[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I don't think we can see Nori's ears, but aren't Hobbits the only ones we know had pointed ears? Tolkien Gateway says it's from Letter 27, and I think it's sometimes used to argue that elves did too (it's the "slightly pointed and 'elvish'" line).

Fair enough. I have to say that here I am a prisoner to my own "headcanon" based on my early readings and perception of the world where, as opposed to all other mainstream fantasy, Elves did not have pointed ears; and Hobbits' description in all the commonly accessible sources absolutely does not mention any difference besides the size, curly hair and hairy feet. This is, I guess, the case of super-thorough nitpicky research on something that is not particularly clearly stated versus generic overall impression, and I, unusually, went with the latter.

In any case, my point about pointy ears being the decisive factor in recognising an Elf stands: it should not be like that. You should recognise an Elf by starlight in their eyes or whatever. But that said, granted, I understand that in the cinema, the former is the easiest way of doing it, also for the bulk audience who already are used to pointy-ears being the distinctive feature of the Elves.

(But I still think that is wrong simply because if having some clearly "nonhuman" body part was the difference between the races, then exactly the case of all Túrins etc being mistaken for Elves would be pretty different. If your world is inhabited by "normal" people and then people with an extra limb, third eye or pointy ears, you are going to focus on that characteristic and it would be the foremost in your mind at all times. Also then raises the question if it were so, why was it never described when anyone from Bilbo to Éomer first saw the Elves etc.)

Originally Posted by Hui

As for #2: if Halbrand is Numenorean, then for a thousand years or more Numenorean society has been turning hard against the elves. I don't think Galadriel would be overly trusting of a people who are claiming most of Middle-earth as their own personal slave-taking playground, and literally had a king who called himself "Lord of the West".

But that would be the explanation for her suspicion of him, yet the trailer shot (anyway, it is just a trailer shot) is framed the way that he is the one who is surprised what sort of alien impostor (or perhaps what sort of species he thought has been extinct) this might be.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I cannot fathom why anybody, even out of their right mind, would don antlers in such a manner as is depicted outside of a religious ceremony. You would get blown over by every gust of wind. Perhaps that is the point and these people periodically travel by wind power..?

I am too stupefied, but well, I guess we have to wait to see more about them. We don't even know who exactly they are. Maybe they are just hunters returning from killing the Antlered-Spawn of Glaurung.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

There's not an over-reliance on CGI:

Certainly a good thing; even though in this era, after two decades of amazement by the possibilities of CGI (effectively started by PJ's LotR, no less), there is nowadays a bit of a revival of "good ol' school puppets and real stuff" (cf. recent Star Wars). It does not make it necessarily "better", it simply is "the new mainstream" to have a bit of "real stuff" in your film.

Originally Posted by Boro

But it appears young Elrond's storyline is going to be focused on a friendship with Durin IV, which Payne says Elrond is trying to "repair their friendship." Still not quite what I think when I hear "Elrond," but maybe not as bad as when I first heard him described as a "politician."

Well, let us anyway remember that these characters have certain development before them (HOPEFULLY!).

I mean, if in the first episode we are going to see Elrond being like, say, "I am illiterate and I hate books", I can already see fans screaming that this is not Elrond, but then the series is going to show how he meets Celebrían and she shows him a book and he is like "meh, no way!" and then he starts reading it and becomes enthralled, and then becomes an expert on Moon-letters, then I say, this is the proper way to do it. Same goes for being a wily politician or anything else.

Originally Posted by mhagain

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

Basically this. It may be good, may be bad, but it is within artistic license and it is a plausibility that the proto-Hobbits lived anywhere outside Eriador. Or heck, if you really really stretched it, they could even have lived somewhere in Eriador in the beginning, then sometime in the middle of the Second Age be chased away for some reason (say, Númenorean raids), live somewhere in the East for some thousand years, and then move into Anduin Valleys.

Originally Posted by mhagain

On the other hand, Nori Brandyfoot is a terrible name, and really shows how little the creators understand the naming schemes Tolkien used. The correct approach would have been to pull something from an ancient language. Westron didn't exist yet (well it did, but only in the sense that Westron is Adunaic) and anyway if the Hobbits were further east they wouldn't have mixed with those Mannish cultures, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Indeed. I don't know how it was possible, when doing Tolkien, to overlook the central subject of language, as it seems to be the case at the moment. I mean, if the Harfoots either were named something like Déagol or at least something close to the upper-half of the Hobbit family trees, it would be okay. Nori is a Dwarf.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Despite all the devoted Tolkien fans out on the 'net who are horrified - purely on the basis of the difference from canon, and definitely nothing else that rhymes with dracism - by such things as a non-white elf and a non-white dwarf, you know what I haven't seen? Any complaints about Gil-Galad, who looks nothing like his canon self.

His sword was long, his lance was keen
His shining helm afar was seen
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield

Gil-Galad's colours are blue and silver; they're the colours on his emblem, and descriptions like "into darkness fell his star" imply that he actually wore star-silver. It's even in his name! But the series has put him in gold.

Literally what I said in my previous post. Gil-Galad should be the one in Galadriel's "Joan of Arc" armour.

Originally Posted by Hui

Personally, I hope they're being 'generous'/lenient enough to let the story run as it does in Tolkien's texts. Things like: Tar-Miriel should be forcibly married to Pharazon, and should attempt to climb Meneltarma at the last. Otherwise, you'd be doing the character a complete disservice. Some things (like how Finrod dies) can be worked around, but to do that with Miriel would mean writing her out entirely.

Literally this. If it is true that the Estate is granting some tidbits here and there on a case-by-case basis, then this would be the good piece that should be included. Besides, for instance the Meneltarma thing is such a stunning idea for cinema that I can literally see it in my mind. Of all things, that should be put on-screen. (And you could even shamelessly make it akin to PJ's Frodo&Sam upon Mount Doom-ending, intentionally referencing it, only instead of fire having water - and that would be all perfect as far as I am concerned.)