[quote=""Olorin""]Right on both counts! [/quote]
I look forward to it

For me, the Professor strengthened my life's code.

'Choose to do what is right instead of what is easy'

Well we have all discussed PJ's adaptations and changes, for better or for worse etc, especially with Sauron, the ringwraiths and Dol Guldur...

I have been reading The Fellowship and Gandalf states " Indeed, I spoke of the once for you; for the Black Riders are the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings. But I did not know that they had arisen again or I should have fled with you at once..."

Yes I know PJ took some liberties and made some changes and went against some of the stated events in the Tolkien world, but it clearly states that Gandalf didn't know about the ringwraiths being active again, which means, they couldn't have been at Dol Guldur, or Gandalf is a forgetful old fool (as PJ sometimes portrays him to be)

[quote=""BladeCollector""]...
Yes I know PJ took some liberties and made some changes and went against some of the stated events in the Tolkien world, but it clearly states that Gandalf didn't know about the ringwraiths being active again, which means, they couldn't have been at Dol Guldur, or Gandalf is a forgetful old fool (as PJ sometimes portrays him to be)[/quote]

Now you know why Valkrist would rend his garments every time PJ did something [seriously] non canonical that threw entire timelines off kilter.

And really, with all of PJ's Dol Guldur "creativity" Val has likely, by now, run out of any more garments to rend...

Seriously, can you imagine if I 'Hulked out' every time PJ monkeyed around with Tolkien's established lore? I may as well move into the clothing section of a department store because I'd be going through garments like crazy.

BC, now you can begin to fully appreciate what a complex web Tolkien wove with all these events, characters, and timelines, and how casually they've been tossed aside or altered at the writers' whim in these movies. Interestingly, for being the more complex tale, PJ managed to keep LoTR fairly close to its written counterpart. Time compressions and elves at Helm's Deep aside, he did an admirable job of sticking to the lore and making only minor alterations. With the Hobbit being stretched into three movies, the need for filler overrode common sense and any overt desire to stick to correct Middle-earth history and lore. PJ truly deviated into an alternate universe with the changes he made. In his desperation to make connections with his LoTR movies, he pushed the Hobbit farther away from Tolkien.

Perhaps PJ drew from that quote about the Nazgul being "risen again" in order to justify that they were dead? Obviously that kind of terminology implies they died in order to be arisen again. I don't know if that's What Tolkien intended, but it makes the idea plausible. As far as I'm concerned, the Nazgul spin didn't butcher the storyline. It could have done without, but Sauron needed some form of presence around Dol Goldur besides himself. Just having Saruman and Elrond killing some orcs wouldn't have much impact. Unfortunately, I think using the Nazgul was just too convenient of a theatrical tool not to be included.

I do indeed imagine that PJ and his writers could have drawn on the comment about the Nazgul being risen again to create the whole "died and resurrected by the Necromancer" idea. Unfortunately, that's an interpretation that is not supported by the rest of the lore, as has already been pointed out in this thread. However, it's cool that one of us can recall some tiny bit of information from the book that starts a whole new discussion within this thread.

In other news, it seems like I heard something on the news about a man wandering naked around Vancouver.

I can certainly see how PJ and co. went off on that tangent, but I cannot find it in me to excuse him for it because there is a preponderance of evidence in Tolkien's work against that. He can't just say: "Well, you could look at it this way..." because, while the less wise and knowledgeable folk of Middle-earth might believe that the Nazgul were indeed killed upon their defeat (and here is a whole other can of worms because only the Witch-king was defeated during the fall of Angmar; the other eight were not even there!) the viewer with any knowledge of the books knows that this cannot happen. None of the things wrought by the power of the One could be unmade until its destruction, and this very much included the continued existence of the Nine as wraiths within the world of shadows.

I can partly blame Tolkien for the unfortunate use of the term 'Necromancer,' however. I'm sure he later came to regret it, and I wonder that he did not alter it when incorporating The Hobbit into the greater tale of Middle-earth and subsquent printings of that book. At the time he used it, it probably felt natural, a name given by common folk to some human sorcerer up to no good in the depths of the ill-reputed Mirkwood. Of course, PJ took the name and ran with it. This may sound odd given my argument, but I actually enjoyed the lines in the White Council scene in AUJ when Saruman sticks to the lore and scoffs at the notion of someone having the power to raise or manipulate the dead. In a way, it is almost as if Tolkien were speaking though him. Unfortunately, the others push on with the argument that the Nazgul died and are now back, and later prove Saruman 'wrong' with that whole tombs scene and the continued references to the death of the Nine. Galadriel's speech about it is particularly painful because she would be the last character in ME to spout such erroneous nonsense in the books, yet in the movie PJ forces her to mangle the lore.

Oops... looks like I just lost my clothes again! Hey, do you suppose this makes me Emperor of Vancouver?

Except that Eowyn destroys the Witch-king of Angmar. She fulfills Glorfindel's prophecy that the Witch-king would meet his doom not by the hand of man, but will still fall nonetheless. I think the quote is, "He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." So technically one of the Nine was unmade before the destruction of the ring's power. I think

[quote=""Valkrist""]Oops... looks like I just lost my clothes again! Hey, do you suppose this makes me Emperor of Vancouver? [/quote]

No, in the current context you are the Master of Vancouver! Just watch out for those sloppy, stringy mountain oysters!

[quote=""Striders_Heir""]Except that Eowyn destroys the Witch-king of Angmar. She fulfills Glorfindel's prophecy that the Witch-king would meet his doom not by the hand of man, but will still fall nonetheless. I think the quote is, "He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." So technically one of the Nine was unmade before the destruction of the ring's power. I think [/quote]

Yes, and Tolkien specifically included language in his description of the Witch-king's undoing that only the Barrow-blade, embued with spells for the downfall of Angmar, could have broken the spell that knit the Witch-king's undead flesh to his will and spirit. Or words to that effect.

[quote=""Striders_Heir""]Except that Eowyn destroys the Witch-king of Angmar. She fulfills Glorfindel's prophecy that the Witch-king would meet his doom not by the hand of man, but will still fall nonetheless. I think the quote is, "He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." So technically one of the Nine was unmade before the destruction of the ring's power. I think [/quote]

Excellent point, SH, and one which has been debated much.

That event can be viewed in one of two ways: Tolkien engages in a rare case of breaking his own rule, or he leaves just enough ambiguity in his words for one to interpret another possible outcome.

Glorfindel's exact words to Earnur at Fornost were: "Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man shall he fall."

The words to watch out for here are doom and fall. The easiest way to read this is that the Witch-king will meet his final fate in a far-off day, which we later learn is at Eowyn's hand during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Indeed, the scene as written seems fairly final: Merry stabs the the wraith with the Dagger of Westerness, which was specifically enspelled to unbind the sorceries that protected his immortal form, and then Eowyn delivers the supposedly killing blow that fulfills the prophecy. To all intents and purposes, the Lord of the Morgul is vanquished.

However, was it possible for him to truly die?

To say yes runs counter to the nature of the Nazgul, their curse, and the power that the One Ring exercised over them since the day they put on the Nine.

My belief is that what happened to the Witch-king at that moment was no different than when Isildur cut off the One Ring from Sauron's finger and 'vanquished' him as well. Sauron did not die, though the whole world believed him dead, and likewise I don't think the Witch-king could truly ever be killed with finality until such time as the One was destroyed. Always in the past, after a defeat, it would take Sauron many, many years to regain form and strength after a major defeat, and given sufficient time, especially if Sauron had been able to regain the One, I have no doubt that the Witch-king would have returned. Sauron still held the Nine Rings, and with the One still in existence, the Nazgul were immortal, prophecy or not. Sadly for the Witch-king, the One Ring gets dumped in Mount Doom and he, along with the other eight, are undone forever. Still, had Frodo failed, I don't think Middle-earth would have seen the end of the Morgul Lord. It may have taken centuries, but I think he would have reformed eventually. Such was their power.

Now, this is just a theory, of course, and one that cannot be proven because the Ring was destroyed, but I'm going based on everything else Tolkien wrote about it and the Nine. Doom means fate, and fall does not necessarily mean death. Tolkien's choice of words for the prophecy may have been flowery, but it gives one enough pause to see if there is wiggle room between the lines, and given what is known about the Nine and their enslavement to the One while it endures, I don't think the Witch-king was killed in that moment, only his spectral body and ability to interact with the physical world undone for a long time to come. His spirit, like Sauron's, would have endured.

Either that, or Tolkien decided that it made for a better story to have him die. He wrote the books, he can break his own rules.

[quote=""Olorin""] broken the spell that knit the Witch-king's undead flesh to his will and spirit. Or words to that effect.[/quote]

Ah yes, but again, the language: knit flesh to will and spirit. You could unbind one from the other with the dagger, and slay the flesh, but could his will and spirit truly be vanquished while the One endured? I still contend that there is a possibility the Witch-king's spirit remained, and given sufficient time and the continued existence of the One in Middle-earth, that he could have once again regained form. Every time these guys suffered a major defeat or a possible 'fall,' they always returned, unrobbed and weakened before their Lord, as with their supposed drowning at the Ford of Bruinen.

Great discussion! Say PJ is forgiven about everything, one thing that bothers me about the Nine in the Hobbit is, how does one go about chaining nine basically noncorporeal beings into tombs?

[quote=""Valkrist""]My belief is that what happened to the Witch-king at that moment was no different than when Isildur cut off the One Ring from Sauron's finger and 'vanquished' him as well. Sauron did not die, though the whole world believed him dead, and likewise I don't think the Witch-king could truly ever be killed with finality until such time as the One was destroyed. Always in the past, after a defeat, it would take Sauron many, many years to regain form and strength after a major defeat, and given sufficient time, especially if Sauron had been able to regain the One, I have no doubt that the Witch-king would have returned. Sauron still held the Nine Rings, and with the One still in existence, the Nazgul were immortal, prophecy or not. Sadly for the Witch-king, the One Ring gets dumped in Mount Doom and he, along with the other eight, are undone forever. Still, had Frodo failed, I don't think Middle-earth would have seen the end of the Morgul Lord. It may have taken centuries, but I think he would have reformed eventually. Such was their power.

Now, this is just a theory, of course, and one that cannot be proven because the Ring was destroyed, but I'm going based on everything else Tolkien wrote about it and the Nine. Doom means fate, and fall does not necessarily mean death. Tolkien's choice of words for the prophecy may have been flowery, but it gives one enough pause to see if there is wiggle room between the lines, and given what is known about the Nine and their enslavement to the One while it endures, I don't think the Witch-king was killed in that moment, only his spectral body and ability to interact with the physical world undone for a long time to come. His spirit, like Sauron's, would have endured.

Either that, or Tolkien decided that it made for a better story to have him die. He wrote the books, he can break his own rules. [/quote]

That's an interesting theory, and one which I had sometimes cogitated, though never to the extent of putting it into words. Such a fate for the WK is hinted at in the book.

...and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.

That to me sounds consistent with a vanquished spirit quitting the field of battle.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Great discussion! Say PJ is forgiven about everything, one thing that bothers me about the Nine in the Hobbit is, how does one go about chaining nine basically noncorporeal beings into tombs?[/quote]

Say PJ is forgiven for everything? Never!

But you raise an interesting point: how physical are the wraiths? Tolkien is a little vague on it. He goes to great pains to refer to their wearing of the cloaks to give shape to their nothingness, and also states through Gandalf that after the flooding of the Ford that they would have to return to Sauron, empty and shapeless. Such language suggests they are nothing more than spirits. However, can a spirit wear a cloak, outside of an Anne Rice novel anyway? It seems like they must have some physicality for them to be able to inhabit the cloak and hold it up off the ground, for the WK to wield the Morgul-blade, for one of the Nine to fire the dart that fells Faramir's horse outside the City, and so forth. I suspect some of Tolkien's references to emptiness, nothingness, and so forth are an allusion to spiritual emptiness, that they are devoid of any semblance of goodness.

At the end of the day, the concept that they died and were entombed by the Dunedain is so far outside the canonical nature of the Nazgul that it is pointless to speculate about how they could have been imprisoned within the tombs. Once PJ introduces the concept that they died, he has created something that only seems to be a Nazgul and instead is governed by whatever whims PJ, FW, and PB can come up with.

[quote=""Olorin""] But you raise an interesting point: how physical are the wraiths? Tolkien is a little vague on it. He goes to great pains to refer to their wearing of the cloaks to give shape to their nothingness, and also states through Gandalf that after the flooding of the Ford that they would have to return to Sauron, empty and shapeless. Such language suggests they are nothing more than spirits. However, can a spirit wear a cloak, outside of an Anne Rice novel anyway? It seems like they must have some physicality for them to be able to inhabit the cloak and hold it up off the ground, for the WK to wield the Morgul-blade, for one of the Nine to fire the dart that fells Faramir's horse outside the City, and so forth. I suspect some of Tolkien's references to emptiness, nothingness, and so forth are an allusion to spiritual emptiness, that they are devoid of any semblance of goodness.

At the end of the day, the concept that they died and were entombed by the Dunedain is so far outside the canonical nature of the Nazgul that it is pointless to speculate about how they could have been imprisoned within the tombs. Once PJ introduces the concept that they died, he has created something that only seems to be a Nazgul and instead is governed by whatever whims PJ, FW, and PB can come up with.[/quote]

I also believe that there was some shape and solidity to their forms. As you pointed out, something held up those cloaks, and some form of physicality or ability to at least manipulate the physical world would have been required for them to don armour and wield weapons that could affect our world. They were invisible, but not incorporeal. They could not pass through stone like a ghost, for example, and I think this may be where PJ got the ill-conceived notion that if one were to bury them, that you could wrap those invisible yet solid bodies in burial shrouds and confine them within a stone tomb. The very concept irks me, not because he gives physical attributes to the wraiths, which they clearly had, but because he fundamentally alters what they are by implying they were killed and buried. You really nailed it when you said he takes them so far outside their canonical nature as to make them something else entirely.

A perfect example of something he portrayed so exquisitely well in LOTR and then completely undid in his rush to find the kitchen sink and throw it into these Hobbit movies.

Actually, reading Glorfindel's words again brings up another small point: he prophesied that the Witch-king would not return to those lands again, and he was right. As I pointed out in my movie review, the land of Angmar's purpose was done when Fornost fell, Arthedain ceased to exist, and Arvedui drowned. Like Sauron at Dol Guldur, the Witch-king left Angmar because his job there was done. To imply in the movie that Sauron wanted Erebor so he could bring back Angmar displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the geo-political environment of northwestern Middle-earth in the late Third Age. Of course the average viewer has no clue and it all sounds cool, but it makes absolutely no sense for book readers.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Great discussion! Say PJ is forgiven about everything, one thing that bothers me about the Nine in the Hobbit is, how does one go about chaining nine basically noncorporeal beings into tombs?[/quote]

"powerful spells" kept them in the tombs, as stated in the AUJ.

[quote=""Olorin""]Once PJ introduces the concept that they died, he has created something that only seems to be a Nazgul and instead is governed by whatever whims PJ, FW, and PB can come up with.[/quote]

In AUJ Galadriel said when the WK "fell", his body and all he possessed was buried by men of the north in tombs in the High Fells. She never said he was dead or killed. I don't think her saying "fell" in that case meant dead, if that could even be said of a wraith. I took it to mean beaten down or vanquished, just as a I took Gandalf saying they had 'arisen again' in the FOTR book to mean they had reappeared or regained their power to appear, not raised from the dead.

Elrond said powerful spells kept the tombs sealed, implying (to me anyway) those inside were not killed or destroyed, as they wanted to keep them from getting out.

The only mention of the 'dead' was Gandalf's reference to what the woodsman of Mirkwood (not the Council) were saying, and PJ made sure that point was hit twice by having Saruman repeat it: "Don't stop now. Tell us what the woodsman say". He said they speak of a sorcerer who could 'summon the dead'. No reference is made the the Nazgul at all there, but in the spectral form the Nazgul are shown to have in the Hobbit, they would be seen by those with lesser knowledge to be spirits of the dead.

In TDOS when Gandalf and Radagast were investigating the tombs in the High Fells Gandalf repeatedly said they were 'summoned by their master', as if they had been trapped in the tombs, then escaped to the Necromancer when called for. Nothing about them having been killed or raised from the dead.

You guys astound me with your knowledge of specifics. I will need a new skull for my brain is "Hulking out"

I guess this overall topic could have gone in the Middle Earth Thread, but I put it here because the passage from LOTR about the Nazgul and Gandalf saying about not knowing they had risen again, completely contradicted the Hobbit.

But, then again, you have to take the books for the books and the movies with the movies.

I have yet to watch LOTR since seeing all of the Hobbit movies to see how they flow. I think PJ has done a good job weaving HIS story and 6 movies together. I am nowhere near as well versed as some of you, and at first I did like the nod to Aragorn, but again, after hearing everyone and thinking about it, the Rangers of the North, aren't ALWAYS going to be North. Thranduil, should have told Legolas to go more West, BUT it does tie in with the MOVIE white council scene since Legolas is the one to say Strider was Aragorn son of Arathorn.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]"powerful spells" kept them in the tombs, as stated in the AUJ.

In AUJ Galadriel said when the WK "fell", his body and all he possessed was buried by men of the north in tombs in the High Fells. She never said he was dead or killed. I don't think her saying "fell" in that case meant dead, if that could even be said of a wraith. I took it to mean beaten down or vanquished, just as a I took Gandalf saying they had 'arisen again' in the FOTR book to mean they had reappeared or regained their power to appear, not raised from the dead.

Elrond said powerful spells kept the tombs sealed, implying (to me anyway) those inside were not killed or destroyed, as they wanted to keep them from getting out.

The only mention of the 'dead' was Gandalf's reference to what the woodsman of Mirkwood (not the Council) were saying, and PJ made sure that point was hit twice by having Saruman repeat it: "Don't stop now. Tell us what the woodsman say". He said they speak of a sorcerer who could 'summon the dead'. No reference is made the the Nazgul at all there, but in the spectral form the Nazgul are shown to have in the Hobbit, they would be seen by those with lesser knowledge to be spirits of the dead.

In TDOS when Gandalf and Radagast were investigating the tombs in the High Fells Gandalf repeatedly said they were 'summoned by their master', as if they had been trapped in the tombs, then escaped to the Necromancer when called for. Nothing about them having been killed or raised from the dead.[/quote]

And how about in TBOTFA when Elrond tells them they should have stayed dead? To me it's clear that PJ intended for viewers to believe the Nazgul were dead. As Val alluded, Tolkien bears some responsibility here for use of the term "Necromancer," one who communicates with the dead, or in some usages, one who raises the dead.

But we're straining gnat poo out of pepper. It's no more believable in book context that the Dunedain would have wrapped and buried stunned Nazgul than that the Nazgul were dead. They would have been loathe to touch them or be near them. At most they might have stacked wood around them and tried to burn them.

What it comes down to is that PJ presented an interpretation that is particularly irksome to some of us crusty old purists but which he felt made for a better story for a general audience. We just have to do our best Reagan, roll our eyes, and say "there he goes again."

This is just the latest iteration of a debate we've been having here for 10 years. I realize you've had an association with the production of the movies, but you shouldn't feel like we're attacking you, or that it's necessary for you to defend PJ and Co. We're not even really attacking him, though obviously it sounds that way sometimes. It's just that when something is mostly good but then you encounter a part of it that really isn't, you tend to cry out. It's sort of like when some friends made bread pudding one evening when I was over for a visit, but unfortunately they had included some rye bread in the pudding. The bread pudding was really good in general, but whenever I bit into a caraway seed, I would nearly gag.

Ahh, me thinks you are assuming much, and very wrongly I'm not aware of anyone attacking me nor did that even cross my mind? I literally just joined the conversation after reading the last two pages! I have not even posted in this thread in 5 or 6 days. I was just giving my interpretation of whether or not they are truly 'dead' based on what was said in AUJ. I do not believe they could have been truly dead, nor do I believe that was the intent of the four writers.

I have zero association with the production of the movie, have no interest in providing a 'defense' for anyone, nor do I actually like the addition of the Ringwraiths in TH for that matter.

[quote=""Olorin""]And how about in TBOTFA when Elrond tells them they should have stayed dead? [/quote]
PJ loves throwing a one liner in there and I'm sure they couldn't resist giving that one to Elrond. There was also a scene showing a wrapped corpse being entombed in TDOS and lines like "The dead have been seen walking" or "a great evil powerful enough to raise the dead".

Kit, if anyone could ever claim to be 'a gentleman and a scholar,' you certainly fit the bill.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Ahh, me thinks you are assuming much, and very wrongly I'm not aware of anyone attacking me nor did that even cross my mind? I literally just joined the conversation after reading the last two pages! I have not even posted in this thread in 5 or 6 days. I was just giving my interpretation of whether or not they are truly 'dead' based on what was said in AUJ. I do not believe they could have been truly dead, nor do I believe that was the intent of the four writers.

I have zero association with the production of the movie, have no interest in providing a 'defense' for anyone, nor do I actually like the addition of the Ringwraiths in TH for that matter.


PJ loves throwing a one liner in there and I'm sure they couldn't resist giving that one to Elrond. There was also a scene showing a wrapped corpse being entombed in TDOS and lines like "The dead have been seen walking" or "a great evil powerful enough to raise the dead".[/quote]

I'm sorry, it just seemed like you were being rather defensive of the interpretation shown on screen. And I thought you had done some design work for the movies? That's why I thought that you were standing up for them, or so it seemed to me. No offense was intended, either way.

No, just pointing out what was actually said on screen, if it helps to clarify.

And no, I did not design anything for the movie production and have no involvement with them at all, other than some small correspondence with Weta relating to the prop replicas I have been involved with. I deal with the licensing division of WB in that regard, which has nothing to do with the film production. That's all handled by PJ's production company in NZ.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]No, just pointing out what was actually said on screen, if it helps to clarify.

And no, I did not design anything for the movie production and have no involvement with them at all, other than some small correspondence with Weta relating to the prop replicas I have been involved with. I deal with the licensing division of WB in that regard, which has nothing to do with the film production. That's all handled by PJ's production company in NZ.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. You had seemed to have a lot of insider knowledge about various things and had made allusion to being limited in how much you could say, so I guess I put 2 & 2 together and got 5.

Yeah, more that just an allusion I could not discuss anything about the films until it was made public. Big no-no for licensees.

My insider knowledge was more fly-on-the-wall stuff, never any involvement with the actual film makers. Licensees are allowed to see designs, props, on set set photos, character bios and synopsis text, style guides, things like that. I could also talk to a few people who had knowledge of what was going on with the production, but that was very limited on both sides.

Knowing Tolkien's work intimately and seeing all of the production material made piecing together exactly what the film makers were doing rather easy. There were still lots of surprises in each of the three parts when I finally saw them though.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Kit, if anyone could ever claim to be 'a gentleman and a scholar,' you certainly fit the bill. [/quote]
My sentiments exactly, I would just add that he is "Tactfully" generous as well.

Well, if I had tact I would learn how not to write posts that sound defensive

Kit, can you confirm that this is a pic of Thorin during his funeral scene, which hopefully will be in the EE? It certainly looks like it, as he has Orcrist and the Arkenstone on his breast.



Also, can you or someone jog my memory for me? The trailer showed a charge by dwarves riding rams, but I don't recall that at all, only Thorin, Fili, Kili, and Dwalin getting four of them to climb up Ravenhill. Where was that scene supposed to be?

[quote=""Valkrist""]

Also, can you or someone jog my memory for me? The trailer showed a charge by dwarves riding rams, but I don't recall that at all, only Thorin, Fili, Kili, and Dwalin getting four of them to climb up Ravenhill. Where was that scene supposed to be?[/quote]

Kit said earlier that there was lots of stuff in the trailers that did not make it into the film.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Kit, can you confirm that this is a pic of Thorin during his funeral scene, which hopefully will be in the EE? It certainly looks like it, as he has Orcrist and the Arkenstone on his breast.

Also, can you or someone jog my memory for me? The trailer showed a charge by dwarves riding rams, but I don't recall that at all, only Thorin, Fili, Kili, and Dwalin getting four of them to climb up Ravenhill. Where was that scene supposed to be?[/quote]

If you put a real image of it up that had not been released yet, I would not be allowed to confirm it, but I can tell you that's a fake or some fan made art, not what was shot for the movie.

The trailers show lots of things not in the film. The teaser has a few shots created specifically for it, like Azog standing on the rock with arms (or rather 'arm') raised as the orc army marches below, but the final trailers show many real scenes that never made the theatrical cut...

Bard tumbling off a roof and hanging on by an arrow shaft
Iron Hill dwarves charging over the hill riding rams
the Dwarves racing the war chariot on the frozen river to Ravenhill, pulled by rams
Dwarves firing giant ballistas
the Elven army loosing a volley of arrows
Bilbo saying the "when faced with death, what can anyone do" line
Gandalf saying the "You have but one question to ask?" line
Thorin saying the "Everything I did ? I did for them" line

Then there are lots of other things that hint at scenes filmed that did not make the cut. For example, at the end of the film Bilbo is carrying the chest from the troll hoard that the Dwarves buried in the cave in AUJ.

[quote=""timdp""]Kit said earlier that there was lots of stuff in the trailers that did not make it into the film.[/quote]

Yes, I recall that. Was just trying to figure out if I actually missed the charge scene (can't think how but you never know,) or if it was indeed cut. If so, I missed how Thorin got those rams.

Yeah, it does not really make sense in the film. He is talking to Dain during the battle and then suddenly there is a Ram standing beside him, out of the blue. When the other ram scenes and the chariot are restored it should make more sense.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Well, if I had tact I would learn how not to write posts that sound defensive [/quote]

LOL my friend, I was probably just interpreting defensiveness where none existed, but if in doubt, you might simply preface your post with "just playing devil's advocate here" or something like that.

[quote=""Nasnandos""] The teaser has a few shots created specifically for it....[/quote]

They film stuff solely to appear in trailers, even under the time pressure they're under to complete the movie?

[quote=""Olorin""]They film stuff solely to appear in trailers, even under the time pressure they're under to complete the movie?[/quote]
Not for the final the trailers, but the teasers almost always have effects shots specifically created for them and include scenes that never make the final cut. The ones that do make the cut are usually heavily altered for the finished shot seen in the film, or are different takes of the ones used in the teaser.

At the point they have to put together a teaser trailer (June for the Hobbit films) they have already shot all the live action stuff, but they are months and months ways from having a final cut to know which scenes will actually be in the film, or finished effects shots. They basically just complete a bunch of stuff specifically for the teaser. Go back and look at the teasers for all three films shot-by-shot and you will see what I mean. Half the shots are not in the films and most of the rest are very different looking in the film.

That goes for just about any film teaser, not just TH.

Thanks, Kit. I suspected it might be a fake simply because it was not something from the trailer, and it is much too soon to be a leaked photo from edited stuff already.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Not for the final the trailers, but the teasers almost always have effects shots specifically created for them and include scenes that never make the final cut. The ones that do make the cut are usually heavily altered for the finished shot seen in the film, or are different takes of the ones used in the teaser.

At the point they have to put together a teaser trailer (June for the Hobbit films) they have already shot all the live action stuff, but they are months and months ways from having a final cut to know which scenes will actually be in the film, or finished effects shots. They basically just complete a bunch of stuff specifically for the teaser. Go back and look at the teasers for all three films shot-by-shot and you will see what I mean. Half the shots are not in the films and most of the rest are very different looking in the film.

That goes for just about any film teaser, not just TH.[/quote]

Ah! Yes, I know what you mean.

Val, in regards to this photo:



This was taken at a local theater in Lexington KY, it's of one of our group at the BoTFA. If anyone has heard of a Tolkien gathering called "A Long E xp ected Party" held every three years at Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill KY. A small portion of the whole group has been attending each Hobbit movie.


(Only one is a guy, Kili....)

The group for BoTFA:


(I'm (Strider) kneeling behind Bilbo, who's wearing the Santa hat)

Wow, your friend makes for an amazing likeness of Richard Armitage, despite the fact that he is a she, and absolutely no disrespect intended. It was obviously her goal, and she succeeded admirably. Thanks for solving the riddle of the photo, and very cool that our fan world is that small that one of our members would be a part of this.

Another note on geography: I know we noted that PJ had shown Bilbo and company looking at the Lonely Mountain from the Eagles eeyries, and said that was unrealistic, but here's a quote from The Return Jounrey chapter, after bilbo and Gandalf leave Beorn's house. "But they came to that high point in the morning, and looking backward they aw a white sun shining over the outstretched lands. There behind lay Mirkwood, blue in the distance, and darkly green at the nearer edge even in the spring. There far away was the Lonely Mountain on the edgee of EEyesight. On its highest peak snow yet unmelted was gleaming pale."

So, maybe PJ used this as evidence for that scene? Can't really call him out on that anymore.

[quote=""Olorin""]Thranduil, you hit on a point that I suspect resonates with most of us. It might sound silly or whatever to some people, but reading Tolkien did in fact change my life, in ways I don't know that I can articulate. [/quote]

I have to agree with this. Although for me, I came to this forum through Peter Jackson's movies and after reading the hobbit. The Hobbit is the only piece of Middle Earth literature that I have completed so far, but fully intend to read the other books. I have them on the shelf waiting along with many others

I think I have the same emotional attachment to the movies that you guys have to the books. I was introduced to the movies at about 8 or 9 I think it was, and I'm now 20 and I have never bored of them. I continuously visit middle earth via the movies whenever I can because I love it so much. I think the heart of the hobbit resonates through the movies, even though there are big changes made to it which is the important thing for me.

Through these movies I came here and met all of you lot, and although we don't always agree on things and sometimes things can get a little heated, we're still a good small community who support each other.

Its very sad to think its all over now. No more Middle Earth movies to look forward to. But we'll still have the blu-rays at least

Lindir - you don't know how much I envy you. Still to e xp erience your first reading of Lord of the Rings <sigh>.

You have nothing to be sad about. The movies are over but you have THE BOOK. Well,we all have, but that first reading is so special.

I have often said that if I could have any superpower, it would be the ability to forget a book so I could read it again for the first time...

[quote=""GuardianWolf""]I have often said that if I could have any superpower, it would be the ability to forget a book so I could read it again for the first time...[/quote]

I have often thought about what superpowers would be neat to have, but quite honestly, that is one that would never have occurred to me.

Since the movies are now over and done with, I'm going to re-read The Hobbit for the first time in many years. From my shelf I selected the revised, e xp anded edition of the annotated version for this reading. Among other things contained within this volume, it contains the "complete" version of "The Quest of Erebor."

As you know, TQOE was first published in Unfinished Tales back around 1980. In the discussion in that book, CJRT identifies 3 versions of it, which he dubbed A, B, and C. B was the longest and most complete, but C was the one which was printed in full in Unfinished Tales. The current annotated edition of The Hobbit presents version B in its entirety, and I read it as a precursor to jumping into the main Hobbit story. In doing so, I learned or relearned a couple of things that have given me some additional appreciation for PJ's movies.

First among these items is the issue of Angmar, an evil kingdom set up by the chief Nazgul earlier in the Third Age as a nemesis to the Dunedain kingdoms in the North: Arnor and its successor states. In the BOTFA movie, someone, Legolas I think, makes the statement that Sauron must be planning to re-establish Angmar, to whatever purpose. We then discussed in this thread that this was a strange idea, as Angmar had long since served its purpose. Well as it turns out, in the B version of TQOE, Gandalf essentially states that Sauron will want to re-occupy Angmar as a gateway to invading Rivendell:

The urgent question was, which would he do first? Try to re-occupy Mordor; or attack the small but powerful strongholds of his chief enemies, Lorien and Rivendell?

I felt sure he meant to attack them; it would have been the better movie for him. Lorien was near: that would come first. But Rivendell was not out of reach. He only needed to re-occupy the old realm of Angmar, and before long he might find that only too easy.

As it turns out, this is also hinted at in Appendix A of ROTK, to which PJ had unquestioned filming rights:

Among his many cares was the perilous state of the North; because he knew already that Sauron was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough, to attack Rivendell. But to resist any attempts from the East to regain the lands of Angmar and the northern passes in the mountains there were now only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. And beyond them lay the desolation of the Dragon.

So, score one, PJ.

The second issue pertains to the role of Thorin. We've talked about how PJ tried to build in and amplify all possible resonances between The Hobbit and LOTR, including bits of dialog from the LOTR movies. I personally felt that PJ was too strongly playing up the role and importance of Thorin as sort of a precursor of Aragorn; it tended to give the impression that core story elements were the same except for changing a few names. In the prologue of DOS, PJ invents the bit about there being a bounty on Thorin's head, and of course Azog is hot after him for all three movies. In fact, in the movies it plays almost like Sauron was hotter to kill Thorin than to kill Aragorn.

Well, in TQOE, Gandalf states:

I was sorry in my heart for Thorin, but I could see little hope of helping him. He was involved, as I saw only too well, in the net of Sauron's designs, a dark strategy beyond his powers, and beyond his grasp.

Obviously this is not as e xp licit as having bounties on Thorin, but it's clear that Tolkien meant that Sauron had at a minimum included Thorin as a variable in his calculations. So, score two, PJ.

Now, if only he wouldn't have done that bit about the dead Nazgul.... I guess you can't have everything.

Awesome tidbits Olorin, maybe PJ did study a bit of the source material. Of course he did make up and change a lot. Reading LOTR for the first time, I am finding some things i think PJ did for the better in terms of modernizing dialogue and events and things, but I will say more about my thoughts in another thread.

Yes, very interesting finds, Olorin! It would seem PJ definitely did his homework, moreso than we thought. He may have just used it to stretch a little thin.

I also just read The Hobbit again, although I do that at least once every other year on average. It was interesting to read it after going through the journey of the films. I have to say that the Battle itself is seemingly anti-climactic in the book, which is sort of on par with how many of us felt after seeing the movie. Not a whole lot of action shots. However, the alterations sure do make for a different story.

I'm just cracking open for the first time my "The History of The Hobbit" books by John D. Rateliff. It will be cool to see how the story was built. On a side note, does anyone else have this hardcover box set with these two Histories, plus The Hobbit in dust jacket with Tolkien's original cover art? It's really a thing of beauty, probably my favorite set of books I own. I was eyeing up a huge, hardbound green leather copy of The Hobbit today in Barnes and Noble as well, but I just couldn't do it. The price was pretty astronomical, and I was already ponying up for a boxed set of TH and LotR for my girlfriend as a birthday present, so I passed. Someday, though, I might get that one and put it next to the LotR 60th Anniversary set that I will also *someday* have.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Yes, very interesting finds, Olorin! It would seem PJ definitely did his homework, moreso than we thought. He may have just used it to stretch a little thin.

I also just read The Hobbit again, although I do that at least once every other year on average. It was interesting to read it after going through the journey of the films. I have to say that the Battle itself is seemingly anti-climactic in the book, which is sort of on par with how many of us felt after seeing the movie. Not a whole lot of action shots. However, the alterations sure do make for a different story.

I'm just cracking open for the first time my "The History of The Hobbit" books by John D. Rateliff. It will be cool to see how the story was built. On a side note, does anyone else have this hardcover box set with these two Histories, plus The Hobbit in dust jacket with Tolkien's original cover art? It's really a thing of beauty, probably my favorite set of books I own. I was eyeing up a huge, hardbound green leather copy of The Hobbit today in Barnes and Noble as well, but I just couldn't do it. The price was pretty astronomical, and I was already ponying up for a boxed set of TH and LotR for my girlfriend as a birthday present, so I passed. Someday, though, I might get that one and put it next to the LotR 60th Anniversary set that I will also *someday* have. [/quote]


omg....I have sooooo much reading to do just to be able to keep up with you all even half the time.

And yes, Fin, I have the two volume Rateliff Hobbit History (in HB) which I promptly ran out and bought after seeing it on one of YOUR pic posts of your LOTR collection.

re the Hobbit Volume...are you referring to the HB version with the predominantly Blue and Green Tolkien art dustcover, or a different edition?

[quote=""Fingolfin""]On a side note, does anyone else have this hardcover box set with these two Histories, plus The Hobbit in dust jacket with Tolkien's original cover art?[/quote]

I do not have that. I was not even aware of the existence of the History of the Hobbit book for sometime after it was released, until the hardcover was out of print. Since then, I've not been able to summon enough interest to commit to buy the two volume trade paperback edition of it. I really prefer not to buy paperbacks anymore. Someday I'll get it in some form, but it just hasn't been a priority yet.

I wasn't aware it was out of print! It looks like you can still get the individual books pretty cheap on eBay or amazon, but good luck finding the boxed set itself. Deimos, here is a picture of the copy I'm talking about:



I hope that shows up.

Can anyone identify the rest of the books in that picture while we're at it? I definitely see the Lord of the Rings...suppose the big one at the end is a one volume copy of the whole trilogy? What about the others?

The big book on the far left is the LOTR Readers Companion, and that's the 2005 Harper Collins LOTR boxed set with Tolkien's original cover art and maps restored.

Left of The Hobbit is the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and Rateliffs History of the Hobbit: Mr Baggins book.