geekhack

geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 13:24:43

Title: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 13:24:43
Just let the "burden" of the ring be on ANY of the other characters.. and we could skip all the boring hobbit parts....

Then the story would be COMPLETELY epic, instead of all the slow talky-talky-walk-walk parts..  :cool:

Hobbits are boring, PERIOD :(
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: bear95 on Wed, 19 December 2012, 14:51:58
No golum?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: Amarok on Wed, 19 December 2012, 15:07:20
But how would we learn about second breakfast?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: IvanIvanovich on Wed, 19 December 2012, 15:18:53
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 15:20:13
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.

^ This.  It was Tolkien's entire point...
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: davkol on Wed, 19 December 2012, 17:26:59
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: razorsharpgears on Wed, 19 December 2012, 17:54:58
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!
LOL, just  picture the image of an ent trying to wear THE ring xD
(http://i.imgur.com/kvjtY.jpg)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: asdf on Wed, 19 December 2012, 17:55:59
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.

But Frodo didn't resist the temptation at the end. All you need is any 2 weakling race that are best-friends, one to hold the ring (and eventually get tempted) and the other to truly destroy the ring once they reach Mount Doom
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 18:24:42
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.

But Frodo didn't resist the temptation at the end. All you need is any 2 weakling race that are best-friends, one to hold the ring (and eventually get tempted) and the other to truly destroy the ring once they reach Mount Doom

Exactly,, ^^ This guy gets it...

Also, Long bottom leaf is definitely WEED, it's just that the hobbits are such ridiculously tolerant pot heads, that they are still cogent.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:41:23
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!

But Ents aren't innocent...they're an ancient race that has been involved in all kinds of major events.  If you're interested, but want to be REALLY bored, read the Silmarillion.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:42:18
<snip>
Also, Long bottom leaf is definitely WEED, it's just that the hobbits are such ridiculously tolerant pot heads, that they are still cogent.

No argument here :D  I also like how Gandalf smoked it and blew a smoke ring that looked like a Spanish galleon (in the movie anyway).
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: samwisekoi on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:42:51
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!

But Ents aren't innocent...they're an ancient race that has been involved in all kinds of major events.  If you're interested, but want to be REALLY bored, read the Silmarillion.

And then vote Tom Bombadil!
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:45:08
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-call-tom-bombadil.png)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: hashbaz on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:51:26
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: samwisekoi on Wed, 19 December 2012, 19:54:37
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

Didn't the Eagles have a reason not to do that? 

Also, catapult.

[attachimg=1]

 - Ron | samwisekoi
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: davkol on Wed, 19 December 2012, 20:02:38
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!

But Ents aren't innocent...they're an ancient race that has been involved in all kinds of major events.  If you're interested, but want to be REALLY bored, read the Silmarillion.
Which part? I read Silmarillion at least twice, but I can't recall anything at the moment (it might because it's 3 am here, though).
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 20:12:15
What about ents? What if we replaced hobbits by ents? Eh, yeah... it would get even more boring. But that's the point!

But Ents aren't innocent...they're an ancient race that has been involved in all kinds of major events.  If you're interested, but want to be REALLY bored, read the Silmarillion.
Which part? I read Silmarillion at least twice, but I can't recall anything at the moment (it might because it's 3 am here, though).

It's minor, but they were around for all the big stuff.  This is the best I can for now:  http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?Ents

It's only 9pm here but I'm still in my office :(
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Wed, 19 December 2012, 20:14:32
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it:  http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: hashbaz on Wed, 19 December 2012, 20:49:38
Tolkien was the original master of retcon. ;)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:16:36
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it:  http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html


OK, IDK why all the kiddies are pissed about the Eagles..

Because if you haven't noticed the GIANT Freaking EYE guarding Mount Doom...

I'm pretty sure, that without the army fighting at the gate, along with all the distractions, The giant eye would see the eagles, and shoot them the **** down...

Not to mention, the enemy also had those flying dragonesque things of their own...

If it was straight Air drop, the ring would probably NEVER had made it to the mountain,, and it would INSTEAD be delivered right into the hands of the enemy......



Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tjcaustin on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:24:47
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

Didn't the Eagles have a reason not to do that? 

Also, catapult.

(Attachment Link)

 - Ron | samwisekoi

You just had to find the world's longest GIF for this, didn't you?

Or is that only part one and there will be two more and then nearly a decade later, you'll release another three as a prequel?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: samwisekoi on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:26:01
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

Didn't the Eagles have a reason not to do that? 

Also, catapult.

(Attachment Link)

 - Ron | samwisekoi

You just had to find the world's longest GIF for this, didn't you?

Or is that only part one and there will be two more and then nearly a decade later, you'll release another three as a prequel?

Then I'll sell out to Disney and retire...
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: frostwoozle on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:43:04
I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it: http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html

Tolkien probably assumed the reasons were obvious. Most of the arguments in your link bring Sauron down to the level of Denethor with a good telescope! It talks about Nazgul flight speed forgetting that The Necromancer and his Eye are capable of exerting power over distances. Recall the snowfall on the heights of Caradhras and the battle of wills with Gandalf at the top of the Endless Stair. I doubt our swift feathered friends could withstand a similar assault! The Dark Lord himself and his many watchers are unlikely to miss a Great Eagle in flight with Frodo and the ring where two hobbits, sneaking underground via an unthought-of passage, escape larger notice. There's far more hustle and bustle and places to hide (and look) on the ground then in the air. Gandalf insisted on a small party and a deserted route based on this same reasoning.

Them not just stuffing Frodo into a catapult was definitely a major cock-up though. The Wise my arse ;]
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:48:18
There's no way they could've catapulted the Ring THAT FAR....

Even Trebuchets do not have that kind of Range...


The only way would be Thousands of those eagles,, and all of them Kamikazi into the mountain,, That way they won't know which one to shoot down...

And also have a distraction squad of eagles, that are More heavily armored so that the ORCs would think They were carrying the ring.. HOWEVER, it is the Other kamikaze eagles that are carrying the RING....


But I'm assuming there arn't enough of those eagles..

Then again, since they do have freaking Gandalf, You think he'd have some sort of spell to clone the dame eagles, or some sort of short distance teleportation spell,,

But honestly he is a totally useless wizard, because we're all to assume he has GREAT powers, NONE of which are useful....


Now, if NARUTO was in the freaking book, that' would be more epic.... he would just kagebunshi a ton of eagles...
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:51:58
I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it: http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html

Tolkien probably assumed the reasons were obvious. Most of the arguments in your link bring Sauron down to the level of Denethor with a good telescope! It talks about Nazgul flight speed forgetting that The Necromancer and his Eye are capable of exerting power over distances. Recall the snowfall on the heights of Caradhras and the battle of wills with Gandalf at the top of the Endless Stair. I doubt our swift feathered friends could withstand a similar assault! The Dark Lord himself and his many watchers are unlikely to miss a Great Eagle in flight with Frodo and the ring where two hobbits, sneaking underground via an unthought-of passage, escape larger notice. There's far more hustle and bustle and places to hide (and look) on the ground then in the air. Gandalf insisted on a small party and a deserted route based on this same reasoning.

Them not just stuffing Frodo into a catapult was definitely a major cock-up though. The Wise my arse ;]

catapult would definitely NOT work..  EVEN IF we're assuming they got close enough, and the range of a catapult is enough,, the Catapulted PROJECTILE SPEED IS incredibly SLOW... Those winged dragons could easily catchup to the projectile and if need be, take the hit, and stop it mid air..

Then you would've just delivered the ring into the hands of the enemy...

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: alaricljs on Wed, 19 December 2012, 22:53:56
There's no way they could've catapulted the Ring THAT FAR....

Even Trebuchets do not have that kind of Range...

Because Gandalf couldn't provide a helping hand there....
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 23:01:10
There's no way they could've catapulted the Ring THAT FAR....

Even Trebuchets do not have that kind of Range...

Because Gandalf couldn't provide a helping hand there....


Well.. OK here's the thing... Gandalf is KNOWN for "FIREWORKS"

And based on that Dragon firework they set off in the first movie...

He can easily make MAGIC GUIDED fireworks..

WHICH MEANS,,,,,, Gandalf could've produced a large enough Magic guided Missile to deliver the RING..

Of course he flakes out, and makes a stupid fellowship to WALK the ring up the mountain.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: samwisekoi on Wed, 19 December 2012, 23:13:51
There's no way they could've catapulted the Ring THAT FAR....

Even Trebuchets do not have that kind of Range...

Because Gandalf couldn't provide a helping hand there....


Well.. OK here's the thing... Gandalf is KNOWN for "FIREWORKS"

And based on that Dragon firework they set off in the first movie...

He can easily make MAGIC GUIDED fireworks..

WHICH MEANS,,,,,, Gandalf could've produced a large enough Magic guided Missile to deliver the RING..

Of course he flakes out, and makes a stupid fellowship to WALK the ring up the mountain.

But Gandalf couldn't have the One ring because he already had another.  Plus the magic fireworks would have been noticed immediately.  Thus the halflings.

But what about... Ent-trebouchets?

Also, have you seen the lovely Elvish keyboard GB just down there...?

vvvvvvvvvvvvv
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 19 December 2012, 23:58:48
There's no way they could've catapulted the Ring THAT FAR....

Even Trebuchets do not have that kind of Range...

Because Gandalf couldn't provide a helping hand there....


Well.. OK here's the thing... Gandalf is KNOWN for "FIREWORKS"

And based on that Dragon firework they set off in the first movie...

He can easily make MAGIC GUIDED fireworks..

WHICH MEANS,,,,,, Gandalf could've produced a large enough Magic guided Missile to deliver the RING..

Of course he flakes out, and makes a stupid fellowship to WALK the ring up the mountain.

But Gandalf couldn't have the One ring because he already had another.  Plus the magic fireworks would have been noticed immediately.  Thus the halflings.

But what about... Ent-trebouchets?

Also, have you seen the lovely Elvish keyboard GB just down there...?

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

The elvish set is very cool.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: dirge on Thu, 20 December 2012, 03:09:11
I read this thread and pretty much certain you're all high..
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: Glissant on Thu, 20 December 2012, 03:15:37
Yes! And why didn't they just magic the ring there with teleports and magic flying carpets with singing disney characters on them?

Because that's not what the book was about.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: davkol on Thu, 20 December 2012, 06:01:18
Tolkien didn't like magic.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Thu, 20 December 2012, 06:08:49
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it:  http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html


OK, IDK why all the kiddies are pissed about the Eagles..

Because if you haven't noticed the GIANT Freaking EYE guarding Mount Doom...

I'm pretty sure, that without the army fighting at the gate, along with all the distractions, The giant eye would see the eagles, and shoot them the **** down...

Not to mention, the enemy also had those flying dragonesque things of their own...

If it was straight Air drop, the ring would probably NEVER had made it to the mountain,, and it would INSTEAD be delivered right into the hands of the enemy......

This sounds like an argument in support of hobbits :D  Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 20 December 2012, 09:33:11
IIRC in the book they do discuss dropping the ring into the ocean at the council in Rivendell.

And of course the eagles could have just dropped it into Mt Doom rather easily.

I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to explain why the eagles didn't get involved until AFTER the ring was destroyed.  Here's a ridiculously detailed webpage waxing poetic all about it:  http://www.sean-crist.com/personal/pages/eagles/index.html


OK, IDK why all the kiddies are pissed about the Eagles..

Because if you haven't noticed the GIANT Freaking EYE guarding Mount Doom...

I'm pretty sure, that without the army fighting at the gate, along with all the distractions, The giant eye would see the eagles, and shoot them the **** down...

Not to mention, the enemy also had those flying dragonesque things of their own...

If it was straight Air drop, the ring would probably NEVER had made it to the mountain,, and it would INSTEAD be delivered right into the hands of the enemy......

This sounds like an argument in support of hobbits :D  Just sayin'...

No... No.. No no nononononononono

I'm agreeing that for the Final Entrance into the mountain, the ring needed to be placed in the hands of an "Infiltration Unit"

But ANYTHING would be better than Hobbits.... Ninjas are the OBVIOUS choice, but Tolkien obviously hated Asians and wouldn't give them a cool role.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 20 December 2012, 09:37:15
Tolkien didn't like magic.

This is a problem with all High fantasy.. Because certain types of magic in the hand of a "resourceful" character would completely obliterate all enemies... There would be very little story/ arc

So what the fantasy writers tend to do, is make arbitrary showcases of immense magical ability, but then put the character on some stupid MORAL grounds to "NOT" use it....


I mean, I like the setting with magic, but various abilities are Such Drastic distortions of Matter to Energy balance, that it is GOD LIKE, and the story makes no sense, because that God tier guy could probably just KILL everyone, end of story...
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 20 December 2012, 09:42:26
But you see, they NEVER just kill everybody.. The characters always have some "love of humanity"

Same problem with superhero stories..

Superman for example, could just KILL all the bad guys, NEVER even have himself revealed as SUPERMAN, just covertly do this... and the world would be a significantly better place.

Even for Every Bad guy he Kills 10 good guys by mistake, or by proxy.... That is still ok, USA has 7 million criminals. so 10x that is only 23% of the USA population......
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: alaricljs on Thu, 20 December 2012, 09:44:05
Tolkien didn't like magic.

This is a problem with all High fantasy.. Because certain types of magic in the hand of a "resourceful" character would completely obliterate all enemies... There would be very little story/ arc

So what the fantasy writers tend to do, is make arbitrary showcases of immense magical ability, but then put the character on some stupid MORAL grounds to "NOT" use it....


I mean, I like the setting with magic, but various abilities are Such Drastic distortions of Matter to Energy balance, that it is GOD LIKE, and the story makes no sense, because that God tier guy could probably just KILL everyone, end of story...

L.E. Modessitt Jr. handles that pretty well in his Recluce series.  There are personal costs for use of power.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: Playtrumpet on Sun, 23 December 2012, 19:26:01
Besides the temptation thing, Tolkien wanted to show that even the littlest and seemingly static creatures of the earth can surprise you with greatness. Some people connect with that message more than one suggesting "power is cool."
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: daerid on Sun, 23 December 2012, 22:34:08
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.

Actually... ACTUALLY... this isn't correct. Frodo decides to keep the ring at the last minute, and it essentially got destroyed by accident.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: cytoSiN on Mon, 24 December 2012, 08:31:32
No hobbits, then the ring would never get destroyed. All the other races would succumb to the temptation of power and corruption and end up keeping the ring. That's the whole point, the hobbits are boring and have no ambitions for power making them innocents and able to resist the temptation.

Actually... ACTUALLY... this isn't correct. Frodo decides to keep the ring at the last minute, and it essentially got destroyed by accident.

EDIT:  Looks like my original post didn't actually show up, just the quote!  What I intended to say was that I didn't think Tolkien was trying to imply any sort of "accident."  Rather, he was showing that even innocents can give into temptation after bearing the burden of evil for so long.  But even then, a greater evil (Gollum's own temptation) triumphed over Frodo's temptation.  In fact, it's rather interesting that in the end, evil/temptation is what really saved the day, because without Gollum attacking Frodo, he may never have destroyed the ring.  That last point has given me a headache since I first read all of this stuff around 25 years ago.

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings WITHOUT Hobbits.
Post by: HarryPalms on Mon, 24 December 2012, 13:07:58
Watched LOTR Fellowship Extended last night.  Great movie and it was nice to see the stone trolls and hear the story again.