re: What One Thing Did Peter Jackson Get Most Wrong? (LotR or Hobbit)

quote:

---

Only those later ones, no? Most of them seemed smaller and weaker. Or were those goblins, and is there a difference?

---

In the books, all orcs were smaller than Men. One “huge orc chieftain” was described as being “almost Man high.”

Yep. Even the Uruk-Hai were presented in the books as being closer to the strength of a man, but still not equal. Normal Orcs were weaker than that, and Goblins were weaker still. The army of Saruman was a huge mass of rabble, and the armies of Mordor were even huger masses of rabble with the occasional superpowerful Captain to keep them in line. That is really the point of tension between good and evil in Tolkien mythology. The good guys are noble men/elves/dwarves led by noble leaders. They don’t always make good or right decisions, but they never lose their inherent nobility. The bad guys, on the other hand, are low class simplefolk led by tyrants. Orcs and goblins in the books aren’t bestial like they are presented in the movies. They are uneducated, stupid, and blindly obedient to authority, but they aren’t animalistic. They’re more like English serfs of the Middle Ages, more “villeins” than “villains.”

quote:

---

In Tolkien, orcs were small, but sneaky and vicious.

---

That's true of the traditional orcs, the ones that had been around since they were originally created back in the Silmarillion time frame.

quote:

---

Physical appearance Orcs are described as ugly and filthy fanged humanoids. The largest can reach near-human height, but they are almost always shorter, and some are as small as Hobbits (since Frodo and Sam disguise themselves as such when they enter Mordor). In contrast, crossbreeds between Men and Orcs are called "man-high, but with goblin-faces."[14] However, some Orcs are very broad, if not tall. Many Orcs have long arms, like monkeys or apes. Many of them also have crooked backs and legs. Tolkien describes Orcs explicitly in one of his Letters: ...they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.[15]

---

But the ones created by Saruman were bigger, stronger, and not affected by sunlight the way "pure breds" were.

quote:

---

Types of Orcs

There is much variation among Orcs. The Uruks (who called themselves Uruk-hai) are larger, more powerful and cruel and "black"; they call smaller and weaker Orcs snaga ("slave"). Sauron apparently bred specialized types, such as the "super-soldier" Uruk-hai, and smaller tracker Orcs or "Snufflers" (described as "of a small breed, black-skinned").[21] Early texts in The History of Middle-earth mention Maiar incarnate in Orc-bodies called Boldogs (see below).

Tolkien wrote of Saruman crossbreeding Orcs and Men, producing Men-orcs and Orc-men in "Myths Revisited" in Morgoth's Ring.[citation needed] The half-orcs and goblin-men, mentioned by Gamling at Helm's Deep, seem likely to have been crossbreeds, and they are not described much beyond being "creatures of Isengard", "that the foul craft of Saruman has bred", and that "they will not quail at the sun".

The first encounter with one of these half-goblins occurs in The Fellowship of the Ring when the Hobbits encounter a suspicious character they refer to as the Southerner who is in cahoots with Bill Ferny (the Southerner turns out to be a spy of Saruman and possibly Sauron, and possibly a double spy for both as Aragorn suggests).

Half-orcs are described later on by Meriadoc Brandybuck, who saw them marching out of Isengard, as "horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed." The hobbits occasionally encounter unusual-looking Men such as the "ruffians" in the Shire, implying some of these might be half-orcs. During the scouring of the Shire it is stated that the ruffians that have invaded include half-orcs and more of the sallow-skinned, slant/squinty eyed folks like the Southerner spy.

The Uruk-hai of Saruman, exemplified by Uglúk, are shown to be physically different from the regular Orcs of Sauron. They are taller and have more human-like proportions while the latter are shorter and have longer arms (according to the description of Grishnákh). They also grudgingly tolerate the sunlight better. The Uruk-hai are different from most of the "Northerners", who came down from the Misty Mountains. These are said to be smaller than Grishnákh, who is "a short crook-legged creature".[22] Some of the Northerners, called "larger and bolder Northerners", stayed with Saruman's Uruk-hai when most of the Northern Orcs deserted. The deserters, "flagging in the rays of the bright sun", were later overtaken by the party of the Uruk-hai, showing differing tolerance to the sunlight.

---

Goblins were the smaller, cockroach like creatures that swarmed through the Great Hall in Khazadum.

quote:

---

Eowyn, you might remember, was attracted to Aragorn. In the books, it wasn't so much that Aragorn was a hot stud, but instead she recognized the innate nobility, the "Numenor" in him. She wanted more than just a warrior. She had never met a man like Aragorn before.

---

Arguably a better love story than Aragorn/Arwen. I love that portion of the book (coincides with another difference with Denethor and that Pippen actually enjoyed being in service to him and Gandalf thinking it was a good thing for him to do). Beren and Luthien take the cake on best love story though.

quote:

---

had very few redeeming qualities.

---

I'll have to disagree here a little. I thought the change of the story regarding the importance of the Arkenstone was well done. In the original book, there wasn't any motivation for it's retrieval other than it was valuable. The movie gave it a more meaningful purpose worthy of Bilbo trying to retrieve it.

Secondly, the backstory of the Necromancer. This was also well done and helps frame the conflict coming in Lord of the Rings.

I thought they really screwed up with Beorn and Azog. Diminished Beorn and created an unnecessary plot line with Azog.

I really wish they would revisit this story and do it right without the comic relief, shitty CGI, and shorten it to two movies without the Azog, Tauriel and dwarf love story, the Great Goblin story, Radaghast without bird shite on his head, fricking Alfrid, and the elves who never run out of arrows and kill millions of orcs without getting a scratch.


Yes, I was very invested in this movie. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books.

quote:

---

The Hobbit is one of my favorite books.

---

I'm currently reading it to my 4 and 5 year old. We do a chapter a night. I'm enjoying reading it to them. I do different voices for all of the characters. They were laughing the whole Riddles in the Dark chapter because of my Gollum voice. But they are enjoying it and can't wait for me to read it to them every night. It's a fun story.

This is small, but that short Boromir/Faramir/Denethor flashback/backstory scene in the extended edition of The Two Towers is actually pretty important, and should have been included in the theatrical edition.

quote:

---

I'm currently reading it to my 4 and 5 year old. We do a chapter a night. I'm enjoying reading it to them. I do different voices for all of the characters. They were laughing the whole Riddles in the Dark chapter because of my Gollum voice. But they are enjoying it and can't wait for me to read it to them every night. It's a fun story.

---

Props to you man. You're kids will never forget that. Hopefully. I dont know actually, I dont remember anything from when I was 4 or 5 Either way, upvote for being a good dad.

Thanks.

I have the Alan Lee illustrated edition. The pictures help keep their attention.

Even if they don't remember the story, that's fine. I'll encourage them to read it again themselves when they get older.

ETA: I also promised them that after we are done reading it I'll let them watch the movie (the animated one from the 70's). Every night after we finish reading my daughter asks "can we watch the movie now?"