It looks like a large version of Sting cut down the middle.
I'm just sorry we won't get to see how the story ends in the second 2013 installment, what with the Mayan apocalypse and all...
| Quote: |
| To be fair, I don't think I would be satisfied with ANY design as I am, like the biggest Tolkien nerd ever, and these works were given life in my mind years and years before the movies were even announced. |
Yeah, I think the movies have taken on a life of their own, and try to be true to their own hollywood marketing enhanced interpretation of Tolkien as opposed to trying to be true to the books themselves.
Seeing these weapons reminds me of a few of the things I did not like about LOTR movies, such as the Katana Wielding elves, Legolas surfing on a shield and the 50 foot tall oliphants Legolas takes out like Luke Skywallker taking out the At-At's in Star Wars V.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
Yeah, I think the movies have taken on a life of their own, and try to be true to their own hollywood marketing enhanced interpretation of Tolkien as opposed to trying to be true to the books themselves. Seeing these weapons reminds me of a few of the things I did not like about LOTR movies, such as the Katana Wielding elves, Legolas surfing on a shield and the 50 foot tall oliphants Legolas takes out like Luke Skywallker taking out the At-At's in Star Wars V. |
I personally don't see why they have to be "true" to Tolkein, atleast not in a purist sense. Its sorta like the various versions of the Arthurian legends of versions or the the Robin Hood stories. Many story tellers, and no two retelling it the same way.
Tolkein intended his work to be myths for a modern age, so I don't think he would have be bothered by other storytellers having their own adaptations. Its what happens to great stories, they are told and retold and they change and new authors add things or change things. Its part of the process of a story becoming part of the culture.
I'm with the people who said Orcrist should look similar to Glamdring. Its spelled out that they are sister swords and this relates to the 'history' of middle earth, which Tolkien worked so hard to make internally consistent.
Having said that, Tolkien never reached perfect internal consistency (this was a huge problem for his son's posthumous editing).
And I'm sure everyone has their own personal threshold of what hollywood changes they will tolerate, and maybe even tolerate major changes in some areas and only minor changes in other areas, depending what you care about.
But where do you draw the line? For example, suppose it turned out in this movie that Smaug was actually a robot built by a powerful space alien known in middle earth mythology as Morgoth. That could be an interesting plot twist, but it would turn fantasy into SF and would violate Tolkien's central vision from the Silmarilion, the fiction-historical basis of the whole book series.
Having said that, Tolkien never reached perfect internal consistency (this was a huge problem for his son's posthumous editing).
And I'm sure everyone has their own personal threshold of what hollywood changes they will tolerate, and maybe even tolerate major changes in some areas and only minor changes in other areas, depending what you care about.
But where do you draw the line? For example, suppose it turned out in this movie that Smaug was actually a robot built by a powerful space alien known in middle earth mythology as Morgoth. That could be an interesting plot twist, but it would turn fantasy into SF and would violate Tolkien's central vision from the Silmarilion, the fiction-historical basis of the whole book series.
| Quote: |
| I personally don't see why they have to be "true" to Tolkein, atleast not in a purist sense. Its sorta like the various versions of the Arthurian legends of versions or the the Robin Hood stories. Many story tellers, and no two retelling it the same way. |
I'd beg to differ a bit here - with Tolkien, there are only 2 storytellers, the books and the movies, unlike the many versions of Arthur that are out there now.
| Quote: |
| Having said that, Tolkien never reached perfect internal consistency (this was a huge problem for his son's posthumous editing). |
LOL. I think I remember reading where he or his son was asked if the Glorfindel in the LOTR was the same Glorfindel who died in the fall of Gondolin, or if they were two seperate elves. I believe his answer was "yes".
| Quote: |
| For example, suppose it turned out in this movie that Smaug was actually a robot built by a powerful space alien known in middle earth mythology as Morgoth. That could be an interesting plot twist, but it would turn fantasy into SF and would violate Tolkien's central vision from the Silmarilion, the fiction-historical basis of the whole book series. |
Exactly.
Am I the only one who ever wanted to see the swords drawn up for the 1980 Rankin/Bass Hobbit film made into real life? I used to obsess over those as a child, and to this day I still love the form of sting.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
I'd beg to differ a bit here - with Tolkien, there are only 2 storytellers, the books and the movies, unlike the many versions of Arthur that are out there now. |
I don't think Robin was arguing that there are countless storytellers (though between the older animated films, video game versions, and so forth, I think an argument could be made for more than 2 nonetheless), but rather that according to Tolkien's intentions, there eventually should be. Presumably, Robin Hood or Arthur started out with just one or two storytellers, but each new person who retells the story can adapt it to their medium and whims. Currently, intellectual property laws may slow the spread of retellings, but if the point of the story is to be a new mythology for Britain, being true to one interpretation of that mythos is perhaps unnecessary or even undesirable.
| Greg Bowen wrote: | ||||
I don't think Robin was arguing that there are countless storytellers (though between the older animated films, video game versions, and so forth, I think an argument could be made for more than 2 nonetheless), but rather that according to Tolkien's intentions, there eventually should be. Presumably, Robin Hood or Arthur started out with just one or two storytellers, but each new person who retells the story can adapt it to their medium and whims. Currently, intellectual property laws may slow the spread of retellings, but if the point of the story is to be a new mythology for Britain, being true to one interpretation of that mythos is perhaps unnecessary or even undesirable. |
I'd just like to point out that a fair amount of the movie was informed by the Ralph Backshee animated version, showing that this process has begun. For example, the scene with the ring wraiths in the Inn of the Prancing Pony cutting up the beds with no hobbits in them. That scene is now in two of the tellings and is part of the mythology, but it's not in the original.
I will definitely see the movie, but those swords just look too...
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Arceeanmatedpackageart.jpg
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Arceeanmatedpackageart.jpg
Ok, so I'm still not sure what I think of Orcrist, but it is growing on me. I do wish they had given all of the dwarves a proper beard though. Mostly the one with the bow, but Thorin too.
That said, does anyone else think the handle on Orcrist looks a little... phallic?
just wondering.
That said, does anyone else think the handle on Orcrist looks a little... phallic?
just wondering.
| F. Carl Holz wrote: |
| Ok, so I'm still not sure what I think of Orcrist, but it is growing on me. I do wish they had given all of the dwarves a proper beard though. Mostly the one with the bow, but Thorin too.
That said, does anyone else think the handle on Orcrist looks a little... phallic? just wondering. |
It is a dragons tooth handle. They have given Orcrist a movie back story that is completely at odds with what Tolkien wrote.
| Paul Watson wrote: | ||
It is a dragons tooth handle. They have given Orcrist a movie back story that is completely at odds with what Tolkien wrote. |
Yes, departing for the story when there is no reason to. BLEH!
The Hobbit was more a child's story than TLOTR and that's OK. It looks as if they have tried to "darken" it here.
A way to spend an afternoon or evening I suppose.
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | ||||
Yes, departing for the story when there is no reason to. BLEH! The Hobbit was more a child's story than TLOTR and that's OK. It looks as if they have tried to "darken" it here. A way to spend an afternoon or evening I suppose. |
It's not just a departure in this case but the creation of a highly improbable if not impossible situation in respect of the dragons tooth handle.
| Quote: |
| It's not just a departure in this case but the creation of a highly improbable if not impossible situation in respect of the dragons tooth handle. |
But a Dragon Tooth handle is KEWL.........
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
But a Dragon Tooth handle is KEWL......... |
So is a black Porsche 911 Turbo but it too is out of place. Admittedly more out of place.
| Quote: |
| So is a black Porsche 911 Turbo but it too is out of place. Admittedly more out of place |
Heck, why not just Orcrist a light saber? Lightsabers are real kewl too. Maybe taking a slight liberty with Tolkien's image of Middle Earth however. :D
| Greg Bowen wrote: | ||||
I don't think Robin was arguing that there are countless storytellers (though between the older animated films, video game versions, and so forth, I think an argument could be made for more than 2 nonetheless), but rather that according to Tolkien's intentions, there eventually should be. Presumably, Robin Hood or Arthur started out with just one or two storytellers, but each new person who retells the story can adapt it to their medium and whims. Currently, intellectual property laws may slow the spread of retellings, but if the point of the story is to be a new mythology for Britain, being true to one interpretation of that mythos is perhaps unnecessary or even undesirable. |
Personally, I think it is best to watch and enjoy the movie for what it is, a retelling of the story by a different story teller.
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| But where do you draw the line? For example, suppose it turned out in this movie that Smaug was actually a robot built by a powerful space alien known in middle earth mythology as Morgoth. That could be an interesting plot twist, but it would turn fantasy into SF and would violate Tolkien's central vision from the Silmarilion, the fiction-historical basis of the whole book series. |
| Quote: |
| Personally, I think it is best to watch and enjoy the movie for what it is, a retelling of the story by a different story teller. |
I agree. However there are somethings that are tough to stomach, for me in the LOTR it was the Oliphants or Mumaks being 50 feet tall. And perhaps Legolas' rendition which at times struck me more of an X sports competitor. I know they were trying to show the uncanny agility of an elf, but IMO there were other ways to do it better.
I guess the fact that the full plate wearing Gondorian forces were being beaten man-for-man pretty easily by much lighter armoured orcs appeared a bit odd as well, it was like the plate armour was almost useless.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
I agree. However there are somethings that are tough to stomach, for me in the LOTR it was the Oliphants or Mumaks being 50 feet tall. And perhaps Legolas' rendition which at times struck me more of an X sports competitor. I know they were trying to show the uncanny agility of an elf, but IMO there were other ways to do it better. I guess the fact that the full plate wearing Gondorian forces were being beaten man-for-man pretty easily by much lighter armoured orcs appeared a bit odd as well, it was like the plate armour was almost useless. |
Oddly enough, I was just looking at a book of Tolkein inspired art last night at the Library. The artists had Mumaks/Oliphants that were almost as large as the movie version, although these only had two tusks.
I should have noted exactly what year that illustration was made, but I know it certainly predated the movies just by the age of the book.
Ahh... Found it. 1996
too large to post, so here is a link
http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr2/TN-The_Mumak_of_Harad.html
And even older one
[ Linked Image ]
Another one that predates the film with a Mumak that is taller than the surrounding trees
[ Linked Image ]
So, I don't really think PJ was the first to try and depict them as truly massive. Alot of the design of LOTR is inspired by popular Tolkien artists, so you have to look at in that context. They were drawing not just from Tolkien himself, but also from the stuff that grew up around it.
I will admit the shield surfing bit was pretty cheese, but honestly modern audiences expect certain things. Just be thankful they didn't have kung fu fighting, since most modern movies seem to think that every fight sequence needs to be based on kung fu. Its the coconut effect in action...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum