The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Ungoliant was her name. I cheated and looked it up on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungoliant


The article and some of the links therein, claim that she had Shelob(immaculate conception or what?) and that the spiders in Mirkwood were of Shelob's brood.
But it also states that the article isn't supported by enough reliable, secondary sources to be considered "concrete."

I always imagined the spiders in Mirkwood to be oversized, but not giants. Maybe like the size of a huge pumpkin.

Many details of the spiders are lacking, but I think you are right about the spiders of Mirkwood. Michael Hague's illustrations in his version of The Hobbit seem to fit my idea of their size. From hints in LotR, Shelob was certainly (generationally at least) related to Ungoliant; one can only imagine the fate of their unfortunate mates! Other than Morgoth, Ungoliant was probably responsible for the most damage in the First Age, because she poisoned and killed the Two Trees of Valinor. All of the events that happened after that were related to that event, because the the light in the Silmarils was all that remained of them. Everything in the First Age was bigger and badder than what we see in LotR; there are tons of material for movies, and I imagine some will eventually be made. Feanor (and perhaps Beren), being the most "dramatic" of all of Tolkien's characters, would be prime subject matter.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

Feanor is noob & kinslayer.

His brother, Fingolfin is mightier. He almost pwned Melkor.



@Gandalf Stormcrow: You still haven't finished Silmarillion?

Don't make me laugh. The only reason Fingolfin is there to begin with is because he chose to follow Feanor, right?
Feanor is most definitely a kinslayer, but his story seems to be the thread that ties the elflore of the first age, to all that follows after.

He made the Silmarils.
He defied the Valar.
He chased Melkor to the ends of the earth.

Besides the story of Feanor, I think the story of the "Children of Hurin" is possibly the saddest and most "epic" among the tales of the elves.

Fingolfin!!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Many details of the spiders are lacking, but I think you are right about the spiders of Mirkwood. Michael Hague's illustrations in his version of The Hobbit seem to fit my idea of their size. From hints in LotR, Shelob was certainly (generationally at least) related to Ungoliant; one can only imagine the fate of their unfortunate mates! Other than Morgoth, Ungoliant was probably responsible for the most damage in the First Age, because she poisoned and killed the Two Trees of Valinor. All of the events that happened after that were related to that event, because the the light in the Silmarils was all that remained of them. Everything in the First Age was bigger and badder than what we see in LotR; there are tons of material for movies, and I imagine some will eventually be made. Feanor (and perhaps Beren), being the most "dramatic" of all of Tolkien's characters, would be prime subject matter.

Grand Bob, maybe this is a discussion for the Lord of the Rings group you started, but I recently started reading the "Reader's Companion" to LoTR that you told me about. I haven't read very far, but I was shocked to learn that the 2004 edition of the text is NOT the most recent. It says there were more errors introduced then which were corrected in the 2005 text. 2005 text? Never heard of it. I also don't see any editions that are 2005. Do you know anything about this?

[Riff Magnum]

I also thought the Teleri's reasoning for not letting Feanor and his company make use of their boats was a little on the weak side. Not saying Feanor's reaction was justified, i just think, you know, that the Teleri should've obliged them, considering their mission and objective. The teleri weren't even concerned about the fact that Feanor had gone against the will of the Valar by heading east. It seems only pride in their work as shipbuilders kept them from aiding their kin, even when Feanor reminds the Teleri that they at one time were the beneficiaries of the Noldor's kindness and kinship.


Feanor is one complicated Elf.

[Witch King of Angmar]

I am reading hobbit again.

The first chapter is so awesome and funny.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

I am reading hobbit again.

The first chapter is so awesome and funny.

From reading the first chapter of that, you'd almost get the impression Tolkien didn't really like his family or have a lot of friends.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Grand Bob, maybe this is a discussion for the Lord of the Rings group you started, but I recently started reading the "Reader's Companion" to LoTR that you told me about. I haven't read very far, but I was shocked to learn that the 2004 edition of the text is NOT the most recent. It says there were more errors introduced then which were corrected in the 2005 text. 2005 text? Never heard of it. I also don't see any editions that are 2005. Do you know anything about this?

The most recent texts I have are the 50th anniversary edition and the smaller hardback (and paperback) version that was released a year later. They both have a 2004 copyright. The smaller hardback is said to incorporate all of the corrections by Hammond, Scull, and Christopher Tolkien that are mentioned in the Reader's Companion. It was released in 2005; I wonder if that is what is being referenced? Also, the 2004 U.K. edition of The Hobbit supposedly has been completely correctly, according to Harper Collins.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I also thought the Teleri's reasoning for not letting Feanor and his company make use of their boats was a little on the weak side. Not saying Feanor's reaction was justified, i just think, you know, that the Teleri should've obliged them, considering their mission and objective. The teleri weren't even concerned about the fact that Feanor had gone against the will of the Valar by heading east. It seems only pride in their work as shipbuilders kept them from aiding their kin, even when Feanor reminds the Teleri that they at one time were the beneficiaries of the Noldor's kindness and kinship.

I had the same reaction when reading those passages, and I think Tolkien may have been "reaching" to illustrate that the Elves had a fall (similar to the fall of Biblical Adam), which he described in his letters as an important component of an epic tale. Similarly, Feanor's burning of the boats at Losgar to prevent Fingolfin and the Noldor from using them seemed to be somewhat overly dramatic.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The most recent texts I have are the 50th anniversary edition and the smaller hardback (and paperback) version that was released a year later. They both have a 2004 copyright. The smaller hardback is said to incorporate all of the corrections by Hammond, Scull, and Christopher Tolkien that are mentioned in the Reader's Companion. It was released in 2005; I wonder if that is what is being referenced? Also, the 2004 U.K. edition of The Hobbit supposedly has been completely correctly, according to Harper Collins.

Yes, I have that smaller "50th Anniversary" Hardback. It says 2004, but it has the 2005 corrections in it. Of course there are two more errors that were found in the Appendices after the 2005 edition was published. Perhaps by 2014 they will have an error free version available for the 60th Anniversary edition. It's a shame that the bigger 50th Anniversary Deluxe edition didn't get the later corrections. Personally I think H-M should have done a later version of that edition with the 2005 corrections in it.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I had the same reaction when reading those passages, and I think Tolkien may have been "reaching" to illustrate that the Elves had a fall (similar to the fall of Biblical Adam), which he described in his letters as an important component of an epic tale. Similarly, Feanor's burning of the boats at Losgar to prevent Fingolfin and the Noldor from using them seemed to be somewhat overly dramatic.

I think that episode is probably something that would make a lot more sense after the author had fully fleshed it out in his narrative idiom. There are a lot of things in literature that utterly lose their meaning when presented strictly in the form of working notes. That portion of the book (the whole first 30% or so), to me, appears the most "unfinished". That's the real shame of having an unfinished book: we will never fully know what it was that he was trying to say.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

I am reading hobbit again.

The first chapter is so awesome and funny.

Bilbo's scream when he realizes that he is being recruited to steal the Dwarves' treasure from a dragon should provide an amusing scene.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Bilbo's scream when he realizes that he is being recruited to steal the Dwarves' treasure from a dragon should provide an amusing scene.

Anyone else think that Gandalf has a dark streak in him when he says about the adventure "Very amusing for me, very good for you, and quite profitable too, if you ever get over it."

Having said that, Gandalf expected to be with the company all of the way, i imagine.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

Anyone else think that Gandalf has a dark streak in him when he says about the adventure "Very amusing for me, very good for you, and quite profitable too, if you ever get over it."

That brings to mind many of the maxims and sayings that are found throughout the story. Being lighter in subject matter than LotR, if it is done correctly the movie could be quite humorous. Also, I hope that Jackson keeps the dialog to the proper characters in the book. IMO, it was a minor annoyance in the LotR movies to have characters speak other characters' lines (or lines out of sequence). But hey, right now I would just be happy to see the movies in production.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That brings to mind many of the maxims and sayings that are found throughout the story. Being lighter in subject matter than LotR, if it is done correctly the movie could be quite humorous. Also, I hope that Jackson keeps the dialog to the proper characters in the book. IMO, it was a minor annoyance in the LotR movies to have characters speak other characters' lines (or lines out of sequence). But hey, right now I would just be happy to see the movies in production.

Something tells me that the films will move into production before year's end. There's not really much more to resolve on the MGM front now Spyglass are taking over.

[mjbethancourt]

Is anybody else horribly disappointed at the report that Martin Freeman had to decline the offer to play Bilbo?:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...bilbo-baggins/

I thought he would have been just perfect for the part. I really can't think of anybody that I would rather have playing Bilbo.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Is anybody else horribly disappointed at the report that Martin Freeman had to decline the offer to play Bilbo?:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...bilbo-baggins/

I thought he would have been just perfect for the part. I really can't think of anybody that I would rather have playing Bilbo.

Hmmm, if production hasn't even started or hasn't even been scheduled, then how does he know "the Hobbit" would conflict with his other show "Sherlock?" Seems like there's still a chance if the schedules end up not conflicting. It seems he wants to do it, but an actor can't just sit there waiting either. Frustrating.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Hmmm, if production hasn't even started or hasn't even been scheduled, then how does he know "the Hobbit" would conflict with his other show "Sherlock?" Seems like there's still a chance if the schedules end up not conflicting. It seems he wants to do it, but an actor can't just sit there waiting either. Frustrating.

I am doing BACKFLIPS over this news as i cannot stand Freeman as an actor. Every role he plays is that of a tetchy dour pessimist, which is basically his own personality. Yes, thank you, thank god he's out of the running for the role.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

I am doing BACKFLIPS over this news as i cannot stand Freeman as an actor. Every role he plays is that of a tetchy dour pessimist, which is basically his own personality. Yes, thank you, thank god he's out of the running for the role.

Well, Bilbo isn't exactly an optimist. That combined with his age and look are probably the reasons why everyone else thought it was a good fit.

[Walts Ghost]

I thought Freeman would have knocked the role out of the park, sad to see he can't have take the role

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by pj_campbell

I thought Freeman would have knocked the role out of the park, sad to see he can't have take the role

He's turned down a role for a movie that doesn't even have a production schedule. There's still a chance, imo.