Thank you for trying… an interesting take on the “spiritual” angle.
That said I have a way better explanation for this. :)
1. The eagles are afraid of Smaug - Hence “when the birds will return to the mountain” etc blah blah
2. The black riders/undead kings and their “dragons” or whatever you want to call them, were the major deterent for eagles flying into Mordor, because the eagles would have got their butts kicked mid flight, with the screeching etc, and everyone would have died. The eagles weren’t willing to take chances like that for middle earth, or perhaps gandalf wasn’t willing to risk his assets.
All the I ask movie producers to do is address obvious magical issues, (Like they did with the Helms deep fireball) and everything would have been fine.
3. As for the mountain people - skeleton warriors would have sufficied. Tough to kill, but defeatable, by something as stupid as cutting the skull from the body, or disarming them somehow (Breaking their bones which are enabled by their spirits)
again intellectual consistency could have explained all this in seconds, but NO effort was made.
Thank you for trying… an interesting take on the “spiritual” angle.
You are welcome.
3. As for the mountain people - skeleton warriors would have sufficied. Tough to kill, but defeatable, by something as stupid as cutting the skull from the body, or disarming them somehow (Breaking their bones which are enabled by their spirits)
I do agree with you on this point. Maybe not with your version of explanations, but the use of the Dead as they were was shakey at best. To Tolkien’s credit, it all happened differently in the book, but I guess even in a 3 1/2 hr movie you have to change stuff and can’t explain everything… :roll:
Great response LHoffman. I thought I was reading your response directly from the Silmarillion. I also recall, something written somewhere, that addresses the Eagles aloofness.
Regardless it is fantasy, and while the “mountain people” worked much better in the book (IMO), their representation in the movie wasn’t that bad.
Garg, I find your insistence or GREAT HOPE, that fantasy movies or fantasy novels have intellectual consistency is amusing. They are works of fantasy! I would rather we humans try for “intellectual consistency” in a great deal of more important endeavors.
@JWW:
Great response LHoffman. I thought I was reading your response directly from the Silmarillion. I also recall, something written somewhere, that addresses the Eagles aloofness.
Thanks JWW.
I will let everyone know when I find out where I read what I did… because I just know it… I need to go home and check out one of my books in particular, it might be there.
JWW, there is nothing wrong with demanding consistency in fantasy. Orcs in platemail do not sneak up on people. Yes, it was fantasy. But that dungeons and dragons group I was in demanded that the dungeonmaster be a bit consistent. Orcs are not quiet folk nor is plate mail a stealth weapon. That inconsistency lead to a mutiny which installed me as the ‘DM’ for a bunch of guys who went on to become engineers, chemists and one colonel. It was a challenge to DM these guys because consistency was a huge aspect of the game when debating initiative rolls for who gets off the fireball spell first!
Nice post. I feel 16 again. Thanks Malachi!
It’s hard to know how consistent the magic is or isn’t when there’s very little transparency about the nature of magic itself (at least in the Hobbit and LOTR).
I wish Tolkien had gotten around to that particular appendix … how else are we supposed to know how many times Gandalf can cast Magic Missile before he has to rest?
It’s hard to know how consistent the magic is or isn’t when there’s very little transparency about the nature of magic itself (at least in the Hobbit and LOTR).
I wish Tolkien had gotten around to that particular appendix … how else are we supposed to know how many times Gandalf can cast Magic Missile before he has to rest?
The thing about Tolkien’s “magic” is that it is much more spiritual and intrinsic than generic, alchemic magic found in D&D, Harry Potter or other fantasy works I have seen. By that I mean this is not an RPG. Tolkien rarely describes the abilities of creatures/beings in his works as being magical. If he does, it is usually referring to something evil or somehow twisted in purpose. But all you D&D/fantasy people will have to correct me if that is essentially the same definition for “magic” used elsewhere, though that is not my impression.
In his prominent essay “On Fairy Stories” Tolkien said of magic:
“Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic - but it is magic of a particular mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician.”
Tolkien’s Wizards, for example, are described as “claiming to possess, and exhibiting, eminent knowledge of the history and nature of the world… the Order of Wizards was quite distinct from the wizards and magicians of later legend.” (from the essay on The Istari from Unfinished Tales) There is much more to be gleaned of Tolkien’s “magic” in The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales than in The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, so you are pretty accurate there.
By saying it is much more spiritual, I mean that Tolkien bases his take on magic to something philosophical (from his perspective, spiritual); a contradiction of invisible essence or power, one of which is wonder, enchantment, creativity and art, and the perverted form which is the creation of the artificial, use for control and conquest. If you have not read The Philosophy of Tolkien, by Peter Kreeft, (http://www.amazon.com/The-Philosophy-Tolkien-Worldview-Behind/dp/1586170252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357264825&sr=8-1&keywords=philosophy+of+tolkien) I cannot recommend it highly enough. It will explain much of the mind of Tolkien and the meaning of his work.
With the explanation above, it is both impossible and improper to reduce Tolkien’s “magic” to hit points and recharge rates. His fantasy is the foundation for all that exists today, but much of what is around today cannot translate into Tolkien’s world because has been … diluted and empiricized. They do not relate to the same conception of magic.
I hope it was clear that my second comment was a joke :lol:
From a narrative perspective, the fact that magical elements (in the broadest, most inclusive sense) go largely unexplained provides a more satisfying read. To explain magic makes it seem a hell of a lot less magical.
I think it really depends on how deep you going to dwell in all the fantasy stuff from Tolkien.
As I played D&D, AD&D ,MERS and Stormbringer , most of the aspects became clear to me while playing it and studying the books.
Why Dwarfs and Elves basicly and usually don´t have much in common nor deal together and so on.
While the books are made for a certain group of peoples ,the movies are made to cast more peoples into the area of the books. Otherwise the movie is just a diffrent kind of action fantasy epos.
Am I gonna watch the Hobbit in Theatre? No ,maybe on DVD.
An interesting article about magic in fantasy worlds.
I hope it was clear that my second comment was a joke :lol:
From a narrative perspective, the fact that magical elements (in the broadest, most inclusive sense) go largely unexplained provides a more satisfying read. To explain magic makes it seem a hell of a lot less magical.
Oh… no, it was not. But I see that now. :roll:
I am glad you already had a nice appreciation of it though. Some people here are serious so I had to be sure.
