the contrast between Gandalf, the divine messenger who has faith in the Free Peoples and humbly works on their behalf, and Denethor, who is just a man but has false pride in his kingdom and his throne and scorn for all else. The second is Theoden, as where Theoden rejects despair and is prepared to go with his men to lead them into danger, Denethor sits on a throne and sends others into danger, fooling himself that spending his sons is an act of nobility - and when evil finally comes to his door, he buckles. And lastly, and most sinisterly, Sauron. Denethor sees himself as Sauron's chief opponent, and the land between Minas Tirith and Barad-Dur is their chessboard. We don't get to see much of Sauron, but through Denethor, we get a glimpse of how Sauron thinks.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah, I'll go with that. Denethor is all about pride, and he's there to reflect three characters in the book. The first is Gandalf, and we get to see the contrast between Gandalf, the divine messenger who has faith in the Free Peoples and humbly works on their behalf, and Denethor, who is just a man but has false pride in his kingdom and his throne and scorn for all else. The second is Theoden, as where Theoden rejects despair and is prepared to go with his men to lead them into danger, Denethor sits on a throne and sends others into danger, fooling himself that spending his sons is an act of nobility - and when evil finally comes to his door, he buckles. And lastly, and most sinisterly, Sauron. Denethor sees himself as Sauron's chief opponent, and the land between Minas Tirith and Barad-Dur is their chessboard. We don't get to see much of Sauron, but through Denethor, we get a glimpse of how Sauron thinks.

Exactly. Denethor's madness was not caused by age, where you might have felt some pity for him, but was self-inflicted because he thought so highly of himself, he thought he and he alone, Denethor son of Ecthelion, was capable of putting Sauron in his place (not having apparently learned from what happened to Ar-Pharazôn) and unsurprisingly came A Bit Of A Cropper.

[Traab]

Exactly. Denethor's madness was not caused by age, where you might have felt some pity for him, but was self-inflicted because he thought so highly of himself, he thought he and he alone, Denethor son of Ecthelion, was capable of putting Sauron in his place (not having apparently learned from what happened to Ar-Pharazôn) and unsurprisingly came A Bit Of A Cropper.

Wasnt he also partially driven insane by trying to use a palantir which sauron used to send him false and deceptive visions?

[Aotrs Commander]

Wasnt he also partially driven insane by trying to use a palantir which sauron used to send him false and deceptive visions?

That's what I meant.

He thought himself so much hot stuff (wiser than Gandalf, naturally, and presumably more so than all other Men and Elves who didn't apparently have the stones to do it like he did), he went and used the palantir to go and "wrestle with the enemy in thought." He actually went directly to Sauron to pick a mental fight with a demigod.

There's arrogant pride and there's pants-on-head, un-fragging-believably, willfully-close-minded stupid.



Aragorn at least went to do it knowing he was basically going "excuse me. Could I possibly distract you for just a brief second?" And even then only once, he didn't keep going back to prod the hornet's nest.

[Hopeless]

That's what I meant.
Aragorn at least went to do it knowing he was basically going "excuse me. Could I possibly distract you for just a brief second?" And even then only once, he didn't keep going back to prod the hornet's nest.

I believe Aragorn prepped for that encounter too showing his ancestor's sword so Sauron knew who he was in contact with and then broke free letting Sauron's paranoia get ahold of him as Sauron did to Denethor admittedly I assumed most of that was because Pippin looked into the Palantir and he was plainly got very lucky!

[Bulldog Psion]

I would debate that Denethor was ever a tragic figure and not just an arrogant asshat who got exactly what he deserved, personally. I certainly never felt anything but mild contempt for him, anyway.

Yes, he was arrogant, but he also wasn't that clownish slob in the film, either. He was a dignified, harsh, and commanding figure, and quite intelligent, so I would say that qualifies as at least a bit tragic. Isn't classic tragedy about someone with heroic traits who ends up being destroyed by their failings? I'd say that matches Denethor (of the books) to a T.

[Dienekes]

Now, I could be wrong here. As my comment upthread proves that my memory is not something to be relied upon. But didn't Denethor use the palantir without knowing that Sauron had the other one? He wasn't thinking he could match wits with the lord of darkness he was taking a measured risk to try and save his city. The fact that he did not directly become Sauron's servant like Saruman and instead slowly fell to madness instead was a testament to the man's will.

He also took great pains to try and defend Gondor, unlike movie!Denethor who "saw what was going to happen and did nothing." He ordered the beacons lit and asked the Rohirrim for aid. It was only when they did not respond that he feared the worst and the madness really started to show through.

[WalkingTarget]

Aragorn at least went to do it knowing he was basically going "excuse me. Could I possibly distract you for just a brief second?" And even then only once, he didn't keep going back to prod the hornet's nest.

He then went on to wrest "control" of the Orthanc Palantir from Sauron's influence so he could use it to see what he chose, rather than what Sauron would have wanted him to see.

Tolkien's on record in a letter chalking that up, at least in part, to the fact that Aragorn (as the heir of Elendil) was the rightful owner of the things.

[Reverent-One]

My take on the differences between book and movie Denethor is that they mostly, if not entirely, spring from movie Denethor already having mostly fallen into despair (though not quite to the outright "Prepare the prye!" suicidal extent) by the time he's onscreeen while book Denethor hasn't until Faramir nearly dies. A change made so that the main characters (especially Pippin) can be more useful.

[Aotrs Commander]

He was a dignified, harsh, and commanding figure

So were many of history's blundering generals and that in no way excuses their incompetant failures when paid for in the blood of the lives of soldiers. Their fates were tragic. The generals? No such much.


Now, I could be wrong here. As my comment upthread proves that my memory is not something to be relied upon. But didn't Denethor use the palantir without knowing that Sauron had the other one?

The first time?

Maybe.

After that?

No excuses.

Corruption doesn't work that quick, unless you really want to paint Denethor was more easily controlled than Pippin. I mean, I know Men are corruptable, but...

[Bulldog Psion]

Now, I could be wrong here. As my comment upthread proves that my memory is not something to be relied upon. But didn't Denethor use the palantir without knowing that Sauron had the other one? He wasn't thinking he could match wits with the lord of darkness he was taking a measured risk to try and save his city. The fact that he did not directly become Sauron's servant like Saruman and instead slowly fell to madness instead was a testament to the man's will.

He also took great pains to try and defend Gondor, unlike movie!Denethor who "saw what was going to happen and did nothing." He ordered the beacons lit and asked the Rohirrim for aid. It was only when they did not respond that he feared the worst and the madness really started to show through.

I don't even think he slowly went mad, it was more a matter of "the last straw" that did it suddenly. I think he was just stressed to the breaking point by his burden, and having his second son apparently fatally wounded, after the first one died, and in both cases because of a direct order from him, finally snapped him.


Though the Stewards deemed that it was a secret kept only by themselves, long ago I guessed that here in the White Tower, one at least of the Seven Seeing Stones was preserved. In the days of his wisdom Denethor did not presume to use it, nor to challenge Sauron, knowing the limits of his own strength. But his wisdom failed; and I fear that as the peril of his realm grew he looked in the Stone and was deceived: far too often, I guess, since Boromir departed. He was too great to be subdued to the will of the Dark Power, he saw nonetheless only those things which that Power permitted him to see. The knowledge which he obtained was, doubtless, often of service to him; yet the vision of the great might of Mordor that was shown to him fed the despair of his heart until it overthrew his mind.

So, basically, he turned to the Palantir in desperation, trying to save Gondor. He kept trying even though he thought there was no hope. So again, I'd classify him as a rather heroic figure destroyed by a combination of his own undoubted flaws and the impossible hand that he was dealt by fate. "Tragedy" doesn't mean that the person involved needs to be sweet or likable. Denethor was neither, yet he essentially broke himself trying to save his country.

That's what I like about the Lord of the Rings. There's a lot of depth of character shown, actually, but it doesn't hit you over the head with it, either. You can view almost purely as an adventure, or you can shift your perspective a little and see it as a character study in a powerfully elegiac world.

The transformation of Frodo from a country gentleman into a spiritually broken messiah figure, Sam's change from a country bumpkin into a tough and resourceful leader, Merry and Pippin's evolution from carefree teens into knights of Gondor, Denethor as a proud, lonely, and somewhat heroic figure cornered by circumstance and his own faults and driven to suicide, Saruman's devolution from one of the White Council into a petty, spiteful, venomous nobody, even Wormtongue's fatal moment of self-actualization when he actually acts as an independent person for a split second and dies (slight echoes of "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" in that scene, in a way), and so on.

[Traab]

So were many of history's blundering generals and that in no way excuses their incompetant failures when paid for in the blood of the lives of soldiers. Their fates were tragic. The generals? No such much.



The first time?

Maybe.

After that?

No excuses.

Corruption doesn't work that quick, unless you really want to paint Denethor was more easily controlled than Pippin. I mean, I know Men are corruptable, but...

I dunno, pippin was REALLY FRIGGING EASILY TEMPTED. No, seriously, he picked up the palantir that was tossed at them from orthanc, he didnt even use the damn thing, and he still couldnt resist looking into it later. I dont know if that was normal curiosity, or if it was a pull similar to having touched the one ring, but either way, gandalf made sure to put as much distance between pippin and the palantir after he was dumb enough to look into it as he possibly could.

As for denethor being stupid, it may have been more a matter of sauron being smart. He let denethor think he won the struggle, then tainted everything he saw, more and more, until the despair was complete. And finally, aragorn. Him it was probably a sizeable combination of factors. First, he shocked the *%$ out of sauron by revealing himself and then flashing the sword that wounded him so badly back when he was flesh and blood, (or whatever he was)

Then there is the factor that all throughout the series tolkien has mentioned the power in certain lines of men. Denethor was a steward of a long line of stewards, aragorn is a gorram KING from a long line of kings, with the mental fortitude to match. So by thoroughly shocking the ever looking spit out of sauron, then scaring him by showing him the last weapon to kick his arse in a fight, he was able to take advantage and wrest control of the stone from him briefly, and see what he needed to see. Though, iirc, I think a part of the plan was specifically to do the reveal to force sauron to move before he was fully ready, to put a dent in his certainty of victory. But its been awhile since I read the book, so I cant be sure.

[snoopy13a]

I would debate that Denethor was ever a tragic figure and not just an arrogant asshat who got exactly what he deserved, personally. I certainly never felt anything but mild contempt for him, anyway.

Of course he's a tragic figure. He was a great man and noble leader whose flaw was pride. His flaw caused his downfall. This is the definition of a tragic figure.

Saruman and Sauron are also tragic figures. On the other hand, Wormtongue is more of a pathetic figure, because he was never great.

Whether or not one gets their just desserts is besides the point. Macbeth certainly deserved what he got, but he is also a tragic hero.

[Renegade Paladin]

Probably during the Battle of the Five armies, I'm guessing.

And I'm actually bit glad that Beorn might be in the movie. He was one of my favorite characters from The Hobbit.
"Might?" He's in the trailer. :smalltongue:
ARRRGG, i got enough of Legolas in the second LoTR movie, what the &%#" is he doing in this one :smallmad:
He's the son of Thranduil, king of the wood elves. Really, his presence is a no-brainer; why wouldn't he be at his own house? :smallconfused:

[snoopy13a]

Really, his presence is a no-brainer; why wouldn't he be at his own house? :smallconfused:

Maybe he's out in the woods with his friends? Arwen isn't at her own house during The Hobbit: she's at her grandparents.

[Bulldog Psion]

As for denethor being stupid, it may have been more a matter of sauron being smart. He let denethor think he won the struggle, then tainted everything he saw, more and more, until the despair was complete. And finally, aragorn. Him it was probably a sizeable combination of factors. First, he shocked the *%$ out of sauron by revealing himself and then flashing the sword that wounded him so badly back when he was flesh and blood, (or whatever he was)

Yes, Aragorn wasn't exactly an ordinary mortal. He was not just a king, but a king of Numenor. Just the fact that he was 87 at the time of the books and died at age 210 shows that he can't be exactly measured with the same yardstick as even someone as strong-willed as Denethor, who was, as someone else noted, great and noble, but still only human.

[Renegade Paladin]

Maybe he's out in the woods with his friends? Arwen isn't at her own house during The Hobbit: she's at her grandparents.
He probably was until those pesky dwarves stirred up all the spiders and made them go back inside. :smalltongue:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Of course he's a tragic figure. He was a great man and noble leader whose flaw was pride. His flaw caused his downfall. This is the definition of a tragic figure.

Saruman and Sauron are also tragic figures. On the other hand, Wormtongue is more of a pathetic figure, because he was never great.

Whether or not one gets their just desserts is besides the point. Macbeth certainly deserved what he got, but he is also a tragic hero.
Yeah, um, this. As I was reading through the above posts, my one thought was: "have none of you studied tragedies?"

In fact, the Greek tragedies were all about human hubris making noble leaders into jerks who came unto great suffering.

[hamishspence]

I don't even think he slowly went mad, it was more a matter of "the last straw" that did it suddenly. I think he was just stressed to the breaking point by his burden, and having his second son apparently fatally wounded, after the first one died, and in both cases because of a direct order from him, finally snapped him.


Though the Stewards deemed that it was a secret kept only by themselves, long ago I guessed that here in the White Tower, one at least of the Seven Seeing Stones was preserved. In the days of his wisdom Denethor did not presume to use it, nor to challenge Sauron, knowing the limits of his own strength. But his wisdom failed; and I fear that as the peril of his realm grew he looked in the Stone and was deceived: far too often, I guess, since Boromir departed. He was too great to be subdued to the will of the Dark Power, he saw nonetheless only those things which that Power permitted him to see. The knowledge which he obtained was, doubtless, often of service to him; yet the vision of the great might of Mordor that was shown to him fed the despair of his heart until it overthrew his mind.


So, basically, he turned to the Palantir in desperation, trying to save Gondor. He kept trying even though he thought there was no hope. So again, I'd classify him as a rather heroic figure destroyed by a combination of his own undoubted flaws and the impossible hand that he was dealt by fate. "Tragedy" doesn't mean that the person involved needs to be sweet or likable. Denethor was neither, yet he essentially broke himself trying to save his country.

There's a big essay in Unfinished Tales- The Palantiri- on this subject. Makes it clear that it's Gandalf speculating- and his speculations are probably not right in this case:


Gandalf should have been reported as saying that he did not think that Denethor had presumed to use it, until his wisdom failed. He could not state it as a known fact, for when and why Denethor had dared to use the stone was and remains a matter of conjecture. Gandalf may well think as he did on the matter, but it is probable, considering Denethor and what is said about him, that he began to use the Anor-stone many years before 3019, and earlier than Saruman ventured or thought it advisable to use the Stone of Orthanc. Denethor succeeded to the Stewardship in 2984, being then fifty-four years old: a masterful man, both wise and learned beyond the measure of those days, and strong-willed, confident in his own powers, and dauntless. His "grimness" was first observable to others after his wife Finduilas died in 2988, but it seems fairly plain that he had at once turned to the Stone as soon as he came to power, having long studied the matter of the palantiri and the traditions regarding them and their use preserved in the special archives of the Stewards, available beside the Ruling Steward only to his heir. During the end of the rule of his father, Ecthelion II, he must have greatly desired to consult the Stone, as anxiety in Gondor increased, while his own position was weakened by the fame of "Thorongil" and the favour shown to him by his father. At least one of his motives must have been jealousy of Thorongil, and hostility to Gandalf, to whom, during the ascendancy of Thorongil, his father paid much attention. Denethor desired to surpass these "usurpers" in knowledge and information, and also if possible to keep an eye on them when they were elsewhere.

The breaking strain of Denethor's confrontation with Sauron must be distinguished from the general strain of using the Stone. The latter Denethor thought he could endure (and not without reason); confrontation with Sauron almost certainly did not occur or many years, and was probably never contemplated by Denethor. For the uses of the palantiri, and the distinction between their solitary use for "seeing" and their use for communication with another respondent Stone and its "surveyor" see pp. 530-531. Denethor could, after he had acquired the skill, learn much of distant events by the use of the Anor-stone alone, and even after Sauron became aware of his operation he could still do so, as long as he retained the strength to control his Stone to his own purposes, in spite of Sauron's attempt to "wrench" the Anor-stone always toward himself. It must also be considered that the Stones were only a small item in Sauron's vast designs and operations: a means of dominating and deluding two of his opponents, but he would not (and could not) have the Ithil-stone under perpetual observation. It was not his way to commit such instruments to the use of subordinates; nor had he any servant whose mental powers were superior to Saruman's or even Denethor's.

In the case of Denethor, the Steward was strengthened, even against Sauron himself, by the fact that the Stones were more amenable to legitimate users: most of all to true "Heirs of Elendil" (as Aragorn), but also to one with inherited authority (as Denethor), as compared to Saruman, or Sauron. It may be noted that the effects were different. Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron and desired his victory, or no longer opposed it. Denethor remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to believe that his victory was inevitable, and so fell into despair. The reasons for this difference were no doubt that in the first place Denethor was a man of great strength of will, and maintained the integrity of his personality until the final blow of the (apparently) mortal wound of his only surviving son. He was proud, but this was by no means entirely personal: he loved Gondor and its people, and deemed himself appointed by destiny to lead them in this desperate time. And in the second place, the Anor-stone was his by right, and nothing but expediency was against his use of it in his grave anxieties. He must have guessed that the Ithil-stone was in evil hands, and risked contact with it, trusting his strength. His trust was not entirely unjustified. Sauron failed to dominate him and could only influence him by deceits. Probably he did not at first look toward Mordor, but was content with such "far views" as the Stone could afford; hence his surprising knowledge of events far off. Whether he ever thus made contact with the Orthanc-stone and Saruman is not told; probably he did, and did so with profit to himself. Sauron could not break in on these conferences: only the surveyor using the Master Stone of Osgiliath could "eavesdrop". While two of the Stones were in response, the third would find them both blank.

Thorongil is the name Aragorn went by, when he went to serve Gondor as a soldier, in his early years- it's in the LoTR Appendix.

[MLai]

Sauron did not have to corrupt Denethor's mind, or fill his scrying visions with "deceit." All Sauron had to do was parade his endless legions of orcish columns in front of Denethor's scrying eye. Tell the truth, essentially.

[Traab]

Sauron did not have to corrupt Denethor's mind, or fill his scrying visions with "deceit." All Sauron had to do was parade his endless legions of orcish columns in front of Denethor's scrying eye. Tell the truth, essentially.

I liked a description used about a story I reads version of the devil. "His words are always correct, yet none of his words are truth." Basically, he is a master of saying things that are true, but in a way that makes you come to the wrong conclusion. As an example, he might say something like this to a girlfriend, "Your boyfriend will never love you like you love him." Now, this could easily be interpreted as saying he will never love you, but in reality, no two people will have identical feelings, it doesnt mean he wont love you, or even will love you less. Its just that men and women feel things differently and it will never be an identical feeling.

So sauron basically parades all his vast might in front of denethor, while not letting him see things like the muster of rohan, or any other collections of free men everywhere that would fight if he called. He is shown something that is correct, but is drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

[hamishspence]

The point I was trying to make was- he'd been using the palantir for years before the clash between him and Sauron occurred.

Indeed, one of the notes to that chapter suggests that while his "grimness" (caused by the strain of using the Stone, being a man of later days, not trained to the task) only became apparent after his wife died, it was present before- and contributed to her unhappiness and early death.

[SnowballMan]

You're absolutely correct on the troll scene...I thought the film did a very nice job of increasing competency of the dwarves while still keeping the spirit/value of the scene.

<trolls holds up the hobbit> "Surrender so we can kill all fourteen of you, otherwise we will kill just this one!"

<Thorin> "Okay."

While the scene showed they were competent fighters, it pretty much convinced me that Thorin was an idiot. Seriously, what was his thought here? "Let's give up our tactical advantage so the hired help who can't seem to hold his own in a fight doesn't die right now. I'm sure there will be some sort of deus ex machina that will save us all later."

[Reverent-One]

<trolls holds up the hobbit> "Surrender so we can kill all fourteen of you, otherwise we will kill just this one!"

<Thorin> "Okay."

While the scene showed they were competent fighters, it pretty much convinced me that Thorin was an idiot. Seriously, what was his thought here? "Let's give up our tactical advantage so the hired help who can't seem to hold his own in a fight doesn't die right now. I'm sure there will be some sort of deus ex machina that will save us all later."

So typical "good guy" thinking.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

So typical "good guy" thinking.
Heh, basically. I mean, really--classic hostage situation in fiction.

[SoC175]

Changing even more from the book, and Smaug looks pretty bad here. Bad as in bad, not bad as in cool.Maybe it's still in post production and need to clear it up before release?Let's hope that's the case. Although if it were, why would they allow such an unfinished version of their most important CGI effect of the whole trilogy show in the trailer?

At the moment I am just disappointed how bad Smaug's head look.

[MLai]

Let's hope that's the case. Although if it were, why would they allow such an unfinished version of their most important CGI effect of the whole trilogy show in the trailer?
At the moment I am just disappointed how bad Smaug's head look.
Do you mean the artistic design, or the CGI quality?
If former, then that's a matter of taste. Ok, his head looks less fairy tale and more dinosaur... either method is valid.
If latter... I don't see the problem at all. That is, it's of comparable quality to the first movie's CGI. Which I don't like in general. I think Weta Workshop should be employed whenever possible. CGI is not the way to make movies when you have the time, budget, and artistic vision.

[SoC175]

Do you mean the artistic design, or the CGI quality?
If former, then that's a matter of taste. Ok, his head looks less fairy tale and more dinosaur... either method is valid.
If latter... I don't see the problem at all. That is, it's of comparable quality to the first movie's CGI. Which I don't like in general. I think Weta Workshop should be employed whenever possible. CGI is not the way to make movies when you have the time, budget, and artistic vision.I mean the CGI quality. It just looks cheap, almost like the cheap puppets that are supposed to scare you in the ghost train of some amusement parks.

It just doesn't look alive, but like a big animatronic. The CGI in the first movie was better than that.

[Mordar]

<trolls holds up the hobbit> "Surrender so we can kill all fourteen of you, otherwise we will kill just this one!"

<Thorin> "Okay."

While the scene showed they were competent fighters, it pretty much convinced me that Thorin was an idiot. Seriously, what was his thought here? "Let's give up our tactical advantage so the hired help who can't seem to hold his own in a fight doesn't die right now. I'm sure there will be some sort of deus ex machina that will save us all later."

Setting aside the idea that acting as the "honorable good guy" can always be stilted to be "holding the idiot ball" in the world of optimized armchair adventure heroing, consider this: At least it is better than rolling into the conflict by ones and twos, getting snatched up without any sort of real fight, and then having to be saved by the help you hired to fill a specific, non-fighting ability related role...

- M

PS: Shouldn't it be demi-deus ex machina in this case? :smallwink:

[Hawriel]

Another Hollywood movie that reveals a key element of the story in the trailer.

Really Jackson your going to show Smuag in the trailer? Rather a disappointment too. Looks like a CGI cartoon dragon from how to train your dragon. He is in no way near as impressive as the Balrog.

If I see this movie it will be on a $5.00 noon showing on a Tuesday. It looks like Jackson expanded on his tonal wishy washy mash up. Is it supposed to be a dumb live action Disney movie, or an adventure movie that is supposed to appeal to some one over the age of five?

[Goosefeather]

Another Hollywood movie that reveals a key element of the story in the trailer.

Really Jackson your going to show Smuag in the trailer? Rather a disappointment too. Looks like a CGI cartoon dragon from how to train your dragon. He is in no way near as impressive as the Balrog.

If I see this movie it will be on a $5.00 noon showing on a Tuesday. It looks like Jackson expanded on his tonal wishy washy mash up. Is it supposed to be a dumb live action Disney movie, or an adventure movie that is supposed to appeal to some one over the age of five?

Um, what? I don't understand this as a complaint. I mean, exactly who is going to see this film unaware of Smaug's existence? Even those who haven't read the book have most likely seen a) Jackson's LotR, which makes explicit reference to the events of The Hobbit, and/or b) the first Hobbit film, which also features him. The film is titled 'the Desolation of Smaug', for Sauron's sake.

[WalkingTarget]

Um, what? I don't understand this as a complaint. I mean, exactly who is going to see this film unaware of Smaug's existence? Even those who haven't read the book have most likely seen a) Jackson's LotR, which makes explicit reference to the events of The Hobbit, and/or b) the first Hobbit film, which also features him. The film is titled 'the Desolation of Smaug', for Sauron's sake.

I would imagine that the complaint is more that they are showing their hand in what the character looks like rather than showing that he exists. I know that I specifically avoided FotR trailers after a certain point because I wanted the appearance of the Balrog to be a surprise to me when I saw it on the big screen for the first time and didn't trust the marketing people to be able to restrain themselves. I kind of liked the fact that we never really got a good look at Smaug in the first film and the fact that they're showing him in this trailer does annoy me somewhat (at least it's "just" his head). Most of the films I see in theaters these days are ones that I explicitly want the "big screen" experience for and things like "the first time I see the dragon antagonist in all his glory" kind of fits into that mold.

[Cikomyr]

I would imagine that the complaint is more that they are showing their hand in what the character looks like rather than showing that he exists. I know that I specifically avoided FotR trailers after a certain point because I wanted the appearance of the Balrog to be a surprise to me when I saw it on the big screen for the first time and didn't trust the marketing people to be able to restrain themselves. I kind of liked the fact that we never really got a good look at Smaug in the first film and the fact that they're showing him in this trailer does annoy me somewhat (at least it's "just" his head). Most of the films I see in theaters these days are ones that I explicitly want the "big screen" experience for and things like "the first time I see the dragon antagonist in all his glory" kind of fits into that mold.

To be fair, I think the "big reveal" will be more about The Necromancer (who is supposed to be voice) than Smaug (who will be voiced by the same actor, KHAAAAAAN).

All the plotlines about The Necromancer is, IMHO, the biggest secret of this movie since it practically covers grounds that were but alluded in the books. Therefore, how about we refrain from nerdraging at the marketing department until they spoil THAT?

[Bulldog Psion]

I liked a description used about a story I reads version of the devil. "His words are always correct, yet none of his words are truth." Basically, he is a master of saying things that are true, but in a way that makes you come to the wrong conclusion. As an example, he might say something like this to a girlfriend, "Your boyfriend will never love you like you love him." Now, this could easily be interpreted as saying he will never love you, but in reality, no two people will have identical feelings, it doesnt mean he wont love you, or even will love you less. Its just that men and women feel things differently and it will never be an identical feeling.

So sauron basically parades all his vast might in front of denethor, while not letting him see things like the muster of rohan, or any other collections of free men everywhere that would fight if he called. He is shown something that is correct, but is drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

Basically, even Gandalf says that they'd be doomed without the ring going into the Fire. So, Sauron could even show him Rohan's mustering, and then the huge legions at his command, thus revealing the true insignificance of the opposition to his rule.

The book made it pretty clear that the West would have lost utterly against Sauron if not for Frodo and Sam.

[Axinian]

I miss Smaug's whiskers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8G_jDcLNo)

I like the animated version way too much.

[Cikomyr]

Basically, even Gandalf says that they'd be doomed without the ring going into the Fire. So, Sauron could even show him Rohan's mustering, and then the huge legions at his command, thus revealing the true insignificance of the opposition to his rule.

The book made it pretty clear that the West would have lost utterly against Sauron if not for Frodo and Sam.

The exception being if they used the Ring against Mordor... But that would only haves speed the seeds for Sauron's inevitable victory and humanity's enslavement. They would have won the war at the cost of the future.

[Traab]

I miss Smaug's whiskers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8G_jDcLNo)

I like the animated version way too much.

Too be honest though, that was probably the single greatest part of the animated movie, That WAS Smaug. I wish they had done a cgi version that at least borrowed heavily from it. I want to look at this new version and SEE its scales like ten fold shields, its fangs are swords, its claws spears, etc etc etc. I imagine they could do some INCREDIBLE effects to match the cartoon with the tail wings and breath. I want the entire cavern to shake when he starts stomping around. Smaug could have taken down the entire battle of five armies all by himself if he hadnt gotten sold out by that damn pigeon. He is the chuck norris of dragons and if this movie doesnt portray him as such I will be beyond pissed.

[MLai]

TBH when I was a kid and saw the animated version, I thought his head looked weird and stupid. It (back then) looked to me like a dragon's body with a fox's head glued on.

I was happy enough to see a dragon, given the dearth of such awesome things on TV in those days. But it was a weird-looking dragon.

[Hopeless]

Too be honest though, that was probably the single greatest part of the animated movie, That WAS Smaug. I wish they had done a cgi version that at least borrowed heavily from it. I want to look at this new version and SEE its scales like ten fold shields, its fangs are swords, its claws spears, etc etc etc. I imagine they could do some INCREDIBLE effects to match the cartoon with the tail wings and breath. I want the entire cavern to shake when he starts stomping around. Smaug could have taken down the entire battle of five armies all by himself if he hadnt gotten sold out by that damn pigeon. He is the chuck norris of dragons and if this movie doesnt portray him as such I will be beyond pissed.

I thoroughly agree I expect to see a Smaug that would scare the he** out of everyone watching!

[Vknight]

Movie ends on Smaug's boast?
Or its the climax.

Either way should be interesting and people give Jackson too much trouble. He enjoys the source material, respected it without just doing a retelling which is no book to movie adaptation should do.
It should not be line for line.

I agree so many problems and things but credit were credit is due

[Traab]

Movie ends on Smaug's boast?
Or its the climax.

Either way should be interesting and people give Jackson too much trouble. He enjoys the source material, respected it without just doing a retelling which is no book to movie adaptation should do.
It should not be line for line.

I agree so many problems and things but credit were credit is due

Im hoping it ends with the death of smaug. If he does it right, there will be an excellent feeling of, "what happens now?" As bard looks on the burning town, then to the lonely mountain. As the elves receive the news and form up to march, and the dwarves are huddling inside the mountain, too terrified to explore just yet. I also cant wait to see the arkenstone.

[Thomas Cardew]

Eh, my hope would be ending it with Smaug going to attack the town. The imagery of Smaug attacking the mountain and blocking them inside would be a great note to end on.

That said, Jackson seems to want to end all of his movies to end on a happy note so it will probably end with Bard standing on the dragon's corpse to the cheering/reverent awe of the lake men.

[Pink]

That said, Jackson seems to want to end all of his movies to end on a happy note so it will probably end with Bard standing on the dragon's corpse to the cheering/reverent awe of the lake men.

I'm not sure about that. Fellowship Ended with two hobbits captured, a character dead and Frodo and Sam looking into a desolate waste that they may never return from. Two Towers ended with gollum clearly planning a horrible trap to attempt to kill Frodo and Sam. Hardly 'happy' notes. I think Smaug emerging and flying off to lay waste would be a possible ending. Certainly, adding Smaug's death to the third movie would give it some padding, as it stands it seems like there's only the Battle of Five armies to be left for the third movie, and that doesn't seem enough to carry a three hour movie.

[Thomas Cardew]

Huh my memory is probably faulty then.

I would have sworn that Fellowship ended with the three hunters setting off and Frodo and Sam starting into waste with Shire music playing. Not particularly sad despite Boromir dying and Merry and Pipin captured when you have Aragorn saying 'let's hunt some orc'.

Also, I thought that Two Towers ended post Battle of Helm's Deep with everyone starring Impossibly Far over to Mordor and Gandalf's line: The battle for Helm's Deep is won, the Battle for Middle Earth is about to begin.

Not sad, but not particularly dark. If it ended with Gollum, I probably blacked that out since it had to do with murder of Faramir's character.

I could see it ending with Smaug's death though, reverent awe of lake men followed by a cut to dark forbidding pic of the Lonely Mountain or the Necromancer.

I'm guessing the third movie will be largely like the ROTK: Lots of fighting. My guess is the attack on Dol Guldur first, cutting to bickering at the Lonely Mountian, finishing fighting at Dol Guldur, Gandalf races to battle of 5 armies, Thorin's Funeral, Bilbo arrives home.

[Pink]

Huh my memory is probably faulty then.

I would have sworn that Fellowship ended with the three hunters setting off and Frodo and Sam starting into waste with Shire music playing. Not particularly sad despite Boromir dying and Merry and Pipin captured when you have Aragorn saying 'let's hunt some orc'.

Also, I thought that Two Towers ended post Battle of Helm's Deep with everyone starring Impossibly Far over to Mordor and Gandalf's line: The battle for Helm's Deep is won, the Battle for Middle Earth is about to begin.

Not sad, but not particularly dark. If it ended with Gollum, I probably blacked that out since it had to do with murder of Faramir's character.

I could see it ending with Smaug's death though, reverent awe of lake men followed by a cut to dark forbidding pic of the Lonely Mountain or the Necromancer.

I'm guessing the third movie will be largely like the ROTK: Lots of fighting. My guess is the attack on Dol Guldur first, cutting to bickering at the Lonely Mountian, finishing fighting at Dol Guldur, Gandalf races to battle of 5 armies, Thorin's Funeral, Bilbo arrives home.

Well, I'm not going to argue that they were the most sad or dark of endings, but they certainly don't qualify as "Happy" in my mind. But mostly, the simple fact is that they aren't 'endings' so much as tying off one part of the story and looking forward into the next part.

[Bulldog Psion]

Not sad, but not particularly dark. If it ended with Gollum, I probably blacked that out since it had to do with murder of Faramir's character.
.

My memories of that portion are also dim. Faramir was just too appalling to pay attention to what was on the screen for a while.

[Hawriel]

I would imagine that the complaint is more that they are showing their hand in what the character looks like rather than showing that he exists. I know that I specifically avoided FotR trailers after a certain point because I wanted the appearance of the Balrog to be a surprise to me when I saw it on the big screen for the first time and didn't trust the marketing people to be able to restrain themselves. I kind of liked the fact that we never really got a good look at Smaug in the first film and the fact that they're showing him in this trailer does annoy me somewhat (at least it's "just" his head). Most of the films I see in theaters these days are ones that I explicitly want the "big screen" experience for and things like "the first time I see the dragon antagonist in all his glory" kind of fits into that mold.

Exactly.

The build up and reveal of the balrog in all his evil dark awesome glory was one of the best movie moments I've had in a theater. I saw the movie in an IMAX theater on opening day because I wanted to see the balrog in it.

Smaug's cunning powerful majesty should have no less an effect. Instead they tipped their hand and spoiled the reveal. This was just horrible showman ship on the story teller's part.

[t209]

So how many of you think that Thorin's (and will be) a jerk (both film and book version), even if he has sad story as
Grandfather and father died at moria (film).
Grandfather died at moria but father last seen as a captive of necromancer (book)..

[MLai]

So how many of you think that Thorin's a jerk.
I think he's the sexiest thing on 2 legs in the movie.
No other dwarf makes walking across a burning tree look so inspirational.

[Coidzor]

So how many of you think that Thorin's (and will be) a jerk (both film and book version), even if he has sad story as
Grandfather and father died at moria (film).
Grandfather died at moria but father last seen as a captive of necromancer (book)..

I believe the point is more that he's a good but flawed dwarf than that he's got some kind of Freudian Excuse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudianExcuse).

[Dienekes]

I think he's the sexiest thing on 2 legs in the movie.
No other dwarf makes walking across a burning tree look so inspirational.

If you say so. All I saw was a short guy pretending he was a dwarf. And then I started laughing during that very scene when he got laid out like a *****

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It's part of the nature of dwarves to be greedy; Thorin is merely a tragic case of a dwarf whose greed got the better of him, despite the fact that he kept it mostly in check. Being faced with the ancestral treasure of the dwarves was just too much.

(It's not really that bad when you consider it next to Feanor, who started a war over the Silmarils.)

[Dienekes]

It's part of the nature of dwarves to be greedy; Thorin is merely a tragic case of a dwarf whose greed got the better of him, despite the fact that he kept it mostly in check. Being faced with the ancestral treasure of the dwarves was just too much.

(It's not really that bad when you consider it next to Feanor, who started a war over the Silmarils.)

It's hard to look bad when you compare anyone to Feanor. Hell, I place Gothmog King of the Balrogs as a hero for killing that little prick.

On that tangent I also wish we had more of Gothmog in the Sil. The head general of Morgoth's army, a freakin' Balrog. And whenever he shows up someone important on the good side either gets killed or captured. Badass.

[t209]

It's part of the nature of dwarves to be greedy; Thorin is merely a tragic case of a dwarf whose greed got the better of him, despite the fact that he kept it mostly in check. Being faced with the ancestral treasure of the dwarves was just too much.

(It's not really that bad when you consider it next to Feanor, who started a war over the Silmarils.)
Isn't it a bit cringe worthy since Tolkien said that he based the dwarf on a certain semitic people who lost their kingdom in middle east, which one of their negative stereotype is greed. Then again, LOTR Dwarves faced many "funs" before Dwarf Fortress
losing kingdoms from dragons (Misty Mountains), orcs, and goblins (Moria). I remember that Iron Hills was one of the few dwarven kingdoms left in middle earth.

[MLai]

If you say so. All I saw was a short guy pretending he was a dwarf. And then I started laughing during that very scene when he got laid out like a *****
The actual actor is huge.
http://www.richardarmitagenet.com/images/gallery/Richard/EventsandAppearances/JapanesePremiere-01Dec2012/album/slides/Tokyo-27.jpg
I have no idea how PJ saw this guy and said to himself, "omg I found my Thorin Oakenshield!"
He does look like prime candidate materal as the next British import for American chick flicks, though.
If you started laughing (derisively, I assume) because a protag character got slapped by an antag character, then Middle Earth really isn't the universe for you.

"Dwarven greed" is a funny thing. I know Tolkien narrated it explicitly in his books, and later fantasy authors ran with it... But in time, it became a noble quality and foundation of strength for dwarven societies in popular culture. Their love for stone and material wonders makes them stronger as a society, not weaker. Anything else said about their greed is just normal human greed that everyone else has. I think this is seen in Tolkien's own works as well. Thorin liked the Arkenstone because it's shiny, sure. But more importantly it is the crystallization of the golden age of his culture and people. In the end, honor and kin still meant more to hot-blooded dwarves than any gold.

[Trog]

Isn't it a bit cringe worthy since Tolkien said that he based the dwarf on a certain semitic people who lost their kingdom in middle east, which one of their negative stereotype is greed.
...

:smallconfused: Source?

[Aotrs Commander]

Isn't it a bit cringe worthy since Tolkien said that he based the dwarf on a certain semitic people who lost their kingdom in middle east, which one of their negative stereotype is greed. Then again, LOTR Dwarves faced many "funs" before Dwarf Fortress
losing kingdoms from dragons (Misty Mountains), orcs, and goblins (Moria). I remember that Iron Hills was one of the few dwarven kingdoms left in middle earth.

Considering he based the dwarves on the dwarfs of mythology (Norse, greek etc etc) like he did most everything else (who were pretty much always depicted as a bit greedy) rather unlikely.

I too would be interested in a source for such a statement, since it doesn't at all gel with what I know of the man or the influences of Middle Earth.

[WalkingTarget]

...

:smallconfused: Source?

This is usually due to something from Letter 176 (dated 1955):

"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue....."

And from a 1971 interview with BBC4 (http://www.reocities.com/Area51/Shire/5014/interview.html):
"Gerrolt - Did you intend in Lord of the Rings that certain races should embody certain principles: the elves wisdom, the dwarves craftsmanship, men husbandry and battle and so forth?

Tolkien - I didn't intend it. But when you've got these people on your hands, you've got to make them different haven't you? Well of course, as we all know, ultimately we've only got humanity to work with. It's only clay we've got. We should all. . . or at least a large part of the human race. . . would like to have greater power of mind, greater power of art by which I mean, that the gap between the conception and the power of execution should be shortened, and we should, like a longer if not indefinite time in which to go on knowing more and making more.
Therefore the Elves are immortal in a sense. I had to use immortal, I didn't mean that they were eternally immortal, merely that they are very longeval and their longevity probably lasts as long as the inhabitability of the Earth.
The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic. Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects (in general) the small reach of their imagination - not the small reach of their courage or latent power. "

That's the extent of it - things like medieval ghettos and the fact that they kept their private language going for internal purposes (and that private language, what little we have available, is derived from Semitic phonology).

[Trog]

This is usually due to something from Letter 176 (dated 1955):

"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue....."

And from a 1971 interview with BBC4 (http://www.reocities.com/Area51/Shire/5014/interview.html):
"Gerrolt - Did you intend in Lord of the Rings that certain races should embody certain principles: the elves wisdom, the dwarves craftsmanship, men husbandry and battle and so forth?

Tolkien - I didn't intend it. But when you've got these people on your hands, you've got to make them different haven't you? Well of course, as we all know, ultimately we've only got humanity to work with. It's only clay we've got. We should all. . . or at least a large part of the human race. . . would like to have greater power of mind, greater power of art by which I mean, that the gap between the conception and the power of execution should be shortened, and we should, like a longer if not indefinite time in which to go on knowing more and making more.
Therefore the Elves are immortal in a sense. I had to use immortal, I didn't mean that they were eternally immortal, merely that they are very longeval and their longevity probably lasts as long as the inhabitability of the Earth.
The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic. Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects (in general) the small reach of their imagination - not the small reach of their courage or latent power. "

That's the extent of it - things like medieval ghettos and the fact that they kept their private language going for internal purposes (and that private language, what little we have available, is derived from Semitic phonology).
Lack of a homeland and a semitic base for Tolkien's dwarven language, check. I see nothing in there about greed, however. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Thorin the only one of Tolkien's dwarves that was really greedy? I don't recall, say, Gimli or many of the others being so.

[zimmerwald1915]

Lack of a homeland and a semitic base for Tolkien's dwarven language, check. I see nothing in there about greed, however. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Thorin the only one of Tolkien's dwarves that was really greedy? I don't recall, say, Gimli or many of the others being so.
The holders of the Seven were said to lust after gold, but that was the effect the Seven had on Dwarves, and not a quality of Dwarfishness.

[Coidzor]

The holders of the Seven were said to lust after gold, but that was the effect the Seven had on Dwarves, and not a quality of Dwarfishness.

I can't remember where I even read about them, but I always was under the impression that the main aspect for the darkness of the rings to build upon was their greed, and so that's all the rings really had to work with so they cranked that up to 11 instead of making them direct pawns like the ringwraiths.


Isn't it a bit cringe worthy since Tolkien said that he based the dwarf on a certain semitic people who lost their kingdom in middle east, which one of their negative stereotype is greed.

Their language is, as I recall, based upon Semitic languages. I believe you're thinking more of Pratchett though with explicit references to basing Dwarfs upon the Jewish people.


Then again, LOTR Dwarves faced many "funs" before Dwarf Fortress

Your syntax is a little off here.


"Dwarven greed" is a funny thing. I know Tolkien narrated it explicitly in his books, and later fantasy authors ran with it... But in time, it became a noble quality and foundation of strength for dwarven societies in popular culture. Their love for stone and material wonders makes them stronger as a society, not weaker. Anything else said about their greed is just normal human greed that everyone else has. I think this is seen in Tolkien's own works as well. Thorin liked the Arkenstone because it's shiny, sure. But more importantly it is the crystallization of the golden age of his culture and people. In the end, honor and kin still meant more to hot-blooded dwarves than any gold.

I do seem to recall that his desire for it was as more of a symbol of... everything he was looking to reclaim and make right.

They do tend to value objects of material worth and beauty through craftsmanship to the almost exclusion of more simple pleasures though, which I think is more of the thing. :smallconfused: