Register |
Forgot password?

Lord of the Rings General Discussion in 

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: 8192

Message: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead

Filename: plugins/modifier.capitalize.php

Line Number: 26


The series that has defined fantasy tropes of the past century is again coming to the public eye with three new movies based on the Hobbit!

So now it's time to break out your LotR hats and talk about the franchise for its extended lore, properties, and theories. No ground is left uncovered by this thread.

Let's start with a rekindled discussion of the eagles as a plothole. You can find details on its veracity here.

Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM


We've certainly been through this discussion before, and I certainly believe that it IS a plothole in an otherwise amazing story.

And the main thing that convinced me is not whether or not the plan would be possible to carry out, but the fact that this option is not mentioned at the Council of Elrond where virtually all other plans, possible or not, are suggested. That would've been the perfect place for Tolkien to quickly explain why it wouldn't be possible, if it really wouldn't.

Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I think there's some merit to that criticism, but I also think the lack of mention speaks to some level of the plot as well.

Gandalf tells the story of how eagles rescued him from Isengard, freely bringing up the possibility, but nobody pushes it. Gandalf, in his story, asked the eagle who rescued him how far he could take him - which was from Isengard to Rohan... a very short distance. I think this acknowledges pretty clearly the limitations of those eagles. Even if the group walked to the northern border of Mordor, it may be perfectly clear to everyone at the council that they couldn't fly over the mountains.

I think the key detail we're most missing is the height or impassability of the mountains - though I couldn't say with authority whether or not that detail is actually missing. BUT, assuming the omission is NOT a plothole, but in fact a reflection of knowledge all the characters already have, we can only assume that the mountains are not passable.

Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

All I will add is that I find it absolutely ridiculous that they are going to turn the Hobbit into 3 movies. If that is the case than LOTR should have been 9 movies. The Hobbit is an easy read and although a good story but 3 movies?I am just stunned that they would do this.

And I know everyone has their opinions on this, but I think it's more about getting what they can money-wise out of this movie.

I am very excited to see the Dragon Smaug and the Black forest of Mirkwood (which as I remember reading it seemed to last forever). I also want to see what the Wood Elves look and act like in the movie. So yes much to be anticipated.

UPDATE: After ripping out my old books I realize I am wrong on so many levels. Oh well, I think I have mixed up several things from the books to the movies. Thats what happens when I haven't read something in 20 years. I will add that their is a love story addition at the end of the Return of the King (at least in mine) and it goes into more detail about their relationship.

So now Im just gonna shut my fat mouth and go do what I do best, go look at the sky through my telescope hahah.

edited by Sintar on August 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Posted on August 12, 2012 at 2:15 AM

So hey, I don't mean to be *that* guy, but a few things I can mention, as I'm reading the series now for the first time in full.

Arwen in Fellowship was a nobody, you don't even know that she's in love with Aragorn. There are hints from Aragorn that she's the object of his affection throughout, but no more than hints through at least halfway into Two Towers. "My heart lies in Rivendell," he'd say, but it's so vague as to what he means.

Arwen may have reforged the sword, I'm not sure, but that entire scene in the book was no more than 2 lines. It was like, we're gonna reforge it, here you go it's done.

Arwen's key role, as I recall, in the Fellowship movie was orchestrating the river flooding to drive away the Black Riders. This magic is, in the book, orchestrated by Elrond from afar, while Glorfindel the elf-lord uses some elf light to drive the riders into the flooding river. Arwen is nowhere to be seen. Her character and role, as far as I've read thus far, were greatly enhanced in the movies. Perhaps there's something coming up in Return of the King that will change that.

Elves never showed up to defend Helms Deep, either. Legolas says "Boy, I wish we had some elven archers, these dudes suck." But, no elves show up.

Now, I believe the first Hobbit movie will go up to their escape from the wood elves' kingdom (where we'll see Legolas in new scenes, as his father is king there). Gandalf will have ridden with the dwarves up to Mirkwood, but after that point there's a whole mess of story as to his actions and motivations that we never see in the Hobbit book. I believe the second movie will focus on that, mostly. That story will show Galadriel and the Council driving Sauron out of his hold in Southern Mirkwood.

Then, beyond that, there's the whole defeat of Smaug, battle of five armies, and the re-establishment of Dale.

Peter Jackson, btw.

There's a lot of story, of course, and I do feel a bit cheated out of more Lord of the Rings work, but ultimately, I think I'm very happy with his work on the movies. I'll be especially happy if each Hobbit movie is less than 2 hours.

edited by Joshura on August 12, 2012 at 5:02 AM

Posted on August 12, 2012 at 4:46 AM

Well it was 20 years ago, Maybe I made her role a little more important than it really was. Ehhh oh well, now my opinion seems false and pathetic. Thanks Josh for putting me in my place hahah! I'm not a huge Tolkien fan as it is, It took me far too long to finish the damn books. But I do respect the work, and like I said I think I might have had an over-inflated idea of Arwen. But I still think she should have been bad ass in the movie hahah!

Posted on August 12, 2012 at 5:32 AM

I went back to read up on the topic, and it seems there is a fair amount of Arwen action in Return of the King, which I haven't gotten to yet. Perhaps your memory was just blending Two Towers and that together.

Also, it seems your assessment of her weakifying seems to be an opinion held by many. I'm all for women being strong, so that would suck.

Posted on August 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Bah, I think I did after re-reading some stuff from my books, but as I said 20 years can do alot to your brain and remembering, I can say that for so many books. It's sad I should re-read some old books from my past.

Posted on August 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Okay, so the eagles showed up at a critical battle. The Nazgul are capable of flying well above the sight of man.

The only possible reason for their exclusion from mention at the Council of Elrond would be that "they'd be spotted too quickly" was too obvious a thing to say.

Also, I think maybe Eowyn was the awesome female character you were thinking of, Sintar. She has a major role in Return of the King, and it is slightly diminished by time constraints in the movie.

edited by Joshura on September 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I've officially finished the core Lord of the Rings series (still have Silmarillion to go).

It was really good.

Edit: Silmarillion is getting my creative juices going. Very exciting.

edited by Joshura on September 13, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Posted on September 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM


Did you see it?

Posted on December 17, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Yes, I would've preferred if they had made it a bit shorter and skipped the not a part of the book parts. Also, I saw it in 3D. That was a mistake.

Posted on December 17, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I felt like Peter Jackson couldn't decide between making a movie out of the Hobbit and making another LotR-style epic movie as he'd done before.

Everything to do with Thorin really felt out of place... nothing about him is humorous, and placed among these goofy dwarves, he sticks out to the point his backstory seems like parody.

It was trying to be two different types of movies, but I liked both of those movies on their own. Together, it was weird, but still enjoyable.

Bilbo was perfect in characterization, but Peter Jackson is trying to make him seem like a grand epic hero who performs great deeds, not the small deeds humble hero that Tolkien wrote him to be.

Posted on December 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM


Post Reply

You must be logged in to post in the forums.