To my reckoning, those films don't existhwhatting wrote:Did you spend the last part of that decade in a cave or under a rock?
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
To my reckoning, those films don't existhwhatting wrote:Did you spend the last part of that decade in a cave or under a rock?
You, sir, are truly enlightened.Axiem wrote:To my reckoning, those films don't existhwhatting wrote:Did you spend the last part of that decade in a cave or under a rock?Just like there were no Star Wars movies made in between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens.
I think elves were described as having pointy ears. Hobbits are supposed to have regular ears.dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy 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.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)
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.dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?
Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.Zaarin wrote: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.dyolf wrote:While we're complaining about the Peter Jackson films, did Tolkien ever describe Elves or Hobbits as having pointy ears?
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.dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.
It's stated in Unfinished Tales.Zaarin wrote: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.dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.
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.dyolf wrote:It's stated in Unfinished Tales.Zaarin wrote: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.dyolf wrote:Aragorn is supposed to be beardless because of his Elven lineage, too.
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.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.
With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.Zaarin wrote: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.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.
Not necessarily a bad thing, mind.dyolf wrote:With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.Zaarin wrote: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.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, 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...dyolf wrote:With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.Zaarin wrote: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.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.
Don't think it was Tolkien's either.Zaarin wrote: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...dyolf wrote:With a good helping of Christianity thrown in.Zaarin wrote: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.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.
Just stumbled upon this clip of Tolkien reading "One Ring to rule them all..." and I noticed his pronunciation of Mordor.2+3 clusivity wrote:Did J.R.R. have a rhotic or non-rhotic accent?dyolf wrote:Gondor, Mordor and Eriador all have rhotic Rs, and so don't really fit the /sɛlə dɔ̝ː/ thing.