View Single Post
Old 12-19-2012, 03:46 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Some questions.

It's been about 2 decades since I've read the book, so there are some things I am not sure about.

1.) I don't remember there being some head (one armed) Orc with a score to settle between him and Thorin. Was this legit? Or did they do to the Orcs, what First Contact did to the Borg: have some main boss bad guy that the audience can identify with, and heighten the drama by adding in some personal vendetta between two principal leads.

2.) More about the second movie, I hear Cumberbatch (spelling) is supposed to voice Smaug. I don't remember Smaug having a speaking part.

Again I may be way, way off. I haven't read the book in a long, long time. I do know that Jackson is known for the changes between book and screen. However, I'm not a Purist. I really don't have a problem with changes in film adaptations as long as they don't detract from the main plot and theme of the book. And thus far, the adaptation is superb.
Your First Contact reference was exactly the comparison that came to mind when I saw this bit. The only difference being that Azog is actually a character mentioned in the book. But he's mentioned because Thorin's cousin Dáin chopped his head off some two-hundred years previously, and although he himself did kill an important dwarf, it was Dáin's father not Thorin's grandfather. So that was the only part of the film that annoyed me. And really more because Azog was shouting clichéd Hollywood villain lines the whole time. Only made slightly cooler by the fact that they were in Orkish.

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
That might have been another change then. I think in the Hobbit movie, they were called Orcs. By looks that's what they seemed as well. I think back and vaguely remember I was confused about the difference between orc and goblin. The movies seemed to have define them differently. The goblins were short, hunched, jumpy creatures that reminds one more of monkeys, and dwelt mostly in the caves. The orcs are the next step, walk upright, originally Elves who were "tortured and mutilated" (as indicated by Saruman) into a new race.


I feel supremely geeky for having this conversation.
They were referred to both as orcs and goblins. Very roughly, orcs are more dangerous. The ones under the mountains are still goblins, I think.

Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Goblin is just another word for orc, it doesn't imply in any way small orc (kinda like goblin < orc < uruk or something like that). Goblin doesn't sound as nasty as orc so that's why Tolkien probably chose it for a novel more suited to children than his second novel.
In the Hobbit's introduction he said that orc was the Hobbitish word for goblin, but definitely later on he more or less dropped goblins. So the only set of orcs we know to be goblins are the ones under the Misty mountains which may or may not include the orcs in Moria.

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
The biggest change of course is the one a lot of people have trouble getting over:

The Hobbit is a book that was meant for kids. A short book.

But let's be real. I know what these movies are. It's not really "The Hobbit". It is, I mean Peter Jackson still does a good job of keeping the main story intact. But the reason why the story has been stretched, why its content is still for the same mature enough audiences as LotR, why it seems like between a third to a half of the films aren't about "The Hobbit" but seem to act more like a setup for the Lord of the Rings movies. They're prequels. Yeah, "The Hobbit" itself is a prequel, it's just the first book. But the movies are prequels in every sense of the word. They're trying to blend into a smooth transition into LotR the way "The Hobbit" book didn't.

I'm not going to flame anyone for not being on board with that. But I am. I'm actually pretty excited about how they're going to do it. I know what I'm expecting from Peter Jackson. I actually liked his changes. I've already come to the conclusion that with regards to the LotR films, they were actually better in many ways than the books.

Are they doing this for max profit? Yeah, probably. But if they want the max profit they're gonna have to give us max quality. With the first film out, seeing it as it is, whether you like it or not, I doubt you can say, "They're just trying to make a quick buck."

So far I like what they've done. I do kind of feel like the one-armed orc is a little too "bad @$$" for this this story. But everything else seems to outshine it.
Well, actually, having read the book recently, I can tell you that although it is a thin book, it is by no means small.There are about 17 chapters, and something huge happens in each one. Some of them have action sequences which are given very little description and this means that anyone making this into a film would have to devote more time to those bits - let alone Peter Jackson, as we all know how much he loves his action sequences!

And yes, they are making The Hobbit into prequels, after a fashion. But so far they have barely expanded upon what Tolkien himself wrote to fill in the gaps between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. If you look in the Lost Tales book as well as the LotR Appendices you find bits on Thorin's background and how he came to meet Gandalf and why Gandalf was interested in the Dwarves' quest (funnily enough it is what he said to Saruman in the film), and bits and pieces about Dol Guldúr and where Gandalf went while the Dwarves were in Mirkwood.

I also believe that Peter Jackson is not doing it for the money, but he convinced the film companies to do it by saying: "Look, money!"

The only bit that annoys me about this (other than Azog) is the compression of the timeline. But I can see why they'd do it, and they made a really good film (aside from Azog), so I can forgive them.
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of

(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote