I am relatively new to the mythogy of Middle Earth (seen the movies only until now, just finished the first book and am heading towards the Two Towers), but what characters aside from Thalin and Berevor were completley made up by FFG? I enjoy getting into the lore of the games I play. Thanks.

not that many more actually which is good- there are a few orcs and bad guys, i dont think ufthak is a tolkien character, and the trolls from carrock, and probably a few more

ps if you enjoy lore check out my series i do (when i can) in my link below (sorry for the shameless advetisement haha)

So far just Eleanor, I think.

…plus two unique allies I believe, Brok Ironfist and Henamarth Riversong

Ufthak is one of the orcs of the Cirith Ungol garrison, I think. Not a Chieftain though, or even a Chieftan.

jjeagle said:

Good one. I laughed.

ah yes- the orc hanging in shelobs web i think

richsabre said:

I've read a few and have been meaning to read some others. Thanks. I'am a little disappointed that I recently heard elves didn't come to Helm's Deep. I was looking forward to reading more about that in the next book ;^) That brings me to another question: What do LOTR fans in general think about Jackson's trilogy in terms of how well it fits the books?

well my opinions are well know on this forum and others- basically

they are great films, perhaps 2 of the greatest films ever made (TT sucked even as a film) but as adaptions they are pretty poor

this is one of the reasons im not going to see the hobbit- despite being an huge fan….its just too dear to me, and i dont want it ruined, which going on some of the previews, i think it may be…its no problem and i personally dont feel that im missing out as my images from my first reading will always by my 'the hobbit', just as my images from the books will always be my 'lord of the rings'

the problem with the books is that they dont go well as films- im talking more about the tom bombadil/ barrowwights and so on….these things were left out and the reason was theyd make for boring cinema- most people think this ok, but i personally think if a book doest go well as an adaption without changing it alot- then quite simply- dont make it…..those parts that were left out held all the charm and magic that made middle earth so real in my imagination. if i had seen the films first i dont think i would have gotten as into it as i am now, having read all the books first……and i hold myself fortunate that i dont picture any of the actors when read the books and have all my fond memories of my read throughs

and for once people cant give the 'it gives it good publicity and spreads the books' argument….come on- tolkien's legacy will live on regardless

thats my opinions on the film- i love them as films, but i do not feel tolkien would approve, having cut out many of his best parts, and even if he would, i dont, and unlike everyone else here, i have to live with myself, so have to keep myself happy

oh yeah, and what i dislike most about the whole thing is that every thing tolkien after the films uses a red glowing eye as sauron-( that includes you ffg) its a metaphor dammit! we are given multiple references to saurons body, especially the fact he only has 4 fingers on 1 hand, now how would an eye have a hand?

richsabre said:

I kind of know where you are coming from. Being a Star Wars fan, the original trilogy holds a special place for me, and while I really enjoy aspects of the prequels, they didn't have the same magic as the source material. I liked the LOTR trilogy and will probably see the Hobbit, but I do not have as yet (will after I read Return of the King and reread The Hobbit) a reference point for thier authenticity, though I thought the first film fit the book reasonably well. Since you mentioned them, could you explain a bit more about the Barrowwights? I was a bit confused about them in the book. Thanks again.

of course

the area of the barrow down is near breeland, which lies within the old kingdom of arnor, more specifically what became Cardolan (which can be found in chapters 4 belowin my signature)

now arnor was a twin kingdom of gondor, however unlike gondor it broken, split into minor kingdoms, and eventually was pretty much ruined by the witch king in the third age, but many of their kings were buried on the barrows (which are inspired by such places in england) and afterwards the witch king sent evil spirits to inhabit them

interestinly in the original drafts tolkien had the nazgul as mounted barrow wights

richsabre said:

Ah, I see. I was confused as to whether they were ghosts or actual beings. Thanks. I have more questions, but I read through your website first as you may have already answered them.

no problem- feel free to message me whenever you like, i dont have much time to do chapters at the moment, but i still like to discuss such things

rich

I also dislike the films but for slightly different reasons than richsabre has cited. I could cite many objections, but in brief: the first one was quite promising but I rapidly became annoyed by the way Jackson's adaptation handled a number of key characters and situations, stripping them (in my view) of subtlely and nobility. Examples: Gimli (becomes a stock comedy dwarf), Denethor (just a mad fool), Faramir, Elrond (now just hates Men, and also somehow manages to teleport to Dunharrow!)

I actually think the Hobbit films will be better because the tone of the books is better suited to Jackson's knockabout approach.

PS Rich - do you know the old BBC radio dramatisation? I am just relistening to that childhood favourite - I think it is really pretty good. The scriptwriters even delved into Unfinished Tales for some of their material BUT they did axe Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs…

I agree with both of you, richsabre and jjeagle. As a Tolkien's fan, I dislike quite aspects of the films, mainly all that jjeagle commented above about changes in key characters and situations (Elrond is one of my greater concerns).

Anyways, the first film is the most accurate of the three, the third more or less, and the second one should be burning in hell forever.

That being said, I am very very worried about the Hobbit film. I saw all the Dwarves, and frankly, some of them seems all but dwarves.

As rich said, my readings of the books gave me my picture of Middle Earth, which quite differs from Peter Jackson's one.

Greetings.

I totally think the Hobbit will be much better as an adaptation. Most of the restrains that held the LotR will no longer be there. I think Jackson loves and knows the work. Yes, he's made some strange choices but he's done some very good ones, like casting Sean Bean or Ian McKellen in major roles when we could have got stars (by standards of then) instead. And I like the casting for this one even better, Freeman, Armitage, Cumberbatch are all great and non-populistic choices.

Also the amount of work that was put into the movies is beyond any other film project it seems; from planting gardens in the Shire long before shooting, to making every piece of armour; and the outcome shows. And the music is easilly one of the most memorable in cinematic history. Some of the scenes, like the charge of the Rohirrim in either of the latter two films, are just wonderful. And so is the tense and emotional action in Moria or on Amon Hen.

Still I think the movies deserved six volumes to fit the material because when you look at it, much was cut off, and much was simplified. And I think the movies could easilly stand on their own if made after each book (of which there are six).

That's why I'm happy they're making two films off the Hobbit because it lessens the chances we get simplified characters, indeed as Denethor or Elrond were in the LotR (as much as I like the actors who portrayed, especially Weaving).

lleimmoen said:

Although I am very critical of the films I agree with these points. I think the visual recreation of Middle-earth that, as you say, the films went to incredible lengths to put together, was almost universally excellent. In fact this is what makes the other failings of the films so sad - that this opportunity and this work was thrown away.

And I agree that the music is brilliant - speaking of which, does anyone else share my habit of listening to the film music while playing the game? It really enhances the experience for me. I have the symphony version and you can find this in full on youtube.

jjeagle said:

i have all the soundtracks and often listen to it whilst reading, especially the moria theme, it makes it very atmospheric

I have to say that if I had not seen the first movie, I probably would have never read the books. Personally, I think the movies are excellent. As mentioned above, I find that many of Tolkien's plot twists are difficult to incorporate in movies. The Tom Bombadil part, for example, I'm not sure if it would have been boring, as Rich suggested, but it is just irrelevant in terms of the main storyline. With 3 movies clocking in at or near 3 hours long, some things have to go.

Another thing that is difficult to incorporate is characters that play a key role, but are around only briefly. Hence why Glorfindel is nowhere to be found or for that matter, Erkenbrand in Two Towers. Instead they give Arwen and Eomer more to do, so as to have more continuity. I can understand why purists don't like it, but I think overall it works fine. The one thing I've never really understood is why the elves come to Helm's Deep, since they don't make that much of a difference, they all die there and that particular change never seems to really build into anything else.

i think with the elves it was a way to show how they 'came to the aid of men' instead of buggering off to the undying lands…..which of course didnt happens anyways as the elves played a major part in holding off dol guldur during the war of the ring, held the fellowship in lothlorien (and of course with legolas) and ive also a feeling that either galadriel of elrond was responsible for sending the grey company, which of course had the twins present at the pelennor and morannon

the whole point of the lord of the rings and elves was that tolkien was making a point- the 3rd age was the age of men, and the elves were dwindling which makes the whole thing of them coming to helms deep strange as jackson addressed this point through the rather moody and ignorant version of elrond when he states to gandalf that the ages of elves is over and gandalf says 'we must look to men' there fore its then contadictory to have them fly in action movie style at the last moment only to get slaughtered…..

also while we're on the subject, does no one think the soldiers of gondor were portrayed as patheticly bad at fighting, compared to rohan. i mean i know they were up against 100,000 orcs wheres rohan had it a bit easier, but c'mon, they were the descendants of numenor, had the best armor and weapons, they could at least have taken a few orcs down with them haha

I certainly can agree to that. Throughout the whole movie, Gondor soldiers are getting pushed around. I always recall the part when the orcs break into the city and a perfectly assembled battleline gets hammered in a matter of moments by them. Compared to that, Rohan does great since they actually wipe out many of the orcs still outside the city. But then again, how much can you expect from them? Gandalf had to rally them back to the battlements, even before the battle started, for crying out loud!

My thoughts on the movies are a bit more kinda than most of those who seem to be speaking up, but I do also get where they're all coming from and don't necessarily disagree with the points they are making.

I also disliked the elves at Helm's Deep, although largely because they were all just killed and then never even mentioned again. I disliked that Merry and Pippin basically tricked the ents into going to war, making the ent moot, well…moot.

I actually approve of the changes done with Elrond and Faramir as I felt that they made for a stronger narrative as presented in the movie, but I certainly can't begrudge anyone who thought the characters were done a disservice.

I missed the scouring of the Shire, but got why it also would have seemed like an anti-climax.

Overall I loved the casting and visuals in the movies. Those are the voices and visuals I get now in my head when I read the books.

If you looked into the history of that movie project it turns out that time and time again Peter Jackson made decisions that angered the powers that be because he was trying to uphold as much as possible of the true feel of Middle Earth.

I saw the inaccuracies, I saw what was left out. And here and there I felt a pang of disappointment, but upon examination I asked myself could I as a director/writer/producer have done better. And the answer is a resounding no. It's a different medium and it wasn't just made for the Tolkienistas (of which I am honoured to count myself) But as a film that had to stand on its own as a film. Or 10 hours or so of film to be exact.

I think we forget what a monumental gamble this trilogy was to make investing a third of a Billion bucks behind somewhat of a dark horse director.

You guys are reminding me of my friend the archeologist who walked out of the film Gladiator for its inaccuracies.

often we do these things and as i see it, we have every reason to. i mean if we have strong feelings for something which we then see tore apart, then it annoys us correct……but some people are pickier than others…personally i am stubborn as a mule when it comes to things like accuracy.

for instance, im an astrophysics student, and i cant help but cringe at the horrible innacuracies of sci fi films, using terms such as 'light years' and 'parsec' incorrectly, especially to depict length of time instead of distance…not to mention all the other aspects of physics, which being honest, if you are going to try making a film based on science, even one loosely based, you are going to want to hire a consultant. in films i have seen if such as person was hired, they want fired. quick

anyways my point is that its only natural to feel cheated out of certain aspects of the film. i did not know about the fact that jackson tried to keep true and the powers that be held him back, so i have restored a bit of respect in him, but its only shifted my annoyance elsewhere.

Like Titan mentioned above, I began reading the books as a result of watching the movies. I tried reading them when I was a teenager, but I just could not grasp Tolkien's writing style and did not finish the Fellowship. I am almost read through the trilogy now, and what strikes me as a strong deviation from the books to the films is the introduction of romance between Aragorn and Arwen. I was expecting it to play a prominent role in the novels, but it appears that it was something that Jackson developed mostly on his own, as there is just an occassional mention of the relationship in the novels. This may change as I finish TRotK, but I imagine Jackson was inclined to include the relationship to pull-in a wider audience.

My greatest fear concerning The Hobbit is that it will not live up to the lofty expectations set before it by what is THE definitive resource on the topic; the Rankin/Bass animated film.

(just kidding)