Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies' [2]

From what I remember reading in UT (I searched through it for Thranduil information after DOS because I wanted to know if there were any facts to go off of) and in fact I have the book in front of me right now. It's an extension on Appendix B, and includes Oropher in the founding of Mirkwood.

From Unfinished Tales wrote: IN the second age their king, Oropher [the father of Thranduil, father of Legolas], had withdrawn northward beyound the Gladden Fields. This he did to be free from the power and encroachments of the dwarves of Moria, which had grown to be the greatest of the mansions of the dwarves recorded in history: and also he resented the intrusions of Celeborn and Galadriel into Lorien. But as yet there was little to fear between Greenwood and the mountains and there was constant intercourse between his people and their kin across the river, until the War of the Last Alliance.

Then regarding Thranduil after Dagorlad (in which Oropher was slain along with two thirds of the Silvan company he brought)...

But there was in Thranduil's heart a still deeper shadow. He ahd seen the horror of Mordor and could not forget it. If ever he looked south its memory dimmed the light of the Sun, and though he knew that is was now droken and desereted and under the vigialnce of the kings of men, fear spoke in his heart that it was not conquered for ever: it would rise again.

So I'm guessing PJ decided to take this and run with it. It also says that Thranduil modeled his kingdom after Thingol's in Doriath because "they {the Sindar} came from Doriath after its ruin," so I guess that could mean that Thranduil could have been alive before Doriath fell.

Good info Tinuviel! And just to note it, the other Oropher account comes from note 14 to Disaster Of The Gladden Fields, also in Unfinished Tales.

A golden button to anyone who can figure out which Oropher statement is later than the other! Not that it matters much, but if your weskit needs buttoning...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/23/peter-jackson-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies/

Indeed, the gargantuan birds of prey that helped save the day in both the final Lord of the Rings film and the first Hobbit will return, this time led by the never-before-CGI rendered Lord of the Eagles. (No, it’s not Don Henley.) Jackson acknowledges that the creatures have a habit of being a bit of a deus ex machina, something he tried to avoid this time around. “Tolkien uses eagles in a way that can be kind of awkward because they tend to show up out of the blue and change things pretty quickly,” says the director. “So here they’re just part of the plan, not the saviors. I mean, I do realize that if the eagles had just been able to bring Frodo to Mount Doom in Lord of the Rings and let him drop the ring in, those movies would have been much shorter.”

Ugh seriously? He's giving in to fan service?? Wow.

I'd say he's more giving in to criticism of the original story. It's like PJ doesn't want all these people complaining so he's just going to change it so they won't. Maybe he thinks it will make it "better."

There's really no getting around the fact that the Eagles are awkward.  Tolkien himself knew they were; he referred to them as a "dangerous machine" in a letter. I think one can make a reasonable explanation for their role, especially in The Hobbit, but plenty of people have read the books (including long before the movies came out) and felt that the Eagle plan made more sense, or at least should have been addressed.

Elthir wrote:Good info Tinuviel! And just to note it, the other Oropher account comes from note 14 to Disaster Of The Gladden Fields, also in Unfinished Tales.

A golden button to anyone who can figure out which Oropher statement is later than the other! Not that it matters much, but if your weskit needs buttoning...

Well, that part of note 14 to Gladden Fields is an original JRRT one, and Christopher says in the UT introduction that Gladden "belongs to the final period of my father's writing on Middle-earth", although he did not know the exact date. But I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that his text was written after the Second Edition revisions to LOTR were made. However! The first quote that Tin posted came from the "late philological writings" part of Galadriel and Celeborn, which Christopher put in the same time period as Gladden Fields. So while I can't say which of the two was older, I do think that they represent a later and/or more developed view than the note in Appendix B. But if you're a stickler for the primacy of published texts, then that might not make a difference.

Good work Eldo, that's basically how I remember the scenario.

And I agree that both texts probably post-date the revised second edition -- where Tolkien actually revised the introduction to the tale of years in question (he took out Celeborn in the south and so on), but left the suggestion of Thranduil establishing his realm in Greenwood relatively early in the Second Age.

As you likely know, I am usually a madman when it comes to the primacy of Tolkien-published stuff... but if I could find some clue, some perhaps impossible nugget, to let me know which Oropher history is later than the other, then I might have an easier time choosing one, and then forcing him in between the lines of Appendix B. Might!

I'm mean it's just one Elf... if he's slim enough I should be able to push him in there somewhere!

On the web (I think) I have seen Oropherian history that is really a combination of the two texts.

That won't do for me however... I'm too difficult for that too

This (the eagles concern) is a bunch of boiled cabbage hash.

Perhaps, the freakin' eagles wouldn't be so damn hard to view as something other than just a convenient plot-device if you gave them actual dialogue, characteristics and some presence in the damn world!

Of COURSE they're going to be viewed as a cheap gimmick if they are presented as Jackson did in AUJ: as conveniently placed mute creatures that presage their arrival with idiotic moths and other fluttery-minded bits of balderdash.

But if someone had some actual intellectual abilities and an understanding of what excites moviegoers they could have shown some scintillating shots of the eagles perched atop their eyries noticing the clamour and fire down below, and coordinating accordingly.
Unlike the eagles' arrival at the Morannon, the eagles' presence in the Hobbit is briefly explained in the book.
I've heard so many repetitive arguments about how silly the eagles are in Tolkien's writing and how hard Jackson has to work to avoid making the same mistake in his movies when (as is almost always the case with Middle-Earth-related filming) the real problem lies in Jackson being a pretentious twat who would rather dull our brains with boring shots of Azog the Imbecile throwing his minions to the wargs than give character to the eagles and show them as sentient creatures.

http://www.avclub.com/article/hobbit-battle-five-armies-ends-45-minute-battle-sc-210981?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

what a load of shit... So much for character developement. Jackson goes for spectacle over substance as usual

I was actually really surprised that the Eagles' appearance was so condensed, given how long most everything else was stretched out in AUJ.  I suppose PJ didn't want to distract too much from the big emotional finale between Bilbo and Thorin in the aftermath of the Azog fight.  But I agree that the Eagles felt much less gimmicky in TH the book because of the development they got at that point in the story.

A few years ago I was really looking forward to seeing some talking eagles (at least when Del Toro was still directing), but once the flavour of things became more apparent in the video blogs it was harder to imagine them in the movie as sentient. With hindsight, AUJ couldn't have ended any other way.

I guess this is a bit spoilery.

Spoiler:

Elthir said, while forgetting something: And Legolas does say (after explaining that the Galadhrim dwell in trees): 'The people of the woods did not delve in the ground like Dwarves, nor build strong places of stone before the Shadow came.' And here I would say the Elf is generalizing, considering the description of Lothlorien I think he must be including his own people 'delving' into the ground, which then could suggest that Thranduil's fortress was a later addition in any case.

But I forgot that Legolas also refers to Lorien -- or at least the general area --  as the land whence we once wandered, seemingly including himself.

I must ponder this more then... but in any case that too is Tolkien-published description.

Legolas also knows the tale of Nimrodel. He does refer to the fact that the Westron version of the Nimrodel poem is gleaned from Rivendell, but the general suggestion (in my opinion) is that he or his people had had (had had?) enough contact with Lorien to know this part of history -- it's interesting that in Words, Phrases and Passages, when musing upon the linguistic scenario, Tolkien imagines that the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood and Lorien must have become sundered around year 2,000 of the Third Age.

Anyway, Mr. Greyhall is looking deeper into this Thranduil/Oropher history! Especially after yet another history of Thranduil/Oropher has just appeared over at TORN...

... and I am wary! I'll not let Jackson's/Pace's inventions 'seep in' like a stealthy poison!

Too much? Maybe... but if there's seepage... it's like something though!  

Elthir wrote:But I forgot that Legolas also refers to Lorien -- or at least the general area --  as the land whence we once wandered, seemingly including himself.

I recall that passage having come up in discussions of Legolas' age before, but to the best of my memory, I always interpreted it as vague enough that Legolas could just be using the first person plural to refer to his people without having been present himself.  Sort of like a Brit might talk about WWII saying "we beat the Germans", or a sports fan might do the same thing regarding their favorite team.

True enough Eldo!

I agree that it's not certain Legolas is necessarily including himself. Good examples!

why Legolas is anything more than a cameo in the Hobbit films is beyond me... Personally I know its just to please the fanboys/girls but it just takes away from the story for me. I could have easily seen 45 seconds of Orlando Bloom in these films and felt fine about it.

So is Legolas gonna kill Bolg at the BO5A? he does have a score to settle with him after Laketown now.

Curse you and your stupid horrible changes Peter Jackson

Or we could have Bard wrestle with Towel head over who gets the fatal shot in ? she will probably say an Elf's precision is the greater & fire off the bloody arrow herself !
And I 2nd that Sin

did anyone see the new teaser or Tauriel facing down Smaug firing an arrow into his open cavity as fire is coming her way, I would assume ultimately killing her while she slew the dragon?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah me neither But I wouldn't put something like that past PJ at this point

Damn low page resolution.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I am most worried about what ridiculous stuff they will invent for Galadriel and Gandalf. Mostly Elrond has come out of this mess unscathed, but Galadriel and Gandalf have been lessened by this rubbish.

Well, Galadriel will apparently "kick Sauron's ass, a bit."

Now why didn't she just do that in the LotRs too...

apparently she uses the phial to ward off Sauron according to some reports. Gotta get another tie in to his "other" films I see

Well, she is the most powerful person in Middle Earth so..