Was it just me, or was it hard not to see the orcs and goblins as, if not good guys, then at least rational?
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
Dunno. I got my fill of this stuff when I watched five billion hours' worth of Lord of the Rings back when Korea was around. The only reason I'd have to watch The Hobbitt would be to evaluate the 48 FPS screening, and that's not being shown around here, and even if it were it's not really worth it to see thee more hours of Middle Earth.
I thought the orcs attacked Moria, not the other way around. :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I thought the orcs attacked Moria, not the other way around. :unsure:
The way it's cast in the Hobbit, Moria had been abandoned, orcs had moved in, and the dwarves show up to claim it as their own.
I beg to differ in 1947 the Orcs declared they were going to throw the Dwarves into the sea. The Dwarves, however, under the leadership of David son of Gurion managed not only to throw them back but also conquer the plains of Negev and the mines of Galilee. :ph34r:
I struggled to stay awake during the movie. It's a two and a half hour cock tease. When's the next one coming out?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
Was it just me, or was it hard not to see the orcs and goblins as, if not good guys, then at least rational?
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
Just saw it yesteday on IMAX, with all the bells and whistles. Thought it looked great.
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937 as a book for kids - a very different proposal from the theme of "The Lord of the Rings", where Tolkien just wanted to create a good story. As a result, characters are more multi-dimensional (even Smaug is) than they would become later. So, you'll relate easier with them than in LoTR.
Also, Jackson got stuff from the Silmarillion (a collection of lost tales used by Tolkien as reference) and as a result he has a huge amount of lore to dwell into. Using that to increase the length of the 'Hobbit', he can add some extra stuff, like the fact that the Dwarves had lost Moria to the orcs earlier, and had tried to reclaim it in the past (several times, in fact).
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
Was it just me, or was it hard not to see the orcs and goblins as, if not good guys, then at least rational?
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
I thought the Moria bit was completely unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, Thrain lost his mind in the dungeons of the Necromancer and didn't die in battle against a white orc.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I thought the orcs attacked Moria, not the other way around. :unsure:
The way it's cast in the Hobbit, Moria had been abandoned, orcs had moved in, and the dwarves show up to claim it as their own.
So they are a greedy gold-loving bunch of people who show up to an inhabited area and attempt to take it back based on some ancient claim? :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on December 16, 2012, 10:46:22 AM
I beg to differ in 1947 the Orcs declared they were going to throw the Dwarves into the sea. The Dwarves, however, under the leadership of David son of Gurion managed not only to throw them back but also conquer the plains of Negev and the mines of Galilee. :ph34r:
I was too late. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on December 16, 2012, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
Was it just me, or was it hard not to see the orcs and goblins as, if not good guys, then at least rational?
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
I thought the Moria bit was completely unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, Thrain lost his mind in the dungeons of the Necromancer and didn't die in battle against a white orc.
It takes a tremendous amount of unnecessary stuff to turn a 200 page kids book into 3 3 hour movies.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
I'm confused (been a long time since I read The Hobbit). The Dwarfs dug Moria. How would they ethnically cleanse Orcs from a place they created?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
I'm confused (been a long time since I read The Hobbit). The Dwarfs dug Moria. How would they ethnically cleanse Orcs from a place they created?
Kill every single Orc they encounter. Deportation is never mentioned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
I'm confused (been a long time since I read The Hobbit). The Dwarfs dug Moria. How would they ethnically cleanse Orcs from a place they created?
So by your logic, if Native Americans started killing white Americans today, it wouldn't be ethnic cleansing?
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Do you know that Tolkien served in the Palestine mandate occupation forces in the immediate aftermath of WW1?
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 02:16:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Do you know that Tolkien served in the Palestine mandate occupation forces in the immediate aftermath of WW1?
So did a lot of Brits.
But, by all means, do elaborate on how Tolkien's Orcs and Dwarves are metaphors for the Muddled East conflict regarding the Zionist Entity. I really want to see how this example of boilerplate European antisemitism fleshes out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 02:16:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Do you know that Tolkien served in the Palestine mandate occupation forces in the immediate aftermath of WW1?
So did a lot of Brits.
But, by all means, do elaborate on how Tolkien's Orcs and Dwarves are metaphors for the Muddled East conflict regarding the Zionist Entity. I really want to see how this example of boilerplate European antisemitism fleshes out.
Trolled. :D
I hope you fall off your bike and impale yourself on a menorah.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 02:16:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Do you know that Tolkien served in the Palestine mandate occupation forces in the immediate aftermath of WW1?
So did a lot of Brits.
But, by all means, do elaborate on how Tolkien's Orcs and Dwarves are metaphors for the Muddled East conflict regarding the Zionist Entity. I really want to see how this example of boilerplate European antisemitism fleshes out.
You do realize that we all were being tongue in cheek and making fun of it, right? :D
I hate all of you, like you hate the Jews.
Quote from: Syt on December 16, 2012, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
Was it just me, or was it hard not to see the orcs and goblins as, if not good guys, then at least rational?
"The Orc King wants to kill Thorin to wipe out the line that tried to invade his people's home and ethnically cleanse them from Moria." Err.
I thought the Moria bit was completely unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, Thrain lost his mind in the dungeons of the Necromancer and didn't die in battle against a white orc.
Thrain didn't die in Moria in the movie, it was Thror, Thorin's grandfather. The only thing that is said about Thrain is that he lost his mind during the battle and dissappeared.
Remember, for all their cruel acts, the Orc might just be a grunt bent under the weight of evil orders. Tolkien once wrote, "we were all Orcs in the Great War" about them.
Wasn't that an expression of regret about having created the orcs (and many other species and races) as beings incapable of redemption?
Tolkien did in fact say that he used many Jewish influences for the dwarves. Hell, they even speak a Semitic language.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
That argument doesn't work for Tolkien since LOTR was so obviously about the Atom Bomb which it pre-dated by a decade.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 04:51:08 PM
Wasn't that an expression of regret about having created the orcs (and many other species and races) as beings incapable of redemption?
I believe it was more about whether they were innately evil or corrupt. He is also supposed to have said to Christopher that Orcs fought on both sides.
I can see the moral ambiguity in Moria. Do the Dwarfs have property rights in perpetuity because they dug it? Or can the Orcs reasonably argue that the Dwarfs voluntarily surrendered those rights when they vacated it?
You know Faeliin, when someone says they're not familiar with all the relevant facts, you're supposed to supply those facts, not bite his head off for not knowing them.
As PDH and others have touched on, there is moral ambiguity throughout Tolkien's work. Humans are better because they have good posture and are nice looking, not because they practice a more ethical brand of international relations. Gondor conquered the shit out of the southern lands, but that's a laudable thing in the Tolkien universe. Very Old Testament in that way. You're the good guys not because of how you behave but because it was decided ahead of time you're the good guys.
And you can't really claim the various human governments have any more legitimacy than Sauron. You never hear an Orc complaining about the leadership of the bad guys, or whether all the stakeholders are fully empowered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2012, 05:23:27 PMAnd you can't really claim the various human governments have any more legitimacy than Sauron. You never hear an Orc complaining about the leadership of the bad guys, or whether all the stakeholders are fully empowered.
+1 What I don't get is how in literature the bad guys managed to every single time to create a force of fierce well motivated determined characters which do their best for the common good by taking suicidal risks to prevent the good guy from achieving his goals while the good guys are perpetually distracted by alternative objectives (e.g. staying alive) and are continually infiltrated by spies and traitors.
The orcs seem to be quite happy, well adjusted, well motivated and working for a common purpose. Can't say the same about even the most heroic humans.
The thing is also that, in the books, the orcs didn't simply kill the dwarf king in battle, but actually captured him and subjected him to torture before executing him. Not exactly a goodwill gesture, that kinda made things personal for the dwarfs.
I think that's partially due to natural connection between Orcs, Trolls and the Dark Lord. Orcs are descended from Elves; they have a supernatural element that Tolkein's humans really don't, at least not naturally.
Quote from: Viking on December 16, 2012, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2012, 05:23:27 PMAnd you can't really claim the various human governments have any more legitimacy than Sauron. You never hear an Orc complaining about the leadership of the bad guys, or whether all the stakeholders are fully empowered.
+1 What I don't get is how in literature the bad guys managed to every single time to create a force of fierce well motivated determined characters which do their best for the common good by taking suicidal risks to prevent the good guy from achieving his goals while the good guys are perpetually distracted by alternative objectives (e.g. staying alive) and are continually infiltrated by spies and traitors.
The orcs seem to be quite happy, well adjusted, well motivated and working for a common purpose. Can't say the same about even the most heroic humans.
If Sauron had gassed six million Dwarves, would we still be having this argument?
It has to be remembered that Tolkien (at least in the Silmarillion and the LoTR) wrote from the point of view of the eventual victors. He intentionally wrote fake histories/sagas about events that put things in, at best, a potentially skewed light. Dwarves in the Silmarillion, for example, are scheming little backstabbers because the elves portray them this way. The hordes of darkness in the LoTR might also have been highly inflated, it made the victory all the better.
History isn't always written by the winners, but history isn't always about facts either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2012, 05:23:27 PM
You know Faeliin, when someone says they're not familiar with all the relevant facts, you're supposed to supply those facts, not bite his head off for not knowing them.
Who's biting your head off? It seems directly analogous.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2012, 05:46:28 PM
Who's biting your head off? It seems directly analogous.
It would be directly analogous if the Indians had walked across the Bering land bridge and filled in the sea with dirt they had carried from Asia to create North and South America.
Well this turned stupid quick.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
Well this turned stupid quick.
I'm going to go start a thread about
Watership Down and pre-war Stalinism.
Went and saw it with my son today.
It was well done, I don't understand the whining about the effects or the FPS or whatever.
It was long, and I say that as someone who thinks the longer LOTR movies are a distinct improvement over the movie cuts. This was long, and I am not sure that the length added to the movie. It was just...long.
I hate deus ex machina "saves", and it had a couple of those, which is annoying. But still, overall it was a solid film.
Some very excellent trailers. Big budget sci-fi FTW.
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
I struggled to stay awake during the movie. It's a two and a half hour cock tease. When's the next one coming out?
My birthday next year. :)
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 03:49:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 02:16:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 10:59:35 AM
That said, "The Hobbit" was written in 1937
So, in other words, it's wasn't intended to be an allegory on Palestine and Israel, just interpreted by Europeans that way. Roger that.
Do you know that Tolkien served in the Palestine mandate occupation forces in the immediate aftermath of WW1?
So did a lot of Brits.
But, by all means, do elaborate on how Tolkien's Orcs and Dwarves are metaphors for the Muddled East conflict regarding the Zionist Entity. I really want to see how this example of boilerplate European antisemitism fleshes out.
You do realize that we all were being tongue in cheek and making fun of it, right? :D
That could work except for Europe's track record when "making fun". :zipped:
Quote from: PDH on December 16, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
I believe it was more about whether they were innately evil or corrupt. He is also supposed to have said to Christopher that Orcs fought on both sides.
Seems to come out of the same regret. I don't see any support of that in the text.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2012, 08:25:58 PMI hate deus ex machina "saves", and it had a couple of those, which is annoying. But still, overall it was a solid film.
I also though that it had a couple of them too many. Then when I came back home I checked how much additional stuff had been put there that wasn't in the novel and found that the two more annoying ones ([spoiler]Gandalf saving the dwarfs from the goblins and the Eagles saving the party from the orcs[/spoiler]) were actually in the book, so I guess that I might have a bit of a rosy coloured view of it.
The Orcs are supposed to be cruel, inhuman abominations that arose from torture and dark sorcery by an evil power. Any ambiguity here comes solely from the mind of the reader.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 08:56:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 16, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
I believe it was more about whether they were innately evil or corrupt. He is also supposed to have said to Christopher that Orcs fought on both sides.
Seems to come out of the same regret. I don't see any support of that in the text.
Of course not - read my later post. They are supposed to be histories/sagas-like written with a specific viewpoint.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2012, 09:03:45 PM
The Orcs are supposed to be cruel, inhuman abominations that arose from torture and dark sorcery by an evil power. Any ambiguity here comes solely from the mind of the reader.
This is the impression I got from the text. I think it's hypothetically possible that someone with some Orcish blood-a hill tribesman or something-might have at some point done something for the cause, but the idea that an Uruk Hai let alone a full blooded Mordor Orc would flip sides doesn't strike me as something plausible in the text.
May be geekiest conversation on Languish in some months.
There's nothing wrong with 'ethnically cleansing' evil.
Quote from: Neil on December 16, 2012, 09:25:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with 'ethnically cleansing' evil.
Or polacks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2012, 09:28:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 16, 2012, 09:25:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with 'ethnically cleansing' evil.
Or polacks.
Hans Frank failed to save us from Martinus. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 16, 2012, 05:42:30 PM
If Sauron had gassed six million Dwarves, would we still be having this argument?
Well, hitler did and the only guys to fight to the death were the ones who knew they were going to be executed after the war. The fundamental problem of nazism was it's inability to find good help, which Lex Luthor and the Joker manage easily.
Quote from: PDH on December 16, 2012, 05:42:41 PM
Dwarves in the Silmarillion, for example, are scheming little backstabbers because the elves portray them this way.
As I'm rereading the book for the... 6th or 7th time, I'd like to clarify that the only dwarves who get a bad rap are the "petty-dwarves", aka Mîm and his surviving son, who betray Túrin's company. The rest of the dwarves generally come off in a positive or at least neutral light in terms of the story, which is primarily the story of the Noldor and their struggles in the main body of the book. The dwarves trade with the elves and help them on occasion against Morgoth, establishing close relations with a few different communities of the Noldor in particular due to their mutual love of crafting fine and wondrous things.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 17, 2012, 04:46:55 AM
Quote from: PDH on December 16, 2012, 05:42:41 PM
Dwarves in the Silmarillion, for example, are scheming little backstabbers because the elves portray them this way.
As I'm rereading the book for the... 6th or 7th time, I'd like to clarify that the only dwarves who get a bad rap are the "petty-dwarves", aka Mîm and his surviving son, who betray Túrin's company. The rest of the dwarves generally come off in a positive or at least neutral light in terms of the story, which is primarily the story of the Noldor and their struggles in the main body of the book. The dwarves trade with the elves and help them on occasion against Morgoth, establishing close relations with a few different communities of the Noldor in particular due to their mutual love of crafting fine and wondrous things.
Was it the Dwarven city of Nogrod or the Dwarven city of Belegost that sent the army that sacked Menegroth; I forget?
As to the Hobbit (movie) I haven't seen it; as to the Hobbit (setting) what's this stuff about the Dwarves voluntarily quitting Moria/Khazad-Dum? They were driven out when the Balrog killed "Durin-the-high-number-I've-forgotten-and-cannot-be-bothered-to-look-up." That's why the Balrog is known as "Durin's Bane" to the Dwarves.