S04E02 Script Discussion

I like it a lot , but one thing immediately sprung to my mind:

Four arrows for a sack
of grain. Ten for a jar of honey. Thirty-
five for a donkey.


Those seem damn low prices for arrowheads and damn high prices for donkeys and grain!

I think a dozen arrowheads for 2-4 donkeys are a realistic price, possibly less if we assume the dwarves produce very high quality, 12 arrowheads can also easily be 200-300 l grain, depending on type, quality and how great the need is.

I'd gladly try to research realistic prices for honey if you tell me how much one jar is in weight!
You’re probably right. I was just making up random numbers because I wanted Norn to appear knowledgeable about the values of the goods the Dwarves and Sindar are trading. I could just have him say that a dozen arrows would be worth the donkeys or the grain or the honey.
 
Sure! I always look up the net for antique or medieval prices to get at last a vague feeling... (when i make up pricelists for ...let's say rpgs for example..)

We are never able to judge realistic prices anyway, we don't know how effective the sindar's agriculture is, we don't know how work intensive the dwarves metallurgy is...

Antique grain was very cheap because of the mass-labor of slaves, and still in times of need, war or bad harvests prices could be 8000 times as high as in good times.problem with donkeys... they were about the most cheap and worthless animals on the antique horsemarkets... still a good donkey could easily cost ten times the price of a not quite as good donkey, then we have areas where donkeys are bred and are mass-products ( so to say) and areas where they are not bred , but transport and work animals are in dire need... again, vast price differences!

Also arrowheads were a high-tech product in the medieval... , but according to time of need and how well trade and metal production and grain to feed workers worked better or less well they could get twice as expensive and more in comparison to other times.

Yet it always is still a good thing to compare prices to judge the value of things in relation to another... better than to pull prices out of nowhere or to look for modern prices, which are way out of relation to ancient prices, except maybe if you look to historical frontier regions or third world countries... then it can sometimes get pretty close!

(I had to edit my own post four times at last, becaUse everytime i realised i had made a mistake )

But what i like is that you chose arrowheads for their currency! Makes sense in a lot of ways..
 
Last edited:
The Petty-dwarves can be referred to as the Houseless Dwarves (by themselves) or the Exiles (by other Dwarves).

Celeborn was requested as a witness to events by the Hosts, but I agree that it's tough when we don't really want him witnessing things :p. So, let's see how they react to this......they likely won't remember what they requested ;).
 
*sights* the more often i read your scripts the more i'd hope we actually COULD make this series in real... and if only in very simple animation..

There's the one theory that the pettydwarves called themselves the "Nûlukhiz" and that that term might mean "Moondwarf", though i think they were rather called "Narûk", which might mean either "rushing or violent ones " or "twisted ones", though one might be a self-identification, the other a xenonym.Unfortunately i know little of khuzdul... it was never a language i was very good at or very involved with.. (i recently found that "Makalûk" might mean "exiled" in neokhuzdul and neokhuzdul for "houseless" might be "Azanarbîn"... though i'm not really sure if that is how khuzdul works..)
 
Last edited:
*sights* the more often i read your scripts the more i'd hope we actually COULD make this series in real... and if only in very simple animation..

There's the one theory that the pettydwarves called themselves the "Nûlukhiz" and that that term might mean "Moondwarf", though i think they were rather called "Narûk", which might mean either "rushing or violent ones " or "twisted ones", though one might be a self-identification, the other a xenonym.Unfortunately i know little of khuzdul... it was never a language i was very good at or very involved with.. (i recently found that "Makalûk" might mean "exiled" in neokhuzdul and neokhuzdul for "houseless" might be "Azanarbîn"... though i'm not really sure if that is how khuzdul works..)
If we do use Khuzdul names for the Petty Dwarves, they probably wouldn't be revealed until we meet actual Petty Dwarves, since the other Dwarves are so secretive about their language.
 
Yeah sure... i was just ... throwing around thoughts! I immediately thought.. at that moment... if it's a very emmotional second for norn... he might fall back into khuzdzdul and use a native term... as a figure of expression just in that moment... to show that he's into something very ... personal at just that moment.

Btw. Theres some indication that the pt are not that secretive about their language as other dwarves are... but maybe that concerns just their own peculiar dialect, which seems to be somewhat removed from common khuzdul...
 
They are the Noegyth Nibin,
(bitterly)
no better than beasts, and the Sindar
would do well to hunt them as such.


But WOULD Norn say such a thing?

But they still acknowledged their kinship and resented any injuries done to them. Indeed it was one of their grievances against the Eldar that they had hunted and slain their lesser kin, who had settled in Beleriand before the Elves came there. This grievance was set aside, when treaties were made between the Dwarves and the Sindar, in consideration of the plea that the Petty-dwarves had never declared themselves to the Eldar, nor presented any claims to land or habitations, but had at once attacked the newcomers in darkness and ambush.


I'm sorry that the only things i had so far on your scripts were criticism... :(

Because overall i really LIKE your script, the points i mentioned were the only small points which bothered me... while everything i did NOT say much about i think is really good actually!
 
Please do criticize my scripts! I love it, and that's the only way for them to get better.

I don't recall there being any reference to the Sindar accidentally hunting the Petty Dwarves next season, so I wanted to make some kind of allusion to it. Although other Dwarves might resent the injuries done to the Petty Dwarves, Norn probably doesn't. I could change it so he says "If ever the Sindar have seen them in Beleriand, they would have appeared little more than beasts to hunt." Do you think that would work better?
 
Please do criticize my scripts! I love it, and that's the only way for them to get better.

I don't recall there being any reference to the Sindar accidentally hunting the Petty Dwarves next season, so I wanted to make some kind of allusion to it. Although other Dwarves might resent the injuries done to the Petty Dwarves, Norn probably doesn't. I could change it so he says "If ever the Sindar have seen them in Beleriand, they would have appeared little more than beasts to hunt." Do you think that would work better?

I do think I like that better. Because it implies that it may actually have happened.
 
I somehow imagine the sindar listening to what norn is saying,,having to swallow and think "oops! Was there... f*** yes there might have... .weeeeel... let's quickly change the subject and never talk about it again!"
 
One hour to go until Script Review!

I feel Episode 2 is very strong, and has moments of humor and character development, as well as a natural flow to the story as it builds towards the conclusion. Maglor and Maedhros' private conversation is all I hoped it would be (with Maglor singing and the talk of fate mixed into the apology), and Maglor saying 'Again?' and sighing when given news that Fingolfin is at his gate with an army demanding he answer for something again....perfect!

If I had to criticize it at all, I would say there are a couple of moments that get 'exposition-heavy' as a character launches into an explanation or an 'as you recall' moment. Some of them are clearly necessary (the camps of the Noldor talking about one another), but there are probably places some of that can be trimmed or made less concentrated. I would focus on Galadriel's dialogue in Act 2 - she probably doesn't need to give the history of Ungoliant and the whole family tree relationship back to back like that. Perhaps Celeborn could tell more of the spiders attacking Doriath and she could merely mention the monstrous spider creature whose webs were darkness and fear?

And the language has tightened up a bit, so there is still an archaic cadence to it, but it's not stilted. There are probably some things that you wouldn't say if you're using thee/thou (for instance, 'of course!' feels rather modern), but I'm not aware of the history of language usage enough to point out exactly what should stay and what should be weeded out.

But I have been viewing these scripts as first drafts/early drafts, where the goal is to get the story and focus of the scenes down, rather than to tidy up all of the details, so those are really too minor of a point for this stage!

Edited to Add: On a similarly nit-picky minor note, the 'corn' of Yavanna is wheat. In British usage, corn means grain (ie, a generic term for any grain), whereas in American usage, corn is specifically maize, and the generic term is grain. An example of this is the folk song 'John Barleycorn Must Die'. So, if we are going to reference it, I prefer we say grain or wheat, so as not to confuse the audience into thinking we mean
ear%2Bof%2Bcorn.jpg


I am fine with using British usage (or Tolkien-usage!) rather than American usage in cases that aren't going to lead to misunderstandings, but in this case, I think the word 'corn' is misleading.
 
Last edited:
Something I've noticed as I've been editing the scripts (Episode 2 is just the first place it occurs) is that I refer to the large forest in the northeast of Middle-earth as Mirkwood. At the end of The Hobbit, it's mentioned that people began to call the forest Greenwood again after the Necromancer was driven out. Would that name change have taken place by the time of our frame story?

Alternatively, would it be better to stick with Mirkwood because that is the name most people would be familiar with?

I'll have to go through the scripts and check, but I'm pretty sure I never have the Elves who live there refer to their own dwelling as Mirkwood, so this would just apply to what the Men, Dwarves, and Bilbo and Gandalf call the wood.
 
Something I've noticed as I've been editing the scripts (Episode 2 is just the first place it occurs) is that I refer to the large forest in the northeast of Middle-earth as Mirkwood. At the end of The Hobbit, it's mentioned that people began to call the forest Greenwood again after the Necromancer was driven out. Would that name change have taken place by the time of our frame story?

Alternatively, would it be better to stick with Mirkwood because that is the name most people would be familiar with?

I'll have to go through the scripts and check, but I'm pretty sure I never have the Elves who live there refer to their own dwelling as Mirkwood, so this would just apply to what the Men, Dwarves, and Bilbo and Gandalf call the wood.
It doesn’t last for long: ten years after The Hobbit (and three years after our Frame), the Nazgul reoccupy Dol Guldur. It isn’t until the War of the Ring that the forest is cleansed.
 
In general, the rule in this project is to stick with one name. So, if the shift from Mirkwood --> Greenwood isn't a major plot point that the entire frame hinges on, then we should just call it Mirkwood throughout. I do agree, though,that we should not have the elves call it that.
 
Wasn't it called Eryn Galen (the Greenwood) before Sauron took up Dol Guldur? That's like, 76 seasons away, so I think we can get away with calling it Greenwood for a while. Plus Sauron's "polluting" and "mirking up" the 'Wood is an actual plot point for why the name changes...

EDIT: yes, I realize it's in the frame, but I think the point stands...

EDIT AGAIN: reread the script, and realized the frame takes place afterwards, when it would still be called Mirkwood. My bad.

So, when we get to the second age, and a realm is being established there, do we still call it Mirkwood, as in the frame, or go with it's original name until Sauron shows up there?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it called Eryn Galen (the Greenwood) before Sauron took up Dol Guldur? That's like, 76 seasons away, so I think we can get away with calling it Greenwood for a while. Plus Sauron's "polluting" and "mirking up" the 'Wood is an actual plot point for why the name changes...

EDIT: yes, I realize it's in the frame, but I think the point stands...

EDIT AGAIN: reread the script, and realized the frame takes place afterwards, when it would still be called Mirkwood. My bad.

So, when we get to the second age, and a realm is being established there, do we still call it Mirkwood, as in the frame, or go with it's original name until Sauron shows up there?

That's a great question. I'd say it depends upon how deep we go into the Greenwood story.
 
Yeah, the purpose of the Frame is to have 'familiar' material for the audience to see/hear in a new context. So, saying the name 'Mirkwood' is a positive, as it is the name used in the Hobbit.

In the 2nd Age material, we'll have a decision to make. If the storyline justifies a name change, we can make that decision then. Perhaps making 'Mirkwood' a surprise will be seen as a worthwhile development. But, yes, that will be a question for like Season....12. :p
 
Back
Top