The Hobbit movie...what didn't you like about it? <SPOILER ALERT>

[Al.]

Not when that role is a healer, it meant avoiding regardless of whether they were male or female. And what's the advantage to the males of being expected to do all the fighting, exactly? Besides, Tolkien said that the women not fighting was more down to their temperament than lack of ability. Nowhere does he suggest that the women weren't allowed to fight, he even says they were a lot stronger relative to their menfolk than mortal women were.

The advantage is there in Laws and Customs of the Eldar like or not, Noldor Males were the ones taking up arms.

Maybe you'd better hush up then? A herald is like a diplomat, an ambassador - the sort of guy you send out under a flag of truce to negotiate, not someone who's involved in the fighting.

Nickpicky are you, you forgot to add when a herald becomes a Lord, what are his duties.

Why, just because PJ decided to turn him into an action hero? There's nothing in the books to make him an exception.

Wisdom and action are not divorced, you fail to see that a wise man can be also a Hero.

He'd thrown his lot in with the Elves, that means he's counted as one wherever that matters. And in the books he had Glorfindel, Elladan and Elrohir (plus others!) to go out and kick butt on his behalf. Elrond's a scholar, first and foremost. Use your brain and try to think past the movies.

Part of been a Lord is been responsible for the people you are leading, he doesn't need his sons to do his job, they can also take their own action in different places.

I'm not talking about Elf-lords in general, I'm talking about Elrond in particular, and you've got nothing except PJ's nonsense to go on.

Elrond is an extraordinary character, you trying to classify him as an ordinary elf is not right like it or not, PJ was right on the nail on this one.

[BirdofHermes]

The advantage is there in Laws and Customs of the Eldar like or not, Noldor Males were the ones taking up arms.



Nickpicky are you, you forgot to add when a herald becomes a Lord, what are his duties.



Wisdom and action are not divorced, you fail to see that a wise man can be also a Hero.



Part of been a Lord is been responsible for the people you are leading, he doesn't need his sons to do his job, they can also take their own action in different places.



Elrond is an extraordinary character, you trying to classify him as an ordinary elf is not right like it or not, PJ was right on the nail on this one.

You're no longer arguing with Rad, you're arguing with Tolkien. You were given the relevant quotes and all you have to back up your views are is PJ's movies which contradict the quotes.
Sorry to barge in on the discussion btw.

[Radhruin_EU]

The advantage is there in Laws and Customs of the Eldar like or not, Noldor Males were the ones taking up arms.

What advantage? If you actually read it, it says they had precious little advantage when it came to being warriors, too, because Elf-women were a lot stronger relative to their menfolk than mortal women were. It just so happened that most Elf-women didn't want to fight and were happy to leave it up to the men. There were always exceptions, Galadriel was particularly fierce in her younger days.

Nickpicky are you, you forgot to add when a herald becomes a Lord, what are his duties.

Now you're getting confused with feudalism. Elrond doesn't owe anyone any duties because as there's no king, he can do exactly what he likes. Again, Rivendell isn't some mighty realm, it's a quiet, remote scholarly retreat. Elrond's not even the only Elf-lord there.

Wisdom and action are not divorced, you fail to see that a wise man can be also a Hero.

All I can see is your thickheaded insistence he has to go around waving a sword about in order to fit your preconceptions, exactly the sort of thing PJ stuck in the movie because that's what people expect.

Part of been a Lord is been responsible for the people you are leading, he doesn't need his sons to do his job, they can also take their own action in different places.

Waffle.

Elrond is an extraordinary character, you trying to classify him as an ordinary elf is not right like it or not, PJ was right on the nail on this one.

No, you're just unimaginative enough to think he's ordinary unless he's portrayed as an action hero.

[Magdon1]

Maybe you'd better hush up then? A herald is like a diplomat, an ambassador - the sort of guy you send out under a flag of truce to negotiate, not someone who's involved in the fighting.

Here's a direct quote from the Silmarillion regarding a herald:
"Ilmare...the banner-bearer and herald of Manwe, whose might in arms is surpassed by none in Arda."

This is a Maiar. I suppose you will argue that only heralds that are Maiar ever engage in battle? Or that this refers to jousting contests not in battle with the enemy and that he never participated in the War of the Powers?

You ignored the examples I gave of elf lords as healers and continued responding as if I hadn't made the post. Do you have any sage words on my refutation of your contentions that elves that healed could not also fight?

[Radhruin_EU]

Here's a direct quote from the Silmarillion regarding a herald:
"Ilmare...the banner-bearer and herald of Manwe, whose might in arms is surpassed by none in Arda."

That'd be Eönwë. You couldn't even quote that right, you sad case. Ilmarë was Varda's handmaiden. That's what happens when you just post stuff you haven't really read.

You ignored the examples I gave of elf lords as healers and continued responding as if I hadn't made the post. Do you have any sage words on my refutation of your contentions that elves that healed could not also fight?

I took your examples as inconclusive because, for example, Glorfindel couldn't actually heal Frodo, just patch him up - it took Elrond's best efforts to heal him properly. Elrond's specifically said to be 'a master of healing'. Maybe that's because he refrains from killing?

As for Eönwë, I seem to remember it was Tulkas who actually overthrew Melkor in the War of the Powers. Maybe Eönwë was too busy lugging Manwë's banner around?

[Magdon1]

That'd be Eönwë. You couldn't even quote that right, you sad case. Ilmarë was Varda's handmaiden. That's what happens when you just post stuff you haven't really read.


I took your examples as inconclusive because, for example, Glorfindel couldn't actually heal Frodo, just patch him up - it took Elrond's best efforts to heal him properly. Elrond's specifically said to be 'a master of healing'. Maybe that's because he refrains from killing?

As for Eönwë, I seem to remember it was Tulkas who actually overthrew Melkor in the War of the Powers. Maybe Eönwë was too busy lugging Manwë's banner around?

I used an ellipsis to cut out much of the quote and used the wrong subject from a complex sentence. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Now correct your own. You didn't answer the question, and ignored that Tolkien's own writing refuted your pedantic lecture on how heralds don't fight. You were just plain wrong.

You also made long-winded and inflexible arguments that warriors could not be healers because of something Tolkien wrote near the end of his life long after he wrote the majority of his works. Now you are saying the absolute nature of not healing is by degree, and that if someone can heal a little, and not as well as another, they are not a healer? That sounds like weaseling and an inability to admit you're wrong.

[Radhruin_EU]

I used an ellipsis to cut out much of the quote and used the wrong subject from a complex sentence. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Now correct your own. You didn't answer the question, and ignored that Tolkien's own writing refuted your pedantic lecture on how heralds don't fight. You were just plain wrong.

You also made long-winded and inflexible arguments that warriors could not be healers because of something Tolkien wrote near the end of his life long after he wrote the majority of his works. Now you are saying the absolute nature of not healing is by degree, and that if someone can heal a little, and not as well as another, they are not a healer? That sounds like weaseling and an inability to admit you're wrong.

You're reading more into the text than it actually says. How much fighting does Eonwe actually do? You tried to use the War of the Powers as an example but all that has for definite is Tulkas beating up Melkor.

Going back to the healing thing: as per that quote, the point was that it was believed those who killed were significantly less effective as healers, So, someone like Elrond who has a reputation as a master of healing could therefore be presumed to be avoiding killing, so as not to reduce their ability to heal.

One more thing: when Elrond's wife was captured by Orcs it was Elladan and Elrohir who rescued her, not Elrond. He healed her, as best he could.

You just want to favour PJ's version; there's no real reason to imagine Elrond as an action hero who rides around smiting Orcs (certainly not at any point during the late Third Age), and I see no reason to budge an inch on that.

[Magdon1]

You're reading more into the text than it actually says. How much fighting does Eonwe actually do? You tried to use the War of the Powers as an example but all that has for definite is Tulkas beating up Melkor.

Going back to the healing thing: as per that quote, the point was that it was believed those who killed were significantly less effective as healers, So, someone like Elrond who has a reputation as a master of healing could therefore be presumed to be avoiding killing, so as not to reduce their ability to heal.

One more thing: when Elrond's wife was captured by Orcs it was Elladan and Elrohir who rescued her, not Elrond. He healed her, as best he could.

You just want to favour PJ's version; there's no real reason to imagine Elrond as an action hero who rides around smiting Orcs (certainly not at any point during the late Third Age), and I see no reason to budge an inch on that.

1. Tolkien doesn't mention a lot of things that have to be assumed. It has to be assumed that Aragorn did a lot of fighting we never hear of. It has to be assumed that Gandalf did a lot of fighting we didn't hear of. Your act of ignoring the quotes I provided and weaseling about trying to support your insupportable position is just evidence that your fragile ego can't accept being wrong.

2. You said numerous times in this thread that warriors couldn't heal per the HoME 10 quote. Again, you're trying to shore up your lost argument with new BS that you're producing after the fact.

3. I don't support ANYthing that PJ did to the story of the LOTR and the Hobbit. I think the man's changes were absolute garbage and I don't really like the movies very much.

[bambubambubambu]

Well there is a bright side to this y'all.

At least Elrond wasn't riding a giant moose in the movie too.

[Radhruin_EU]

1. Tolkien doesn't mention a lot of things that have to be assumed. It has to be assumed that Aragorn did a lot of fighting we never hear of. It has to be assumed that Gandalf did a lot of fighting we didn't hear of. Your act of ignoring the quotes I provided and weaseling about trying to support your insupportable position is just evidence that your fragile ego can't accept being wrong.

We don't have to merely assume Aragorn did heroic deeds, because among others we're told about how he helped the Gondorians defeat Umbar the first time around. Away with you and your convenient assumptions - denied anything substantive, you now want to just make stuff up in order to bolster your case.

2. You said numerous times in this thread that warriors couldn't heal per the HoME 10 quote. Again, you're trying to shore up your lost argument with new BS that you're producing after the fact.

Here's a quote from my first post about it on this thread:

"We know he was a supposed to be a great healer, and (as Tolkien wrote in an essay) the Elves believed that dealing death reduced someone's talent for healing."

I'll own my poor choice of wording later on but that's all. I've not just started saying anything new.

3. I don't support ANYthing that PJ did to the story of the LOTR and the Hobbit. I think the man's changes were absolute garbage and I don't really like the movies very much.

Elrond being violent in the late Third Age is one such change - the books portray him as a healer and scholar, then, with absolute consistency; if anything, his two sons are the ones who ride around beating up Orcs. And that's how we got into this, why it's being discussed in this thread in the first place.

[Magdon1]

I merely found it odd to focus on this small and relatively insignificant occurrence in the face of bird-poop-head Radagast, rabbit sleds, long dead orcs being resurrected to kill Thorin only for him to be resurrected, etc, etc, etc. Without reading much else, I'll just assume we both agree that Pajama Boy's treatment of Tolkien (at least as regards rewrites) sucks.

[Radhruin_EU]

I merely found it odd to focus on this small and relatively insignificant occurrence in the face of bird-poop-head Radagast, rabbit sleds, long dead orcs being resurrected to kill Thorin only for him to be resurrected, etc, etc, etc. Without reading much else, I'll just assume we both agree that Pajama Boy's treatment of Tolkien (at least as regards rewrites) sucks.

I posted about that sort of thing in another thread, if I remember rightly, so I felt no need to repeat it here. Anyway, I don't find distorting a major character like Elrond to be any less regrettable than, say, PJ turning Radagast into a rabbit-propelled lunatic. It's all of a piece, really, alongside other nonsense like Bilbo turning all action hero to rescue Thorin and that business about the Witch-king having been slain and buried.

[BirdofHermes]

The second Hobbit film trailer...I have very little hope, it actually looks even worse than the first just going by the trailer. I think I'll skip it in the cinema.

[Fencepost]

Then let's have a quote regarding Thangorodrim, please. Just what 'murky matter' are you referring to?

Thereupon Elrond paused a while and sighed. 'I remember well the splendour of their banners,' he said. 'It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and the Elves deemed that evil was ended for ever, and it was not so.'

However, I'm well aware that while the quote shows Elrond was present for those events, it does not say that he actually fought.

[Radhruin_EU]

However, I'm well aware that while the quote shows Elrond was present for those events, it does not say that he actually fought.

It doesn't show that. It shows that he remembers the hosts of Beleriand, which he would have seen in his youth. What he's saying is that when an even greater and fairer army (legendarily so, he didn't have to have seen it to have known that) was assembled from among the Elves of Valinor to go up against Morgoth, it still wasn't enough to end evil forever, i.e. force of arms alone did not succeed in that.

[Al.]

It doesn't show that. It shows that he remembers the hosts of Beleriand, which he would have seen in his youth. What he's saying is that when an even greater and fairer army (legendarily so, he didn't have to have seen it to have known that) was assembled from among the Elves of Valinor to go up against Morgoth, it still wasn't enough to end evil forever, i.e. force of arms alone did not succeed in that.

Morgoth evil ended when the Valar entered in force of arms literally destroying beleriand.

So Elves standing against evil, had its merit and its more than likely that Elrond participated in the wars of the second age and not just a bystander watching the battle unfold.

[ferdinanda]

So Elves standing against evil, had its merit and its more than likely that Elrond participated in the wars of the second age and not just a bystander watching the battle unfold.

Except, as Radh has already quoted,

Of the march of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; for among them went none of those Elves who had dwelt and suffered in the Hither Lands, and who made the histories of those days that still are known; and tidings of these things they only learned long afterwards from their kinsfolk in Aman. -The Silmarillion, 1977 American edition, p. 251.

Any speculation that the youthful Elrond (and his brother, too?), who were only 13 years old at the start of the War of Wrath, were actually present, seems to be... speculation.

[Al.]

Except, as Radh has already quoted,



Any speculation that the youthful Elrond (and his brother, too?), who were only 13 years old at the start of the War of Wrath, were actually present, seems to be... speculation.

Not the war of wrath, but he did participate in:

Elrond led Elves from Lindon in battle to defend Eregion. With them, and other Elves who fled the destruction of Eregion, he established Imladris in S.A.1697.

Radruin is wrong is saying Elrond never picked up a sword in his life, when it was a tradition that all Noldor elves did when they reached age, he was wise, healer and warrior who knew of the wars in the first age, participated in the Second and advised in the third age I think.

[BirdofHermes]

Not the war of wrath, but he did participate in:

Elrond led Elves from Lindon in battle to defend Eregion. With them, and other Elves who fled the destruction of Eregion, he established Imladris in S.A.1697.

Radruin is wrong is saying Elrond never picked up a sword in his life, when it was a tradition that all Noldor elves did when they reached age, he was wise, healer and warrior who knew of the wars in the first age, participated in the Second and advised in the third age I think.

Strawman argument. Try again.


While it's amusing to watch you struggle, I have to admit I respect the determination. You remind me of the creationists I had/have to deal with during my biology years.

[Al.]

Strawman argument. Try again.


While it's amusing to watch you struggle, I have to admit I respect the determination. You remind me of the creationists I had/have to deal with during my biology years.

Yea, yeah, how about No

Ill stop listening to haters at some point

[equinoz]

Why start a thread with a loaded question?

[ChampionSword]

Strawman argument. Try again.


While it's amusing to watch you struggle, I have to admit I respect the determination. You remind me of the creationists I had/have to deal with during my biology years.

And Tolkien purists wonder why people think they come across as condescending jerks.



The text *does* say that Elrond led a battle. This would seemingly mark him as a warrior, at least when he has to be.


Why so rude and mean-spirited?

[Meluihel]

In many ways I really enjoyed the movie. Yes there were a few changes from the book I didn't like, others I didn't mind and a few I actually rather liked. Over all though I was happy with the movie as a movie. It was fun to watch and I plan to see it again.

So as a movie it was good. But as the Hobbit? I struggle with it. I know the movie will never be the book, nor do I want it to be. If the movie used the book as a script then the movie would be long, and not very fun to watch. The goal then should be to present not the book in full but the essence of the book, its core ideas. And that I think Peter Jackson does a poor job with, as he did with the Lord of the Rings. Before you jump down my throat let me explain.

The reason I have always loved Tolkien is because in many ways he is like the Beowulf poet, as you would expect from a man who spent his academic life studying Old English and Old Norse works. The poet of Beowulf gives the illusion of greater depth, of things only half glimpsed. Tolkien also does this very well, especially in the Lord of the Rings. He also uses much older idea. Like courage, not just the courage of going into battle but the inner struggles. Sam fighting within himself before going into Cirith Ungol for example. Wyrd is another example, chace as Tolkien often uses, luck or providence. And those are just two examples. The movies as a whole do a poor job of conveying these ideas. There are some exceptions, the Rohirrim in the Two Towers for instance, but I'll get to that in a moment.

On the one hand I can understand why the movies do a poor job in this area. These are not concepts or ideas that we tend to use in our modern age. So perhaps the vast majority of people sitting in a theater would not know how to handle them. We have also grown use to our "novels" being written in a certain way. I'm sure you can think of plenty without me having to name them. And they are easier to turn into movies. So when people go to see the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings they are expecting that kind of format. At the same time though these ideas make up the core, the essence if you will, of Tolkien's work. By doing a poor job in representing them its like tearing out the heart and using a machine to pump blood. It is still technically "alive" but there is no soul to it.

Now back to Rohan. Jackson actually does an amazing job with them at times. I found in the Two Towers the Rohirrim from the books and I was in love. Theoden's half quoting of the poem from the books "Where is the horse and the rider..." was a great touch. Buth then the elves show up and the whole feeling gets blown to pieces. From the books we know that Lorien was in the middle of its own battles. Yet here are the elves of Lorien at Helm's Deep? Any sense of depth, or things happening off screen only half glimpsed, is completely destroyed. On the one hand I understand, the movies have to focus on one thing, the fellowship. At the same time though this is a bit like me deciding to make a historical film. I set it in Anglo-Saxon England during the rein of Alfred the Great. But without any warning or any explanation aliens show up in the middle of the film to start taking over the world.

If you are going to create something set in someone else's universe then you should respect the rules of the universe as much as you can. You cannot simply do whatever you want to just because you feel like it. Yet Jackson has shown many times that he doesn't care. I like that he didn't include the Scourging of the Shire in the movies. But Jackson did not do it so he could focus on other things. Rather, as he says in the bonus feature to the Lord of the Rings, he never liked that part of the book.

Each of us takes different things away from the books, I think that is part of Tolkien's genius. So maybe I put more emphasis on different things then you do, and I would make movies of the books in different ways. My point though is this. There are core ideas that needed to be expressed and I think Jackson did a poor job in that area. So you end up with something that on the surface looks like Tolkien's Middle-Earth but when you try to look closer there is no depth, it is an illusion. Like looking through a very dirty, very grimy window when I was hoping for something a bit more clearer. That having been said I do plan to see the second Hobbit movie again, and get the extended edition when it comes out. And of course I'll go see the third one this summer.

[Widoch]

5. Elrond...I'm not sure what it was but I just didn't like him as much this time. He just didn't seem wise and I didn't really like how he came back from orc hunting (I'm sure some may disagree with me on this but I don't see Elrond as the Orc hunting type unless he has to..I also understand there is more of a peace at this time but he just seemed to happy lol)

He was actually a very accomplished warrior and wasn't afraid to kick some butt.

6. Gandalf in relations to the white council. It made it seem as if Gandalf was everyone's well...for the lack of a better term...&&&&&. It made it seem as if Gadriel was his boss and he was extremely scared of Saruman. Gandalf in my mind is just more independent and although would listen to the others council...just not really care.

I think you would have to keep in mind that Gandalf doesn't know the information we know from the Lord of the Rings. There's no recorded account of Gandalf having any interaction with Sauron so he would be very cautious. Remember, several thousand years before, he would have been part of the War of Wrath when Morgoth was overthrown after many years of hard battle. He also would be well aware of Sauron's abilities relating to The Fall of Numinor So, understandably he would be quite cautious of evil. Galadriel is one of the single oldest beings we know of in Middle Earth having come over during the First Age. She, having seen the light of the trees would have had great power in addition to that of her ring. I think Gandalf might have very well respected her position and valued her knowledge and advice regarding Middle Earth. She'd been there a lot longer than he had. Sauramon was Gandalf's boss, basically. That one's pretty simple.