Tolkien

Originally posted by Sirp
Although I thought it was a pretty good movie, there are numerous, not "very few" things that were left out, or just plain different from the book; a less-than-exhaustive list is:

All that said, I do think the movie was pretty good; and many of the ommissions (not so much the changes) are necessary and understandable. However, there is a very noticable amount of divergence from the book.

well sirp can you tell me if the "not very few" details that were left out, were added to the movie, what could be the duration of the movie? being sincere at the time that boromir attacked frodo in the woods, i was in the bathroom (i remained a hour, but after all, i could'nt resist:suicide:) by the way i havn't read the books, but am going to read the first cuz i've seen the movie; i dont want to know what will happen in the other movies yet.
but... ¡¡WHY WE MUST WAIT ONE YEAR??:mad: :mad:!!!

c u ppl
 
CaosDragon: Yes, they would need to make a movie for each book, instead of a movie for each volume if they were to include all the details (That's six movies instead of three). Now I'm not advocating that, and as I said in my original post, "I do think the movie was pretty good; and many of the ommissions ... are necessary and understandable."

JarHead:

- They say "it fell into the hands of a creature named Gollum" while showing the hand of Gollum (who actually should be just a normal Hobbit back then) pluck the Ring from the river bed.
- I also agree that omitting Bombadil was not a bad idea. Although, they could have shown the Great Forest, and had Bombadil turn up to rescue them from the trees, but omitted the long stay at Bombadil's house (since they omit other long stays at peaceful places anyway). However, I think their decision on this one was reasonable.
- I'll take your word for it about the stone trolls being there; I didn't notice them. However, they do not show the interactions with them as told in the book.
- I was a little disapointed with the Orcs overall, since they were made to seem a little too robot-like

I do think some of the changes do in fact detract from the movie. The omissions are understandable because of time constraints, however I see most of the changes they have made as being unnecessary. It's a good movie inspite of this of course; I was just pointing out there *are* a significant number of divergences.

Glorfindel: I do like lots of movies; but that doesn't mean the movies don't have issues. I don't usually like movies based on books, although I do think the makers of Fellowship did a good job.
 
Originally posted by JarHead
Yes, there are differences. I was only trying to downplay them because they do not detract from a GREAT movie.

I'm with you on that, JarHead.

I've now seen the movie TWICE and will probably see it a third time. (And again if they bring it out on DVD before next December when The Two Towers is released).

Any major epic derived from a novel or play has to have some things left out to keep the movie to a manageable length. Think "Illiad/Odyssey", "Chronicles of Narnia", "Dune", etc.

I was SO disappointed with the David Lynch/Dino DiLaurentis version of "Dune", not with what they cut out from the novel, but with all the "artistic license" they took and with the things they added that were not in the novel. The recent made-for-TV multi-part version of "Dune" for The Sci-Fi Channel was much, much better, IMHO; they also took liberties with the story line, but their variations worked much better for me (Irulan coming to the dinner party in Arrakeen, for example).

I was also very disappointed in Ralph Bakshi's animated version of the first three of the six books of LOTR. I rented it recently, and was surprised to find that it wasn't as bad as I had remembered it -- but it was still disappointing. My biggest problem with that film is that Bakshi appeared to get lazy with the animation, relying too much on rotoscopy. It's also too bad that Bakshi didn't complete the story. Rankin/Bass tried to do "The Return of the King" in the same style as their version of "The Hobbit", but both of those were atrocious kiddie fare.

Before seeing "Fellowship of the Ring", I was concerned that we might have another "David Lynch does Dune" problem, or perhaps a "Ralph Bakshi Takes on Tolkien and Quits Halfway".

Now, I give Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" a 99% rating. :goodjob: It was a real labor of love. I don't even mind the liberties Jackson took in accentuating the part of Arwen.

Jackson should easily be able to find the financing for doing "The Hobbit", if he wants to take that on. I just wish that they could accelerate the release of the next two films -- if they're ready, I'd like to see "The Two Towers" released this July 4th weekend and "The Return of the King" next December!
 
http://demon.unh.edu/images/tolkien/atlas/second_age_of_arda.gif

second age arda... dont forget that the ppl of the Hihter Lands and the Rhûn were allied with Mordor so they are important

Originally posted by Sirp
Although I thought it was a pretty good movie, there are numerous, not "very few" things that were left out, or just plain different from the book; a less-than-exhaustive list is:

Some extra things (u might already have listed some

[35] On The Moment That Bilbo Used The Ring(at his Party) Gandalf ignited a Rocket so that the PPL Saw a Flash and when they opened their eyes Bilbo was gone.

[36?] I cant remember Gandalf Lost his staff? en talking to a butterfly when he was captured by Saruman, then from somewere his staff is back?

[37?]Where Was Bill when they had to hide fom those Birds on the Mountain? en Bill is a Pony? not a Mule?

[38] FATTY? only at the Party!?

[39] Frodo was not stabbed by an Cave Troll , a Troll Chieftain hurled a spear to him , there was a Cave Trol but there there was Light in the Room so the cave troll did not enter it.

[40] Smeagol after they left Lothlorien.

[41] Aragorn did not see Frodo on the other side on the river (were boromir died)

[42] Boromir Killed All Those orcs , Aragorn Legolas and Gimli were looking for Frodo , they did not fight.

[43] PPL Heard Boromir's horn in gondor , they did not show that.

[44] the Boat Were they Put Boromir after he died was Filled with the Gear of the Orcs he Slain.

[45] All The Gifts that Galandriel Gave to the Fellowship were not shown , neither the Lembas(extremely important!) nor they shown Galandriel on her huge boat wishing farewell to the Fellowship.

Sirp, by the Hoarwell (the River by Rivendell) Elrond Peredhil raised the Water to Protect Frodo , the struggle that ur talking about is that Frodo wanted to Jump from the horse so that the RingWraiths could catch him , he wanted to be cought.

i could go on for hours like this... :lol:

well if u did not Read The Book and u like Fantasy adventures , THAT FILM ITS A MUST

If u Did read the Book u can either: Go To The Movie and Enjoi it while getting irritaded about the things that they did not include it in the film.
or: wait till they release some kind of Director's Cut DVD and hope that ist better.

Best Thing About The Film: ITS THE LORD OF THE RINGS! (the readers Digest of the undetailed edition in Pocket book version but still....)

Worse thing: Boromir death , they tried to make it Heroic but its still not HALF as heroic as in the book.

U Should Love Tolkien to make the movie , not (like the Producers in this case) want to make $$$$$$$$$ and more $$$$$$$$ and well u get it......
 
If any game developer stumbles into this forum, they're rich. Don't forget to add in (as someone mentioned) Valinor, and more importantly, the Valar and Melkor. Even as a special fortress you might add in Taniquetil or Thangorodirm. The only problem is that this is the kind of thing you make into a whole game. SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE THIS INTO A FULL GAME!!
Someone mentioned earlier about adding in a Balrog as a superunit. Melkor, before the Valar crushed him, had LEGIONS OF THEM!!! Melkor could be an entire side. A superunit for them could be Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs. The elves need to be more than one side though. There were the Nolder (The ones who returned to Middle-Earth: Elrond is one), the Sindar (those that never left: Legolas is of that kind I think), and the Teleri, the ocean dwellers. Durin could be the dwarven superunit. Feanor is a good idea, except that balrogs kill him right after he leads the Nolder back to Middle-Earth. There is so much content to the Idea in this whole forum, it is hard to try and make a mod to make it. Also, the person who had the long list of what was left out, IT WAS ARWEN AT THE FORD< NOT EOWYN. IT DOESN' T MATTER TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT THEY LEFT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS STILL A GOOD MOVIE!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by Sardaukar_5000
There were the Nolder (The ones who returned to Middle-Earth: Elrond is one) Feanor is a good idea, except that balrogs kill him right after he leads the Nolder back to Middle-Earth. There is so much content to the Idea in this whole forum, it is hard to try and make a mod to make it. Also, the person who had the long list of what was left out, IT WAS ARWEN AT THE FORD< NOT EOWYN. IT DOESN' T MATTER TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT THEY LEFT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS STILL A GOOD MOVIE!!!!!!

Nolder? :mad: NOLDER? :mad: [punch] :ripper: :rocket2: :slay: :sniper: :midfinger

NOLDO , NOLDOR or NOLDORIN, and its Fëanor not Feanor!!!!

Noldor is a plural term; the rarely used singular form is Noldo, and the adjective for these people is Noldorin.

The division of the Elves that followed Finwë as their lord. In the long march from Cuiviénen to the western shores of Middle-earth, they were second great host. When they reached Valinor, they learned much from Aulë the Smith, and were accounted the greatest of the Elves in matters of lore and craft.

They dwelt in Aman for many Ages, but after the Darkening of Valinor many of the Noldor forsook the Undying Lands and followed Melkor to Middle-earth. Melkor had slain Finwë and stolen the Silmarils, the work of Fëanor, the greatest craftsman of that people, and the Noldor returned to make war on him until he gave up the Great Jewels.
 
Some of you youngsters may have read the Tolkein series a few times, but few will ever match my 135 times since number 1 in 1968 in Penguin Books paperback version printed only in London. The movie is marvelous compared to prior attempts using animation and mixes. I understand, from a Hollywood post-editing company my wife's cousin works for, that the DVD will have 2 extra hours of "editting room floor" material included that will cover some of the missing stuff. Personally, the only significant thing I did not like changed was having Arwen in place of Glorfindel, the Elf Lord, on the road to the Fords,just to get in an increased "love interest." They would have been better to do Samwise and his sweetheart. Oh well, I have the book practically memorized and was impressed by many verbatum dialouges.
Anyway, the Civ 2 site that had the "5 Star" Middle Earth map and scenario was originally the Spanish Civ2 site (Spain not Latin America). I used the map myself to create a Civ 2 version of the Silmarillion(sp?) for my own use. Try the Spanish site in the links area here, it might be the same one. Otherwise . . .search kids!
 
Well in the elves there were:

Vanyar: The most noble of the elves that went to Valinor and never left other than for the Great Battle.

Noldor: The wisest elves. Them and the Sindar make up most of the elvish history of the world.

Teleri: Became ocean dwellers. Some went to Valinor, others remained on Beleriand.

Silvan elves(wood elves): Were at the Greenwood and in Eriador and Ossiriand. Really didn't do much.

Sindar: Grey elves. Realm of Doriath in Beleriand.

Avari: Dark elves in the east and in the north.

Humans

Well there were the Edain and the Easterlings that mainly appeared in the books. Also those in Harad (sp?).

The Edain could be divided into Numenor of Numenor island. Numenor of Arnor. Numenor of Gondor.
Rohorrim of Rohan.


Dwarves

Although there are supposed to be 7 different dwarf families, most aren't mentioned other than Durin's folk which mostly dwelt in Moria and then Erebor and Iron Hills.
Also dwarves that dwelt in Belegost(different father).

I guess the other dwarves were located on other parts of the world.


Hobbits

Stoor: Tallest that lived near rivers.
Harfoot: Typical, common hobbits.
Fallohide: Woodland hobbits.


Orcs

of Mordor: They would be the same as any other Orcs if Melkor is created.
of Misty Mountains: Smaller ones.
Uruk Hai: Cross between goblins and orcs.

BTW what's the difference of orcs and goblins?
 
Originally posted by JarHead


I believe, though someone will correct me if I'm wrong;) ,
goblins are original creatures from shadow, where orcs are mutated elves.

Goblins
The race of Orcs


Dates: First appeared soon after the Awakening of the Elves; apparently still extant
Origins: Made by Melkor
Race: Orcs
Meaning: Probably originally related to kobolds, spirits said to dwell in mines
Other Names: Glamhoth, Orcs, Yrch


A name for Orcs, and especially the smaller kinds that infested the Misty and the Grey Mountains in the later Third Age, and had their capital at Mount Gundabad.

Is there a difference between an 'Orc' and a 'Goblin'? The following quote from the foreword to The Hobbit sheds some light on this: "[The word 'Orc'] occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)." (Hence the statement above; 'especially the smaller kinds'). This entry concentrates on the goblins of the Grey and Misty Mountains simply because it is these Orcs that Tolkien most frequently refers to by the term 'goblin'.
The word 'goblin' is also used occasionally and indiscriminately in The Lord of the Rings; it never occurs in the The Silmarillion.

Notes
1 The relationship of 'goblin' to 'kobold' is a theory proposed by the Oxford English Dictionary, which suggests the following derivation (we've taken the liberty of expanding their standard abbreviations):
"Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *gobelin, medieval Latin gobelinus, probably from name diminutive of Gobel, related to Kobold"
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English


In fact, there are at least two other theories. The first concerns two medieval parties, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. The Guelphs were supposed to have despised their rival Ghibellines so much that their name became a 'bogey' word, and ultimately evolved into modern 'goblin'. The Ghibellines despised the Guelphs in equal measure, and so their name, too, apparently descended to modern times as 'elf'. Ingenious and economical as this theory is, it is almost certainly wrong.

A somewhat more plausible idea relates goblins back to the almost-forgotten fairy figure of Ghob, the King of the Gnomes. In Old English, the earth-spirits who followed him might well have been referred to as Ghoblings, and this gives us a third possible source of the name, somewhat older than the other two.
 
Although I don't quite have the history with LOTR that tcwonder3 has, 1970 is still a long time ago. As much as I love LOTR, I actually prefer The Silmarillion which is not as good a story - it is really a sequential series of short stories - but provides a great deal more background to Middle Earth. I have always suspected that one of the reasons for its relative lack of popularity is that it is almost unrelentingly a tragic tale with only the occasional triumph against the tide of evil. From the discussion on the various Elves, Melkor, Valinor, etc, there are clearly a few more Simarillion fans out there. Although this is not a movie criticism site, I will throw my opinion out there as well. I had worries about the movie but they proved unfounded as the movie was great. It was true to the book although stuff obviously had to be omitted to keep the length reasonable. The only omission / addition that bugged me was Arwen but it was no big deal in the overall beauty/faithful renditioning of the movie. And if one is looking for an exact word for word rendition of the book - read the book(s) and use your imagination. Taking detailed notes on deviations from the one true faith doesn't strike me as the optimum approach to enjoying a movie. It's not like this is real history, JRR made all of this up, some by altering existing folk tales. It wasn't heresy then, it isn't now; cut them some slack and enjoy a beautiful retelling of a tale that we all love.

Now for a Civ3 LOTR mod. I too would love to see such a thing. My opinion is that LOTR would make a good scenario, or at least the war ending the Third Age would. However, The Silmarillion would make the better full game as it allows colonization, empire & city growth, etc. For a full game, one would need race specific units (easy), abilities (not easy unless someone knows how to edit the existing civ specific traits which are not really applicable to elves, dwarves, orcs,...), buildings, maybe Wonders, probably terrain values, etc. Not a trivial task if one is going to capture the feeling of Middle Earth.

Also the Civ3 combat system is not exactly perfect for LOTR, although it would be passable for a full game covering the three ages of Middle Earth. I would love to use the CTP II or, even better, the MOM (Masters of Magic) combat system in such a game. I don't suppose that the Civ3 combat system can be editted to that extent but maybe someone will put out a game based on LOTR/The Silmarillion; after all the book sales and movie attendance would indicate to even the dimmest intellect in the marketing depts of software development companies that a market for such a game might exist. In the meantime, I look forward to any Civ3 mod that you guys may develop and thank you for your efforts. :goodjob:
 
not to forget trolls, olog hai, balrogs (there are several balrogs, even though it's called balrog in lotr), ents etc.

the alliance would get istarii instead of leaders right? gandalf etc.
 
Dates: Constituent parts date back to the First Age and possibly even earlier. Assembled into a complete narrative between III 3003 and III 3021
Authors: Assembled from ancient works by various authors by Bilbo Baggins
Meaning: The full title, Quenta Silmarillion, means 'Tale of the Silmarils'


While Bilbo Baggins dwelt in Rivendell, he made use of all the resources there (including the memories of living Elves) to write four scholarly volumes bound in red leather. The first of these, the Red Book of Westmarch, was continued by Bilbo's heir, Frodo. It was copied many times, and became the original source for our modern The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

The Hobbits of the Shire, though, seem to have had less interest in the other three volumes, originally entitled simply Translations from the Elvish, that told the tales of the ancient First Age and the time before. Only one copy was made, in Gondor in 172 (Fourth Age), and this was kept at Great Smials by the Took family - it became known as the Thain's Book. It is from this copy that the modern Silmarillion comes1.

The Silmarillion, which in its own words passes 'from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin'2 actually consists of a corpus of five works, of which the Quenta Silmarillion is the central tale. These are:

Ainulindalë, the tale of the Music of the Ainur and the creation of Arda.
Valaquenta, the tale of the Valar, in which the nature of each of the Powers is described.
Quenta Silmarillion, the longest tale, which gives an account of the history of Arda from its beginnings until the end of the First Age.
Akallabêth, the tale of the Second Age, which concentrates on the history of Númenor until its Downfall.
Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age, which spans the late Second Age and the Third, telling of the forging of the Rings of Power and their history up to the War of the Ring.
Notes
1 Within the context of Tolkien's tales, of course. The Silmarillion was actually written and rewritten over a period of some sixty years by J.R.R. Tolkien, and edited and published posthumously by his son Christopher.
2 From the last words of Quenta Silmarillion, in Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath
 
People!!!! It's just some books. Just a fantastic world created by someone who had the time to put it on paper for his kids. You guys are all acting like it is God on earth. Relax....

A Tolkien MOD is a good idea, but please, keep it simple. I do want to comprehend everything I do in Civ3 using the MOD.

PS: Harry Potter must DIE!!!!!
 
You didn't have to react over a misspelling feanor, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THE SYMBOL THINGY ON FEANOR"S NAME!!! I ALREADY KNEW ALL THAT STUFF!!! I OWN THE BOOK!!!! and Uto3, IT IS THE BEST FANTASY WORLD EVER IMAGINED!!!!!! Even though Feanor over reacts to MISPELLINGS he is right in his response to your heresy. Don't forget the Dark Numenoreans, the ones who followed Sauron (or are they the ones in Harad?). And everyone who wants to get back at Uto3 for his sacrilage just ramble on about the silmarils and about Aule, Manwe, Ulmo, Varda, and Yavannya (mispelled?). And to Feanor, there were THREE groups of Noldor, the ones who turned back, the ones who followed Feanor and his seven sons, and those that were forced to cross the "grinding Ice" in the north. Don't forget to possibly add something about Beren and Luthien (mispelled?), the family of Hurin, Earendil (Mispelled?) and Elwing and Elros, as Elros was the first king of Numenor. Arwen and Aragorn are actually related aren't they? PRAISE TO ILUVATAR!!!!!!
 
Hey God, you said the Noldor were the wisest of the elves, but that is not always true. Don't forget Eregion, and how they trusted Sauron.
 
But i believe in the Silmarillion the Noldor are called the wisest of elves.
Its in the section relating to how the elves left the east and went to Valinor in 3 groups.
 
IM Fëanor , im at the NOLDOR! so i was just upset by u mispelling my name :) so many times .to make a ë press ALT+0235 (then release Alt) :) that is called Ascii code. like †<--- this is code 0134 (thus press Alt and type 0134 on ur Numpad then realease alt)

AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! NOW WE GOT THE € !!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom