zompist bboard

hwhatting wrote:Did you spend the last part of that decade in a cave or under a rock?

To my reckoning, those films don't exist Just like there were no Star Wars movies made in between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens.

Axiem wrote:

hwhatting wrote:Did you spend the last part of that decade in a cave or under a rock?

To my reckoning, those films don't exist Just like there were no Star Wars movies made in between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens.

You, sir, are truly enlightened. (Though I have to say, Padme's wardrobe is exquisite, almost justifying the existence of the awful prequels. Shame that Natalie Portman's acting skills aren't quite at the level of her beauty...)

Btw, just to be clear, I don't actually have anything against people who like/want to read LotR. I just don't agree that everyone has to. It wouldn't be fair for me to impose my choice of reading material on everyone, after all.

While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?

Now there's a can of worms on par with "do Balrogs have wings".

Here's an overview of both sides of the argument. In short, it's highly ambiguous. There's evidence elves had pointy ears, and there's evidence they didn't. (hobbits are, however, explicitly said to have slightly pointed ears)

dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?

I think elves were described as having pointy ears. Hobbits are supposed to have regular ears.

alynnidalar wrote:Now there's a can of worms on par with "do Balrogs have wings".

Here's an overview of both sides of the argument. In short, it's highly ambiguous. There's evidence elves had pointy ears, and there's evidence they didn't. (hobbits are, however, explicitly said to have slightly pointed ears)

Going by the arguments presented there I'd say that they do. I mean, the argument that Tolkien said that Elves and Men are basically both human (as they are able to produce fertile offspring) means that their physiological appearances should match is a bit weak. I mean it's not really any different (identifying Elves by their ears) as we can, stereotypically, single out people of different descents by their own characteristics in the real world. The Jewish "big nose", the Greek "olive skin", the Scandinavian "blonde hair and blue eyes", the Celtic "sallow skin and dark hair", so the Elves have their "pointed ears". It never ceases to amaze me how much people will study Tolkien's work - the man himself would be flabbergasted.

dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?

There's evidence they do. My complaint against Jackson's portrayal of elves is that Tolkien certainly didn't describe them being so...androgynous. Cirdan is supposed to have a beard for crying out loud, and the Men of the north mistook Gandalf for an elf (hence the name). True, he says they only grow them in old age, but I still think, no beards aside, Jackson's elves looked too androgynous and ethereal. I think the only elf casting I really liked is Cait Blanchet, who managed to at once appear old and young, tall with a deep voice, just like Tolkien described Galadriel. He also described elven clothing as being rather plain and low-key; the depiction of what the elves wear (particularly in Rivendell) in LotR feels far more appropriate for what the Noldorin princes might have worn in the First Age. But one thing I've observed regarding Jackson is that he seems to have an obsession with spectacle, and LotR is meant to be more understated.

Zaarin wrote:

dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?

There's evidence they do. My complaint against Jackson's portrayal of elves is that Tolkien certainly didn't describe them being so...androgynous. Cirdan is supposed to have a beard for crying out loud, and the Men of the north mistook Gandalf for an elf (hence the name). True, he says they only grow them in old age, but I still think, no beards aside, Jackson's elves looked too androgynous and ethereal. I think the only elf casting I really liked is Cait Blanchet, who managed to at once appear old and young, tall with a deep voice, just like Tolkien described Galadriel. He also described elven clothing as being rather plain and low-key; the depiction of what the elves wear (particularly in Rivendell) in LotR feels far more appropriate for what the Noldorin princes might have worn in the First Age. But one thing I've observed regarding Jackson is that he seems to have an obsession with spectacle, and LotR is meant to be more understated.

Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.

dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.

Are you sure about that? I'm positive the text references his grey beard at least once. Hobbits are said to be beardless except for the Stoors, but the only Man I recall being explicitly referenced as being beardless is Prince Imrahil.

Zaarin wrote:

dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.

Are you sure about that? I'm positive the text references his grey beard at least once. Hobbits are said to be beardless except for the Stoors, but the only Man I recall being explicitly referenced as being beardless is Prince Imrahil.

It's stated in Unfinished Tales.

dyolf wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.

Are you sure about that? I'm positive the text references his grey beard at least once. Hobbits are said to be beardless except for the Stoors, but the only Man I recall being explicitly referenced as being beardless is Prince Imrahil.

It's stated in Unfinished Tales.

Ah. Despite my Tolkien obsession, I haven't actually gotten around to reading that. I'm still positive the LotR text references his beard, though, but I could be mistaken.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I suspect you are actually correct.

I always imagined Aragorn with stubble.

I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Pole, the wrote:I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Well, I first have to say that the LotR films are rather middling adaptations, but if you enjoy post-modernism there's a good chance you won't enjoy LotR, which are very Medieval in their ethos despite being written in the 20th century.

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Well, I first have to say that the LotR films are rather middling adaptations, but if you enjoy post-modernism there's a good chance you won't enjoy LotR, which are very Medieval in their ethos despite being written in the 20th century.

With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.

dyolf wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Well, I first have to say that the LotR films are rather middling adaptations, but if you enjoy post-modernism there's a good chance you won't enjoy LotR, which are very Medieval in their ethos despite being written in the 20th century.

With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.

Not necessarily a bad thing, mind.

dyolf wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Well, I first have to say that the LotR films are rather middling adaptations, but if you enjoy post-modernism there's a good chance you won't enjoy LotR, which are very Medieval in their ethos despite being written in the 20th century.

With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.

Well, Christianity is at the heart of the Medieval ethos. My tastes are rather old-fashioned, so I love that Tolkien's works feel at once timeless and old-fashioned. I'm actually a little concerned that my antiquarian aesthetics will hurt my attempts to get published, but mass market appeal has never really been my goal...

Zaarin wrote:

dyolf wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:I haven't read “LotR”. I have watched the movies and they didn't amaze me.

I have tried watching the whole “Star Wars” trilogy and it didn't entertain me either. I got bored and moved to more interesting things.

“Lord of the Ring” and “Star Wars” may have been “the thing”, the breakthroughs, the revolutions — when they were created. Since then, significant improvements have been made. Especially when it comes to the rise of post-modern literary fantasy (Jordan, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Martin, …) and the 2010s’ renaissance of cinematic space travel fiction (“Gravity”, “The Martian”, “Interstellar”, the upcoming “Arrival”, …).

And, while I appreciate the historical input the two works have made in the popular culture, I prefer to read / watch those recent works, which I personally find more entertaining.

Well, I first have to say that the LotR films are rather middling adaptations, but if you enjoy post-modernism there's a good chance you won't enjoy LotR, which are very Medieval in their ethos despite being written in the 20th century.

With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.

Well, Christianity is at the heart of the Medieval ethos. My tastes are rather old-fashioned, so I love that Tolkien's works feel at once timeless and old-fashioned. I'm actually a little concerned that my antiquarian aesthetics will hurt my attempts to get published, but mass market appeal has never really been my goal...

Don't think it was Tolkien's either.

2+3 clusivity wrote:

dyolf wrote:Gondor, Mordor and Eriador all have rhotic Rs, and so don't really fit the /sɛlə dɔ̝ː/ thing.

Did J.R.R. have a rhotic or non-rhotic accent?

Just stumbled upon this clip of Tolkien reading "One Ring to rule them all..." and I noticed his pronunciation of Mordor.

That sounds distinctly like my own over-pronunciation of coda R (since I am non-rhotic). Judging by other coda Rs ('dark' was the only example I picked up on) I'd guess he's non-rhotic. Which would make sense, cos he's English.