|
|
Post by Odingaard on Dec 14, 2012 22:32:47 GMT
 Seen The Hobbit last night, and it was a wonderfully entertaining film. But, as I watched, I noticed that the sword, Sting, was very different from the original version used in the LoTR films. My question would be, why? This was an iconic image from the first film. And I know New Line kept all the Peter Lyon swords/props and such from the first film. Why change something so easily recognized? I liked the first version better with the runes on the blade. The new one, which lacks runes and has something similar to a triangular ricasso on it, looks 'off' to me. I am sure there is an answer in the production department floating around out there, but in everything I have seen, I am clueless as to why this happened. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Dec 14, 2012 23:56:26 GMT
I remember reading a theory on the LotR wiki that stated that while Glamdring and Orcrist had inscriptions giving their names and rough histories, there was nothing for Sting, because it was just an Elfish dagger; in fact, Sting gets its name during the course of the Hobbit novel. Anyways, the theory was that, during the 50-60 odd years between Hobbit and Fellowship, Bilbo had it engraved with the now iconic runes (which, by the way, say something like 'I am Sting, bane of the spiders', if memory serves).
Perhaps New Line are taking that theory and making it a part of the film canon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Earncynn on Dec 15, 2012 0:49:15 GMT
I bought one of the old version Stings on eBay, and it is a beauty. This version looks nice too. ¿Maybe the change was made as a decision to appeal to LOTR fans - like me - to encourage sales of the new version when/if they become available? As Yogurt said in the movie Spaceballs - ¨it all about merchandising, merchandising, merchandising !!¨.  I am happy to hear that the new film is good. Can´t wait to view it !!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 15, 2012 2:44:43 GMT
Because you - as in the average movie goer - aren't actually supposed to notice tiny details like that? Hell, I barely noticed much differance and I have a medically recognized obsession with swords and fine details. Look, they're not going to use a decade-old hero prop for the main character's sword - of course they'll make a fresh one. And, while they were at it, they made a few minor cosmetic changes. It happens. I... don't think it does. I think you might just have a wonky picture of it.   You seem to be right about the carvings on the hilt, though. Also, the pattern on the blade is also different. Or rather, it seems incomplete. I suspect the idea here is that Bilbo has it altered later to commemorate his adventure. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that actually happens in one of the next movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Springs on Dec 15, 2012 3:07:22 GMT
I'm fairly certain the runes were engraved in after the events of his adventure.
|
|
Lunaman
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,974
|
Post by Lunaman on Dec 15, 2012 3:21:19 GMT
Another voice to the chorus of : Bilbo hadn't given it the name "Sting" or had the incident with the spiders when he came across it, which is why the inscription always bothered me in the first films. This change actually makes me quite pleased. Makes sense that he'd commemorate it later, and I think I remember Kit Rae saying that was pretty much the official explanation on another forum for movie props but I can't find the thread at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Dec 15, 2012 3:35:08 GMT
Also from memory the magic that makes sting glow when orcs are near came after, most likely added by the Elves for Bilbo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldartith Thinntrew on Dec 15, 2012 3:38:58 GMT
I'm quite sure this is accurate - the Hobbit was one of my favorite childhood novels. I'm pretty sure that it is just a dagger, In the movies it looks like they're trying to imply it's a paired dagger to Orcrist, as Sting has a leaf-blade and Orcrist is like one half of a leaf-blade. The swords and daggers are recovered from the clearing with the trolls, are they not? I could bust out my copy when I get home and check if anybody likes .
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Dec 15, 2012 3:43:34 GMT
Orcrist was the weapon of the Dwarf Lord Thorin Oakenshield from Tolkien's novel, The Hobbit. In Sindarin Orcrist is said to mean "Goblin Cleaver", (Goblin being a synonym for Orc used mainly in The Hobbit).[1] In The Hobbit, the goblins called it Biter. Many of the famed weapons in Tolkien's stories had names, such as Glamdring, Narsil and Sting. It was crafted by the Elves, which not only made it a valuable weapon, but a feared one as well, particularly amongst the traditional enemies of the Elves, being Orcs and other evil creatures of Middle-earth. Like Glamdring and Sting, the blade could detect the presence of Orcs and Goblins, and warn its bearer by glowing blue. lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Orcrist |
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Dec 15, 2012 3:45:13 GMT
If Kit Rae said it... I instinctively want to disbelieve it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Dec 15, 2012 3:54:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlokk on Dec 15, 2012 4:36:17 GMT
No, that's not correct at all... in fact one minor thing that always bugged me with the LotR trilogy is the fact that Glamdring doesn't glow when orcs are near, as that was a property all 3 of the blades recovered from the trolls had from their creation. Apparently from the Orcrist article posted above, it doesn't glow in The Hobbit movies either, a minor niggle but oh well, I guess that makes Sting stand out or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasim18 on Dec 15, 2012 4:59:13 GMT
ok here goes. I am truly completely nerded out on this issue and it is fairly simple. the inscription reads 'sting is my name, I am the spiders bane' It was a First Age weapon, lost in the war against Morgoth with the fall of Gondolin. It was not seen again until Bolibo found it. At the time it was lost, the only noteworthy spider was Unogliant, mother of all spiders. Quite simply, the idea that this is the spider to which Sting is a bane is silly, she ate mountains and would not have noticed if Gandalf himself hacked away with Sting for a month. It would have to be a lesser spider, which Sting only encountered with hobbits. Bilbo had to have had the runes put on after he used it against Mirkwood spiders. any questions? did I miss anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 15, 2012 20:46:17 GMT
The one thing that actually bothers me with the movie swords is that Glamdring and Orcrist do not glow in the presence of orcs and goblins. This movie even highlights how strange that is by having Gandalf hand Sting over to Bilbo while going: "It's an elven blade, which means it glows when orcs are near." As if it was a well-known general fact. And yet the two most prominent elven blades don't do that. In fact Sting seems to be completely unique in that regard. I think Jackson really threw away a great opportunity there, because as we all know, swords that glow in the dark are as awesome as they are impractical.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kataphractos on Dec 16, 2012 0:40:11 GMT
But then here they go in and add in a [SPOILERS]pale orc (whose name escapes me) that did not appear at all in the book and to me came across as more a plot device to inject action into the story, along with Radagast (spelling's off, I know) the Morgul blade and the Necromancer and all that, trying to make it blatantly obvious that The Hobbit is the prelude to Lord of the Rings. I mean, wtf? Not to mention, the first 20 minutes was unnecessary, IMO.[SPOILERS] Ok, rant over. Overall though, I liked the movie. I think I enjoyed the Great Goblin a little too much though...did anyone else think that he was just an overall well-done character?
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Dec 16, 2012 2:43:39 GMT
Sting glows when "Enemies" are near. Not just Orcs. Sting also glowed for the Spiders and Smaug. Likely, the spell that caused it to glow for orcs was actually tuned in to the effects of Morgoth's hand on any creature. Sting glows for all Morgoth's (and, later, Sauron's) creatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckinohio on Dec 16, 2012 15:42:02 GMT
I think that this assessment is spot on as regards the spider reference. Lifted from Tolkien Gateway Some views on Sting and the inscription are here- Sting Both versions are correct if you assume that the blade was inscribed by the Elvish smiths in Rivendell for Bilbo subsequent to his journey to Mount Erebor. Sting was not named until after the encounter with the spiders in Mirkwood during The Hobbit. The lack of supporting documentation from the books makes this all supposition though. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 17, 2012 20:31:16 GMT
Actually, Azog the Defiler wasn't a complete fabrication - while he doesn't show up in the book, he does exist in Tolkien's notes. He does have a history with Thorin's family so he makes for a good antagonist and I do think his presence makes the story stronger - the story needs a good villain since otherwise they're just fighting a bunch of random orcs.
In fact, I felt that way about most of the additions - they don't really change the story much, they just add to it to make it grander. (They even kept things I would have prefered they didn't, like the random and nonsensical giant fight.)
And while Jackson may have elaborated a lot, he does seem to have gone to quite some lenghts to avoid making stuff up from scratch, and to use as much authentic Tolkien material as possible.
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Dec 18, 2012 7:03:24 GMT
Wait. What giant fight? I don't remember any giants. The trolls, the orcs, the orcs again, the wood elves, the dragon, the battle of 5 armies. No giants.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckinohio on Dec 18, 2012 14:38:27 GMT
No problem man, just backstopping the points that you had already made. I too was disappointed in the replacement of Glorfindel. I was somewhat looking forward to Frodos vision of ' An Elf Lord revealed in his wrath' at the bridge. Alas, such was not to be. For those not familiar with Azog, his relevance to Thorin, or his relevance to the story- Lifted from the Tolkien Gateway The battle of Azanulbizar is significant to the Dwarves as it gave rise to the term "Burned Dwarf" and the connotations that the term carries amongst the Dwarven folk, and as the rise to preeminence of Dain Ironfoot. |
|
.
