Cate Blanchett is the kind of beauty men used to go to war over. She looked ridiculously gorgeous in The Hobbit.
Edmond Dantès;45875219 said:A few images from my trip today.
Inspirations behind certain aspects of the Legendarium.
Try to guess what parts of the Legendarium in particular these object relate to without looking at the spoilers.
French bronze sculpture dating 1800-1850.Huan, the Hound of Valinor and Carcharoth.
Zeus & Ganymede.Manwë and his eagles and a certain Huan again.
Jupiter riding an eagle, Giuseppe Piamontini.Riding of the eagles + Manwë again.
(Tolkien's love for eagles is well documented.)
Satan by Jean-Jacques Feuchere.Our very own fallen Ainu.
My girlfiend, who is also a fan of the books and movies, never loved Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Mostly just because Galadriel is described as the pinacle of beauty, and while she thought Blanchett was pretty, she never felt that she completely matched that description. I've tried to convince her otherwise, but to no avail.
...Until we saw the Hobbit, she thought Blanchett looked gorgeous. As we discussed in the other thread, she seems to just age backwards.
Actually, between Blanchett and Lucy Lawless, I'm beginning to think that there's some secret Lazarus Pit hidden in Australia that they're telling the rest of the world about.
Someone go get Sculli.
Outside of the Middle Earth films, Blanchett is actually rather androgynous. I mean, she's not ugly like Tilda Swinton, but she isn't the most feminine or pretty looking woman in the world.
But in the Rings and Hobbit, yes - she is quite stunning.
Outside of the Middle Earth films, Blanchett is actually rather androgynous. I mean, she's not ugly like Tilda Swinton, but she isn't the most feminine or pretty looking woman in the world.
But in the Rings and Hobbit, yes - she is quite stunning.
Outside of the Middle Earth films, Blanchett is actually rather androgynous. I mean, she's not ugly like Tilda Swinton, but she isn't the most feminine or pretty looking woman in the world.
Outside of the Middle Earth films, Blanchett is actually rather androgynous. I mean, she's not ugly like Tilda Swinton, but she isn't the most feminine or pretty looking woman in the world.
But in the Rings and Hobbit, yes - she is quite stunning.
she's not ugly like Tilda Swinton,
I was hoping some Tolkien lore buffs could help my wife and I clear some things up. We read "The Hobbit" up to where we assumed the film would end, which was the start of the chapter "Out of the Frying pan, into the fire", and we are pretty sure Peter Jackson added some things to move the narrative forward, but we were not 100% sure, as there are extended versions of The Hobbit out there, and the Appendices as well.
These are the things we think Jackson added himself to the story, but we're looking for clarification (We've only read 1/3 of the book so far).
- The White Orc
- Radagast the Brown (we know he's mentioned, but not a part of the story?)
- The meeting with Sauramon, Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel
- The Eagles
- The context of the Necromancer (Gandalf mentions him when speaking to the Dwarves, that he's fought him, but he seems clueless in the film)
* I'm not quite sure what you're thinking of here. At the time of the Hobbit the White Council was aware of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, but they didn't know for sure exactly what or who he was.
In the book, I remember Gandalf mentioning he had fought the Necromancer, and he was a foe beyond the party of even an army. Or something like that. Where in the film, Gandalf seems clueless that he existed, even doubting a fellow wizard until the sword is produced.
Indeed.First one should have been easy for you, Edmond, considering we were discussing it a few days ago.
Edmond Dantès;45899230 said:Fellow Tolkien buffs, what do you say to this; the 14 Valar in incarnate form versus Sauron's army including the Nazgul and Sauron himself.
Who would triumph
Take into account that the Valar haven't squandered their might and can take any form.
Sauron's army includes those from the South and East.
Prep time obviously.Does Batman have time to prepare?
They created their respective environments at the dawn of time and could manipulate them as they pleased.I don't know enough to answer but aren't some of the Valar powerful in their respective environments? Like would Ulmo be able to do anything meaningful if he wasn't near a body of water?
Even with my limited knowledge, I'd still have to say the Valar. I'm sure they'd find a way to make quick work of the armies and then the more powerful of Sauron's forces would be dealt with.
Edmond Dantès;45901682 said:They created their respective environments at the dawn of time and could manipulate them as they pleased.
That further cements my idea that the Valar would win.
I mean, in terms of the forces of Sauron, Ulmo could manipulate water and drown them? The others could change the lay of the land and everything, as didn't they literally raise the Pelori?
What can Sauron do against that? He's just one against 14 and I don't think the Nazgul have any powers close to that either, correct?
Correct.That further cements my idea that the Valar would win.
I mean, in terms of the forces of Sauron, Ulmo could manipulate water and drown them? The others could change the lay of the land and everything, as didn't they literally raise the Pelori?
What can Sauron do against that? He's just one against 14 and I don't think the Nazgul have any powers close to that either, correct?
Edmond Dantès;45899230 said:Fellow Tolkien buffs, what do you say to this; the 14 Valar in incarnate form versus Sauron's army including the Nazgul and Sauron himself.
Who would triumph
Take into account that the Valar haven't squandered their might and can take any form.
Sauron's army includes those from the South and East.
Edmond Dantès;45899230 said:Fellow Tolkien buffs, what do you say to this; the 14 Valar in incarnate form versus Sauron's army including the Nazgul and Sauron himself.
Who would triumph
Take into account that the Valar haven't squandered their might and can take any form.
Sauron's army includes those from the South and East.
Can you imagine Tolkien thinking about this.This conversation reminds me of Warhammer 40K fluff wars. I like it. I had such fun with these.
I'm of the same opinion, but Dumas' characters inhabit the real world and are woven around real historical situations, especially the d'Artagnan Romances, Tolkien's characters inhabit a created history for our world which has my love.Edmond, you asked me a long time ago when I decided to finally read the LotR books whether I preferred Dumas or Tolkien's writing style.
I can tell you unequivocally that I prefer Dumas'.
Edmond Dantès;45906477 said:Can you imagine Tolkien thinking about this.
What was going through his head when thinking about the Final prophecy. Who would feature, how large the armies would be, how much power Melkor had regained, if Sauron was to be involved, if the Dragons were to be resurrected and whether it would end in favour of Melkor or Eru etc.
This makes me wish the lore and all the canon that goes along with it could move forward and continue to be developed. With the death of JRRT and his son's (and the estate's) reluctance to do much of anything with the world moving forward (and is too busy obsessing over how the Hobbit and LotR storylines are being depicted), I feel like we'll never get to see what could have been.
I feel like there's alot that could be done with the Fourth Age of Middle Earth. There's so much unanswered stuff. What happened to the Blue Wizards? What of all the rest of world beyond what is as we know Middle Earth. Some of the old pen and paper RPGs for Middle Earth Role Playing briefly touched on the wilds to the east and south of what we know as Middle Earth and it was usually described as savage lands. So much potential.