Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: WolfCatBot on December 27, 2004, 12:02:40 PM

Title: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 27, 2004, 12:02:40 PM
I recently stayed up all night watching The Two Towers and Return of the King, and a lot of The Fellowship of the Ring (From the start of the fellowship and just about everything after). :D All of them being the Extended version, woof. 8 or 9 hours or something, party party! !:) Sooooo I have a few questions and stuffffff! !:D

1. Who are the Haradrim exactly, and why are they evil? :( It's a shame, I thought they looked super cool desert ninja-ey, and the oliphaunts were soooooo cute. :D Dey shoulda been good guys!

2. I heard that there were other good guys that showed up during the fight at Pelennor(?) Fields, in the book. Rangers, or something? Who were they? ?:D I wanted to see more Rangers. ;_;

3. Why can Eowyn kill the Homey D Witch King of Angmar? :D I know she's "Not a man" as in "Not male" but didn't the Witch King (And Gandalf) mean "Man" as in "Human(s)?" Was it like that in the book? Because, dude...

4. How come Gandalf never laid some magical smackdown after the Balrog fight? Didn't he come back as a new hip mage guy? The only magic he did was an exorcism, and two light shows. No fireballs, or thunderbolts, or HOLYGODEXPLOSIONNNNNs. I don't mind not seeing those, but they would have been useful in all the fighting. :D Like BAMHOCUSPOCUS! And that Grond thing is turned inta dust!

5. Did Gollum look like that in the book? Because I watched the Hobbit cartoon when I was a wee one, and Gollum looked way more pleasant. ;_; Kind of like the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 Troglodytes, except black and with a more pointed head. Yeahhh, that was cool. :D Now he looks... yowch. :D If he was like the Hobbit cartoon Gollum, I would have had a lot more fun in his scenes. :(

6. Do the Ents ever find the Entwives? I hope so! The Ents were probably my favorite. :D

7. Who was Sauron, and why is he so mean?

8. Whatever happens to Legolas and Gimli? :D Or... Eomer? :D Brego? Shadowfax? The Ents? The Eagles? Shelob? Am I missing anyone? :( I think Faramir and Eowyn get together, is that true? :D They should have had more ending scenes for the other characters. :( Toooooo much hobbit stuff.

9. Why did all the bad guys pack up and run away after the Sauron biggatower fell down? They could have won still, I think?

10. Where the dragons at?

11. Are the Rohan supposed to be better at fighting than the Gondorians? Because the Gondorians kind of... died, mostly.

12. Were there other continents and such, that had nothing to do with the big Sauron war? If not, Middle Earth seems like one small place, yow.

13. Are there female orcs?

14. Why did Theoden die!?!?!? ;_;
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Alarielle on December 27, 2004, 01:27:32 PM
I can supply a few answers, GC, though it has been a while since I last read the books. :)

2: In the book, Rangers from the North (Aragorn's kinsmen, I suppose) do appear at this battle, yes.  So do many other people including Arwen's two brothers.

3: Yup, that's exactly how it happens in the book :)

5: The film version of Gollum is roughly based on the drawings by Alan Lee from the books of The Lord of the Rings, so yes.

6: You never find out in The Lord of the Rings, but the hobbits do promise to keep an eye out ;)

8: As far as I remember, Legolas and Gimli live out their lives showing each other the wonders of the world, as it were.  Legolas sets up a kind of Elf colony in Minas Tirith.  After Aragorn dies, Legolas has a ship built so he and Gimli can pass into the Undying Lands (like Frodo etc).

10: Dragons were basically extinct by this point in time.

11: No, the men of Rohan were not better fighters necessarily, but they did have much stronger leadership.  The men of Gondor were fighting under the banner of a broken house and the command of an insane man, so it's not surprising they sucked a little :P

12: At the time of LotR, there were 5 continents.  Middle Earth, The Undying Lands, Sunlands, Darklands and Far Harad.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Meira on December 27, 2004, 01:41:56 PM
I recommend reading the books, you can find answers to nearly all of your questions there.  :) Make sure that your copy has the appendixes too.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 27, 2004, 03:45:19 PM
I'll give it a go, having read LotR umpty-ump times. Though I agree with Meira that you should probably bite the bullet and read the books--including the appendices.

I recently stayed up all night watching The Two Towers and Return of the King, and a lot of The Fellowship of the Ring (From the start of the fellowship and just about everything after). :D All of them being the Extended version, woof. 8 or 9 hours or something, party party! !:) Sooooo I have a few questions and stuffffff! !:D

1. Who are the Haradrim exactly, and why are they evil? :( It's a shame, I thought they looked super cool desert ninja-ey, and the oliphaunts were soooooo cute. :D Dey shoulda been good guys!

Hmm, whole lot of complicated history there. Short version, the men of Eastern and Southern part of the ME had long been controlled by Sauron, and also had long been enemies of Gondor. But from what Tolkien has Sam say in TTT (it's Faramir in the TTT EE) it's pretty clear that Tolkien doesn't think of Easterlings/Haradrim as *inherently* evil, but they had been under the sway of Sauron for thousands of years.

Quote
2. I heard that there were other good guys that showed up during the fight at Pelennor(?) Fields, in the book. Rangers, or something? Who were they? ?:D I wanted to see more Rangers. ;_;

Yep, as Alarielle said, a group of Aragorn's kinsmen and the twin sons of Elrond appear just before they go through the Paths of the Dead. They accompany A, L & G, through the PotD and then fight in the Battle of Pelennor Fields.

Quote
3. Why can Eowyn kill the Homey D Witch King of Angmar? :D I know she's "Not a man" as in "Not male" but didn't the Witch King (And Gandalf) mean "Man" as in "Human(s)?" Was it like that in the book? Because, dude...

That's why it's a prophecy, dude. It's gotta be cryptic and fulfilled in an unexpected way.  :) Of course, everyone thought that "man" meant "human", that was the trick. But also, in the book it is clear that Merry's participation was crucial. In FotR he picked up a sword forged by one of Aragorn's ancestors during their battles with the Witch-King of Angmar, and it had some special magic it that allowed the WK to be killed. Here's the text from the book:

"But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and the chief among their foes as the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt a blow so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

Cool, huh?

Quote
4. How come Gandalf never laid some magical smackdown after the Balrog fight? Didn't he come back as a new hip mage guy? The only magic he did was an exorcism, and two light shows. No fireballs, or thunderbolts, or HOLYGODEXPLOSIONNNNNs. I don't mind not seeing those, but they would have been useful in all the fighting. :D Like BAMHOCUSPOCUS! And that Grond thing is turned inta dust!

Another long answer would be required to fully explain why Gandalf's 'magical' powers seem limited. For one thing, Tolkien's use of magic was never the flashy D&D stuff that most people associate with wizards. For another, Gandalf was specifically restricted by the Valar (the god-like beings who sent him to ME) from using his powers in that way. He was supposed to aid and inspire the people of ME to defeat Sauron, not go mano-a-mano with Sauron. In the book, all that happens is that Gandalf confronts the WK at the gates of Minas Tirith, but then the WK turns away when the Rohirrim arrive. The "knocked off horse and wand destroyed" stuff was pure PJ. Truth be told, I thought it made Gandalf look too weak, since he is inherently a *much* more powerful creature than the WK.

Quote
5. Did Gollum look like that in the book? Because I watched the Hobbit cartoon when I was a wee one, and Gollum looked way more pleasant. ;_; Kind of like the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 Troglodytes, except black and with a more pointed head. Yeahhh, that was cool. :D Now he looks... yowch. :D If he was like the Hobbit cartoon Gollum, I would have had a lot more fun in his scenes. :(

In a word, yes, at least in my imagination, and I think it the imagination of most other people who've read the books. Book Gollum was *not* cuddly or cute, but creepy and wretched, completely twisted by his long possession of the Ring.

Quote
6. Do the Ents ever find the Entwives? I hope so! The Ents were probably my favorite. :D

You have good taste; I adore Treebeard. As Alarielle said, we never find out, but it doesn't look good.

Quote
7. Who was Sauron, and why is he so mean?

Geez, how long do you want this post to be?

Here's the super-condensed version:  Sauron, Gandalf and Saruman are all Maiar, powerful immortal spirit beings that have been embodied to look like mortal beings. (Maiar are one step below the Valar in power.) Waaaay back, not long after the creation of the world, Sauron was corrupted by Melkor, the evil Vala who became known as Morgoth, the Great Enemy, and became his most powerful servant. After Morgoth was defeated by the other Valar at the end of the First Age, Sauron disappeared for a time, then reappeared all ready to hang out his solo shingle as ME's resident Evil Overlord.

Quote
8. Whatever happens to Legolas and Gimli? :D Or... Eomer? :D Brego? Shadowfax? The Ents? The Eagles? Shelob? Am I missing anyone? :( I think Faramir and Eowyn get together, is that true? :D They should have had more ending scenes for the other characters. :( Toooooo much hobbit stuff.

Legolas: starts a colony of elves in Ithilien. Gimli: starts a colony of dwarves that dwell in the glittering caves behind Helm's Deep. As Alarielle said, after Aragorn dies, Legolas builds a ship to sail to the Undying Lands and takes Gimli with him. This is a *huge* deal, since although Legolas as a elf was welcome, very, very few mortals were allowed to travel to the Undying Lands. Rumor says that Galadriel intervened and asked that Gimli be allowed to come.

Eomer: becomes King of Rohan, maintains life-long friendship with Gondor and Aragorn. Happily-ever-after stuff.

Faramir & Eowyn: They get married, Faramir becomes Prince of Ithilien. More happily-ever-after stuff.

Others you mentioned: Tolkien never says explicitly.

Aren't you interested in what happens to Sam, Merry and Pippin?
 
Quote
9. Why did all the bad guys pack up and run away after the Sauron biggatower fell down? They could have won still, I think?

You mean other than the fact that the big-a$$ earthquake swallowed them up?  :) Actually, though it wasn't made obvious in the movie, the orcs & trolls were to a large degree driven by Sauron's will and when that was removed, they kinda lost the will to fight.

Quote
10. Where the dragons at?

As Alarielle said, pretty much gone by the time of the War of the Ring. They were created by Morgoth, and many died when he was defeated at the end of the First Age. Smaug was one of the few remaining ones.

Quote
11. Are the Rohan supposed to be better at fighting than the Gondorians? Because the Gondorians kind of... died, mostly.

I'm going to disagree with Alarielle here. Even though Gondor had declined from it's previous might, it was still a much more powerful and advanced country than Rohan. The advantage that Rohan had in this particular battle was simply its horses. Cavalry have a HUGE advantage over infantry in a situation like that, and coming down on Mordor's armies suddenly meant they could deal a devastating blow to them, even though they were vastly outnumbered.

Quote
12. Were there other continents and such, that had nothing to do with the big Sauron war? If not, Middle Earth seems like one small place, yow.

The area of ME that we see in the movies is about the size of Europe, but there are huge tracts of land to the East and South (where the Easterlings and Haradrim come from) that we do not see. So I'd guess we saw about 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire continent. In addition, there is another whole continent to the west, Aman, where the Valar dwell.

Quote
13. Are there female orcs?

Tolkien was silent on that particular point, however, he was pretty much a traditionalist, so I imagine he assumed orcs procreate in the old-fashioned way. The whole pod thing was a creation of PJ, but not one I have any problems with; after all, would you *want* to see an orc baby? Ewww.

Quote
14. Why did Theoden die!?!?!? ;_;

Hmm, I thought that one was obvious. His horse fell on him and crushed him. He says, "My body is broken" remember?

Hope that helps!

By the way, one of the reasons that I think Tolkien's work is so beloved is the incredible richness of the history of ME and its people. I love PJ's movies, but I think you really, really need to read the books to appreciate it for the incredible achievement that it is.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: lennon on December 27, 2004, 04:01:27 PM
I was going to do a point by point as has Seanfan, but

1   She beat me to it
2   Its just as well, she's jolly well informed

I'd still add however that WRT to reading, you need to look at the Silmarillion, its not an easy read (nor in my mind particualry fun) but it does cover some of what you ask.

WRT Q11 - Stuff from the book is ignored with respect to the fighting prowess of the Men of Gondor and the generals of the army. One of the Priinces of Gondor is ignored in the film, as is the Captain who befriends Merry. The film(LOTR:ROTK)  is a simpler story than the book. Its interesting how the odd line in the book is expanded to major events, while whole characters, loves, and events removed. (Some of it rightly  ;D )
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 27, 2004, 04:15:52 PM
I was going to do a point by point as has Seanfan, but

1   She beat me to it
2   Its just as well, she's jolly well informed

Thanks!

Quote
I'd still add however that WRT to reading, you need to look at the Silmarillion, its not an easy read (nor in my mind particualry fun) but it does cover some of what you ask.

Shhhh! I was trying to ease him into the idea of reading LotR, and the Sil is one imposing mother of a book. But yeah, the stuff about Sauron and Gandalf is from the Silmarillion. (I'm just grateful he didn't ask about the downfall of Numenor or the history of the two kingdoms of Gondor. They take forever to explain!)

Quote
WRT Q11 - Stuff from the book is ignored with respect to the fighting prowess of the Men of Gondor and the generals of the army. One of the Priinces of Gondor is ignored in the film, as is the Captain who befriends Merry. The film(LOTR:ROTK)  is a simpler story than the book. Its interesting how the odd line in the book is expanded to major events, while whole characters, loves, and events removed. (Some of it rightly  ;D )

Do you mean Pippin? If so, yeah, I missed Beregond and Bergil, and Prince Imrahil, though I do understand why PJ left them out.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Userunfriendly on December 27, 2004, 04:32:28 PM
8.  http://www.omwh.com/IllNeverTell.html

 ;D ;D ;D :o
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: lennon on December 27, 2004, 05:27:25 PM
I was going to do a point by point as has Seanfan, but

1   She beat me to it
2   Its just as well, she's jolly well informed

Thanks!

Quote
I'd still add however that WRT to reading, you need to look at the Silmarillion, its not an easy read (nor in my mind particualry fun) but it does cover some of what you ask.

Shhhh! I was trying to ease him into the idea of reading LotR, and the Sil is one imposing mother of a book. But yeah, the stuff about Sauron and Gandalf is from the Silmarillion. (I'm just grateful he didn't ask about the downfall of Numenor or the history of the two kingdoms of Gondor. They take forever to explain!)
Take your point, but I had to struggle through it  ;D BTW I mean struggle.
Quote

Quote
WRT Q11 - Stuff from the book is ignored with respect to the fighting prowess of the Men of Gondor and the generals of the army. One of the Priinces of Gondor is ignored in the film, as is the Captain who befriends Merry. The film(LOTR:ROTK)  is a simpler story than the book. Its interesting how the odd line in the book is expanded to major events, while whole characters, loves, and events removed. (Some of it rightly  ;D )

Do you mean Pippin? If so, yeah, I missed Beregond and Bergil, and Prince Imrahil, though I do understand why PJ left them out.

Yeah,  I mean Pippin not Merry, I was referring to Beregond & Imrahil, but also the reaving of the shire! (Which I don't undertand why it was left out)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 27, 2004, 06:11:31 PM
8.  http://www.omwh.com/IllNeverTell.html

 ;D ;D ;D :o

;D That's very well done.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 27, 2004, 06:13:46 PM
12. Were there other continents and such, that had nothing to do with the big Sauron war? If not, Middle Earth seems like one small place, yow.

There are places in Middle Earth that the elves went to get away from Sauron. In these places the other... gods(?) could protect them. At least, that's what a friend told me. I can't remember all of what he said, but it was something like Sauron could not go anywhere else in Middle Earth..
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 27, 2004, 07:15:03 PM
They left out the reaving of the Shire because the film was too long.

Yeah, everybody gets a laugh from the "Legolas and Gimli are gay" joke (and it's SO old) but how come we never hear any "Sam and Frodo sitting in a tree" jokes? Hmm? Elves and dwarves are funnier than hobbits?

When the FotR was first a sucess I read an article saying Tolkien wrote the series as a response to WW2. That made a lot of sense to me - the absence of women, the necessity/evil of warfare, the strong bonds b/w the male characters, the master/servant relationships(particularly in the British Army, where class was so important to role), the importance of homecoming.

What I want to know is, how come PJ waited until RotK to muck around with the story?! Yeah, sure there were little things - Arwen on a horse, characters missing - but he didn't mess with textual events. Until the last film. When he has Frodo ordering Sam to leave. And Sam does.  I ask you. How could he even imagine such a complete corruption of their devotion to and faith in each other? It's the central relationship/romance in the story. And having been so true to the story for the 2 preceding films, he gets a burst of creative licence in the last one.
I refuse to buy the DVD.

Edit: actually, he did mess with the text in TT, where Legolas wants to abandon the Keep, but Aragorn convinces him to stay. Somehow, this did not distress me too much, as I could run with Legolas not really concerning himself with the fate of humans. Whereas I completely reject Sam turning his back on Frodo, in a tiff, or Gollum having the intelligence/persuasive ability to sway Frodo.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 27, 2004, 07:23:50 PM
Hmm... I think your looking into the story way to much. I mean, come on. It's just a movie.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 27, 2004, 10:37:14 PM
Echani, you're so funny. On the Kinsey Scale of Lord Of The Ringness, you are clearly a 1. It's something people only 4 and above can understand...

I met a man who wanted to know why PJ hadn't made The Silmarillion into a film. (He was definitely a 6.)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 28, 2004, 12:32:45 AM
Way cool, thanks a bunch everyone! ^_^

1. I see. :( Uwaahhhh, poor Haradrim kind of. ;_;

2. Thanks, that's way hip! :D Too bad it wasn't in the movie meow. :D

3. Okey, woof. :D Yeah, I remember Merry stabbing him in the leg or such. :D And then his hand burning, owwy.

4. Thankies. :D I just thought that there could be fireballs and things because Saruman threw one at Gandalf. :D

5. Hmm. :D I wonder where the Hobbit cartoon's Gollum came from, then. :)

6. Thankies! ^_^ Yiss, Treebeard was super. :D Oy :( Well, I hope they found them, anyway. ;_;

7. Sorry! The super-condensed version was helpful though, thanks. :D

8. Happy endings!!!! !:D Oh, I wasn't uninterested in the Hobbit stuff. :) I just think that there was a biggggg focus on the hobbits at the end, when there were other good guys too! ;_; Like Brego! :D Gogo Brego! !:D

9. I forgot about the earthquake, sorry. ;_; I get it now, then. :D

10. :'(

11.Thankies, woof. :D Yeah, the horses were great! :D Realllllly really cute, and hooves of fury! !:D

12. Thankies. :)

13. Hmm... I would've. :D

14. I knowsy why he dieds, but why did he have to die?? ;_; If that makes sense. :( That was so sad. :(


It did help a lot, thankies. :D

What are the books like? Do they read like more recent fantasy novels, or like Shakespeare? :D

Oliphaunts!
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 28, 2004, 12:44:25 AM
Who was Brego, now?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 12:47:19 AM
WolfCat, the books are quite formal in style. You won't get the cute jokes or (much) colloquial language often found in modern fantasy novels, although there is humour there. Is it enough if I tell you that Tolkien uses the word 'Alas!' in them? They make more sense than Shakespeare, though.


Eral, Peter Jackson also messed with the Two Towers when he sent the elves in to fight the orcs at Helm's Deep. Faramir's character was changed from noble soul who had no want for the ring to someone who kidnapped Frodo and Sam in his lust for it.

As for the Sam/Frodo jokes - could it be that you haven't seen the VSDs (http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/)?

More messing around: If you look at the extended edition of The Return of the King, there were also plans (scrapped eventually) for a Sauron vs Aragorn fight.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 28, 2004, 01:51:31 AM
Brego was Aragorn's horse! :D He was so cute! And so was the scene where he licked Aragorn, hehe.


Thankies missus Cliffette. :D Umm... huh. Might be hard to read, yow. :D Well, my brother in law might have the bookies, so maybe I could borrow them or something, woof. :D I neeeeddddd to learn more about the Haradrim, miaow!

I feel like reading fantasy stuff in general nowsy. :D
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 28, 2004, 02:58:12 AM
More messing around: If you look at the extended edition of The Return of the King, there were also plans (scrapped eventually) for a Sauron vs Aragorn fight.
A WHAT?! That'd be the shortest fight in history. Sauron hits Aragorn. Aragorn Dies.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 04:46:11 AM
It's in the storyboards, but it's there.

And it's more like - Sauron hits Aragorn, Aragorn falls over, then manages to stab Sauron in the belly while he's momentarily distracted (I think this is where Frodo claimed the ring and placed it on his finger). Sauron, being immortal, remains alive and steps onto Aragorn's chest, ready to stab him. Meanwhile at Mt Doom, Frodo drops the ring, which melts into nothing and Sauron dies by virtue of the stabwound that Aragorn inflicted.  :-\
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 28, 2004, 06:41:27 AM
ew, thank god they didn't go with that. I think Peter Jackson would've been dying by stab wounds if they had.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 09:08:00 AM
WolfCat, the books are quite formal in style. You won't get the cute jokes or (much) colloquial language often found in modern fantasy novels, although there is humour there. Is it enough if I tell you that Tolkien uses the word 'Alas!' in them? They make more sense than Shakespeare, though.

Yeah, the quote I posted is a good example of the type of language he uses. If you like that sort of thing--and I love it--it's great, but I imagine it could be off-putting if you've only read fiction that's written in colloquial language.

Quote
Eral, Peter Jackson also messed with the Two Towers when he sent the elves in to fight the orcs at Helm's Deep. Faramir's character was changed from noble soul who had no want for the ring to someone who kidnapped Frodo and Sam in his lust for it.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and I have problems with some things that PJ did in the movies, but neither of these things bothered me a bit. The introduction of the elves at Helm's Deep was a good way to make the point that the elves weren't just onlookers in the fight against Sauron. In the books, it's a lot clearer, and in the appendices they describe how both the elves of Lothlorien and Mirkwood had to deal with huge invading armies in their lands. There was just no good way to show that in the movies.

As for Faramir, I love the character, but he is portrayed in the book as a very static, one-dimensional, uncorruptible kind of guy. Having him capture the hobbits, chat with them for a while, them let them go would have had absolutely no dramatic tension at all. And I very much disagree that he captured Frodo out of personal lust for the Ring. I think it's quite clear, and even more so in the EEs, that his prime motivation was that he knew his father would want the Ring. But when he realized it was so dangerous, he decided to let them go anyway. If he had really been motivated by lust for the Ring like Boromir had been, he would not have been able to do that.

Quote
More messing around: If you look at the extended edition of The Return of the King, there were also plans (scrapped eventually) for a Sauron vs Aragorn fight.

Well, the important thing is that he didn't do it, just like he didn't have Arwen appear to fight at Helm's Deep. I do understand the wish to have Sauron a more defined character than a giant flaming eye, but he did realize that it just wouldn't work to have him appear in person.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Daerthax on December 28, 2004, 09:34:37 AM

Eral, Peter Jackson also messed with the Two Towers when he sent the elves in to fight the orcs at Helm's Deep. Faramir's character was changed from noble soul who had no want for the ring to someone who kidnapped Frodo and Sam in his lust for it.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and I have problems with some things that PJ did in the movies, but neither of these things bothered me a bit. The introduction of the elves at Helm's Deep was a good way to make the point that the elves weren't just onlookers in the fight against Sauron. In the books, it's a lot clearer, and in the appendices they describe how both the elves of Lothlorien and Mirkwood had to deal with huge invading armies in their lands. There was just no good way to show that in the movies.


Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that it was easier for PJ to bring in the elves to help at Helm Deep instead of at Minas Tirath, only because it would be easier than explaining how Treebeard sent the trees to aid the humans at Helm's Deep while the Ents dealt with Isengaard. At least, that's what I was told. I've got to reread that part.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 10:31:32 AM

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that it was easier for PJ to bring in the elves to help at Helm Deep instead of at Minas Tirath, only because it would be easier than explaining how Treebeard sent the trees to aid the humans at Helm's Deep while the Ents dealt with Isengaard. At least, that's what I was told. I've got to reread that part.

Unless I'm misremembering, in the book no elves fought at the Battle of Pelennor Fields either, other than Elladan and Elrohir (the twin sons of Elrond) and Legolas.

As for the reasons I think it makes sense that PJ had the elves go to Helm's Deep rather than Minas Tirith, I think it is because 1) It is a good counterpoint to Theoden's statement that nobody is willing to help Rohan in their hour of need, and 2) HD was a small-enough scale battle that 200 archers from Lothlorien could actually make a difference in the outcome of the battle. Their contribution would have been insignificant at tBoPF.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 28, 2004, 11:22:22 AM
Echani, you're so funny. On the Kinsey Scale of Lord Of The Ringness, you are clearly a 1. It's something people only 4 and above can understand...

I met a man who wanted to know why PJ hadn't made The Silmarillion into a film. (He was definitely a 6.)

I've never read the entire Simarillion myself, but as I recall it is only a collection of things that Tolkien never actually wrote into a book. How could that be made a movie?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Userunfriendly on December 28, 2004, 01:53:56 PM
Echani, you're so funny. On the Kinsey Scale of Lord Of The Ringness, you are clearly a 1. It's something people only 4 and above can understand...

I met a man who wanted to know why PJ hadn't made The Silmarillion into a film. (He was definitely a 6.)

I've never read the entire Simarillion myself, but as I recall it is only a collection of things that Tolkien never actually wrote into a book. How could that be made a movie?

actually the tale of turin turambar would make a wonderful movie...

the death of morgoth, sauron's master...and quite a few stories could probably be spliced together..

i gotta check my extended version for that sauron aragorn fight... >:( >:( >:(

gotta have been those studio heads demanding more action scenes to boost ticket sales..

thankfully peter resisted them... :pirate
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 01:58:48 PM

I've never read the entire Simarillion myself, but as I recall it is only a collection of things that Tolkien never actually wrote into a book. How could that be made a movie?

It's not one long narrative, so it couldn't be made into a movie like LotR or The Hobbit have been. You could, however, easily take some of the episodes that happened in The Sil and make them into stand-alone movies. I think the Tale of Beren and Luthien and the Akallabeth (the story of the downfall of Numenor) would work just fine as movies.

The biggest barrier to doing so is that the Tolkien estate still owns the movies rights to The Silmarillion. JRRT himself sold the movie rights to The Hobbit and LotR, but The Silmarillion was published after his death, and his son, Christopher Tolkien controls the movie rights. Considering how he felt about making LotR into movies, I don't think he'll sell the rights to The Sil anytime soon.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 02:03:38 PM
Echani, you're so funny. On the Kinsey Scale of Lord Of The Ringness, you are clearly a 1. It's something people only 4 and above can understand...

 ::) The implication being that only someone 'in the know' about Tolkien would understand and would, of course, agree with your complaint?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 04:04:03 PM
SeanFan, I do get your point about poetic license in order to make the movie more exciting. I disagreed with the elves being at Helm's Deep because it conflicts with the idea that the elves and men have been growing apart for centuries. The elves are fading, so a sudden vigorous battle seems out of character. To me, PJ just put them in to try to rebalance the overenthusiasm of the CG team - 10000000000000 orcs was a little bit much. It was a nice idea, the reforging of the links between elves and men, but it changes the dynamic of the world. And all in all, it really wasn't in the book.

As for Faramir, it would have been more boring to leave him as he was in the books, but he was my favourite character and they took away exactly what made him my favourite character- that he was noble, world-weary, quiet and sad, and changed him into a violent, suspicious, self-interested bastard. The EE made it clear that he did it for the approval of his dad, but in the cinema, all we saw were crazed, longing gazes at the ring. Even doing it for his dad, while being an excuse, changes his character in a huge way. In the novel he went against the law of his own country and specifically risked his life in order to let the hobbits go - without them needing to prove themselves in battle. It's a big change. It worked for the screen, but .. but Faramir! :(
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 28, 2004, 04:33:33 PM
SeanFan, I mean that Echani isn't an obsessive about LotR. He says it's "just a movie".
JUST A MOVIE? JUST??? Those 4 and above are the ones likely to have an issue with a change in The Sacred Text.
(And I'm not expecting people agree with me. I'm discussing my obsession. Be kind.)

Cliffette, I actually liked the elves coming to the battle, even though it was way off - so again, I didn't register any objection to it.
It was so well done, I ran with it. I think you are at least a 5. You have noticed a lot of changes.

I didn't interpret Faramir the way you did. I thought he was true to his character, and I was really happy with his portrayal. (Of course, having David Wenham play him was a terrifically good idea.)If I HAD interpreted Faramir as you did, I would have had to burn down the cinema complex, in protest, and then destroy every copy of TT that I came across. I would possibly have to assassinate PJ as well.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 04:49:02 PM
If I HAD interpreted Faramir as you did, I would have had to burn down the cinema complex, in protest, and then destroy every copy of TT that I came across. I would possibly have to assassinate PJ as well.

Hmm... I have an inkling that you might be a 6. Or possibly off the scale. ;D
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 28, 2004, 05:07:16 PM
No, I can't be a 6. I haven't read The Silmarillion. (Should I say that out loud?)

I'm just an overly emotional 4. Maybe 4.5

Faramir is my favourite character, too.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 07:53:34 PM
SeanFan, I do get your point about poetic license in order to make the movie more exciting. I disagreed with the elves being at Helm's Deep because it conflicts with the idea that the elves and men have been growing apart for centuries. The elves are fading, so a sudden vigorous battle seems out of character. To me, PJ just put them in to try to rebalance the overenthusiasm of the CG team - 10000000000000 orcs was a little bit much. It was a nice idea, the reforging of the links between elves and men, but it changes the dynamic of the world. And all in all, it really wasn't in the book.

No, have elves fighting at Helm's Deep wasn't in the book, but I think you're dead wrong if you think the elves are incapable of "sudden vigorous battle". The fact is, IN THE BOOK, they very vigorously defended their homelands from Sauron's invading armies. The elves could have all left ME for the Undying Lands and let the mortal races face Sauron alone, but they didn't. Tolkien clearly says that they didn't come to help at Pelennor Fields (and, by extension, I'd argue, Helm's Deep) not because they were too weak, or didn't care, but because they had to defend their own lands.

Quote
As for Faramir, it would have been more boring to leave him as he was in the books, but he was my favourite character and they took away exactly what made him my favourite character- that he was noble, world-weary, quiet and sad, and changed him into a violent, suspicious, self-interested bastard. The EE made it clear that he did it for the approval of his dad, but in the cinema, all we saw were crazed, longing gazes at the ring. Even doing it for his dad, while being an excuse, changes his character in a huge way. In the novel he went against the law of his own country and specifically risked his life in order to let the hobbits go - without them needing to prove themselves in battle. It's a big change. It worked for the screen, but .. but Faramir! :(

Violent, self-interested bastard?!? Whoa, you definitely saw a different movie than I did. You must be having a serious memory lapse about the Theatrical Edition.

For one thing, in the TE he says "Take them to my father. Tell him Faramir sends a mighty gift."

Furthermore, before he releases the hobbits, his second-in-command says to him:

"You know the laws of our country. The laws of your father. If you let them go, your life will be forfeit."

To which Faramir answers: "Then it is forfeit. Release them."

You can check one of the transcript sites if you don't believe me. How much different is that from what you described in the book? Not very, I'd say.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 08:06:15 PM
SeanFan, I mean that Echani isn't an obsessive about LotR. He says it's "just a movie".
JUST A MOVIE? JUST??? Those 4 and above are the ones likely to have an issue with a change in The Sacred Text.
(And I'm not expecting people agree with me. I'm discussing my obsession. Be kind.)

What I disagree with--vehemently--is the fact that you are equating knowledge of and love of the books with the inability to accept the fact the PJ had to make changes to make a successful movie  adaptation.

I lost count of how many times I've read LotR after 15 or so, and I've read The Silmarillion through 3 times. I'm hesitant to say the LotR movies are "just" movies because I love them so much and love Tolkien so much. However, that doesn't blind me to the fact the PJ had to make good movies, first and foremost. That had to be a greater priority than fatihfulness to the source material.

Personally, considering how good the movies are, and how faithful they are to the spirit and themes of Tolkien's work, it seems rather ridiculous that you would let a little change like Frodo sending Sam away turn you against the movie.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 08:27:33 PM
I don't like the elves overmuch, so my thinking is probably clouded on their motivation.  :)

Regarding Faramir's change:

Violent- allowing his officers to get the boot into Gollum, throwing Gollum against the wall and throttling him. Whereas in the book: "Take this creature away, Anborn. Treat him gently, but watch him. And do not you, Smeagol, try to dive into the falls. The rocks have such teeth there as would slay you before your time."
Suspicious - David Wenham's acting. This might be unfair, but Faramir certainly seemed much more open and less secretive in the book.
Self-interested - Diverting the hobbits to Osgiliath despite knowing their quest. Taking the ring so that he could look good in Dad's books (and save Gondor, I guess) despite knowing the hobbits' quest. Whereas the book: "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it... And be comforted, Samwise.. For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this (that Frodo carried the ring) to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power... But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough."
Bastard - by extension of the above.

He certainly redeems himself in the movie as your quote shows (and I didn't forget that one), but in the book, he never wronged the hobbits in the first place, thus not needing that redemption. That makes a really big difference to me. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.


By the way, I still enjoyed the movie and my initial post was just to point out some of the changes to the TT that Eral had missed, not to slam Peter Jackson. I still admire his work.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 28, 2004, 09:18:24 PM
SeanFan, you are upholding my (LIGHT-HEARTED)theory. You are clearly a 3 - despite your having read and understood The Silmarillion, which in ordinary circumstances makes you at least a 5 - you enjoyed The Text and the movie equally. You are responding without heightened emotions, as a normal well-adjusted person should.

People who register a 4 or more, however (according to my [LIGHT-HEARTED] theory) are in fact, nuts.  
They are passionate about the text in a way that frightens afore-mentioned normal, well-adjusted people.
They BELIEVE in The Sacredness of the Text. They have favourite scenes and characters that they were dedicated to YEARS before this film.  They have formed a personal relationship with the book. They are members of the Temple of The LotR.
PJ knows this.  He knew that there were going to be people horribly offended by the slightest deviation. He is at least a 5 himself. He probably has a bodyguard to protect him from stalkers complaining about their pet gripes.
Mine is Sam leaving Frodo (He would NEVER have done that.) Cliffette's is Faramir. (I thought about watching TT again, far more closely -but given how I will feel if I end up agreeing with Cliffette, it's better if I don't. PJ seriously had Faramir take The Ring? When? How did I miss that? Faramir would NEVER have done that.)

Cliffette, you don't like the elves???

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 28, 2004, 09:54:49 PM
PJ seriously had Faramir take The Ring? When? How did I miss that? Faramir would NEVER have done that.)
He kidnapped the hobbits with the intention of presenting the ring, carried by them, to his father. He later changed his mind.

Quote
Cliffette, you don't like the elves???

No. Sorry? :) I only liked about two of them.

And don't get me started on Faramir and Eowyn's 30 second romance at the Houses of Healing! >:(
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 28, 2004, 10:47:22 PM
Kidnapping? I thought that Faramir was escorting the hobbits out of the (perhaps spuriously) restricted area, and that he didn't know they had the ring;then when he found they had the ring let them go to continue the quest: which was text. It may be that David Wenham's presence threw a glamour over me that you were immune too, and thus I missed this interpretation of events.

You are perfectly entitled to not like elves: I admire your courage for admitting it. Needless to say I will offer support when you are relentlessly flamed by incensed elf-lovers.
The two were Galadriel and Legolas? Although Hugo Weaving was delightfully snotty as Arwen's dad.

PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.
I assume it was the corrupting influence of Hollywood.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 28, 2004, 10:56:46 PM
Kidnapping? I thought that Faramir was escorting the hobbits out of the (perhaps spuriously) restricted area, and that he didn't know they had the ring;then when he found they had the ring let them go to continue the quest: which was text.
No.  He saw the ring and said, "A chance to show my quality," then he carried them off.  Peter Jackson went into a long complicated explanation in an interview, which boiled down to, "I thought it would make the Ring's influence look too weak if Faramir just laughed at it like he does in the books, so I had him be tempted and then let them go later."
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 28, 2004, 11:00:17 PM
Right. It's clear I need to destroy my copy of TT.
Ceremonial burning, anyone?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 11:03:55 PM
PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.
I assume it was the corrupting influence of Hollywood.

You can call your theory "light-hearted" as much as you like, but this is a at least a two  ::) ::) post for me.

Sorry, but as much as I liked it, the Eowyn/Faramir romance was just not of critical importance to the story. Sure, you got to see that Eowyn didn't remain heartbroken over Aragorn, and it ties up some loose ends, but that's it.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was long because 1) He decided to showcase it as the central conflict of the movie, which is a completely legitimate decision for a filmmaker, and 2) it takes a heck of a lot longer to show something like a battle on screen than it does to describe it in a book. If he had devoted 15 minutes to it on screen, I guarantee that people would bitch that he wasn't treating it like it was important, and that it didn't seem as long as it should have been. Besides, 3) It was only 45 minutes if you count all the stuff leading up to the battle and the cutting away in the battle. I bet there wasn't more than a 1/2 hour of actual fighting scenes all told.

Lastly, as PJ as said in countless interviews, he cut the *Scouring* of the Shire because it would have seemed anticlimatic after the real climax of the story, the destruction of the Ring. And, given how much complaining there was about the "overlong" ending, I have no doubt he was right.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 11:07:19 PM
No.  He saw the ring and said, "A chance to show my quality," then he carried them off.  Peter Jackson went into a long complicated explanation in an interview, which boiled down to, "I thought it would make the Ring's influence look too weak if Faramir just laughed at it like he does in the books, so I had him be tempted and then let them go later."

Seems like a perfectly legitimate explanation to me.

Dramatically, it is much more interesting to see someone tempted and overcome the temptation (especially so in this case, since his brother had succumbed to the same temptation) than not be tempted at all.

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 28, 2004, 11:19:31 PM
I don't like the elves overmuch, so my thinking is probably clouded on their motivation.  :)

Regarding Faramir's change:

Violent- allowing his officers to get the boot into Gollum, throwing Gollum against the wall and throttling him. Whereas in the book: "Take this creature away, Anborn. Treat him gently, but watch him. And do not you, Smeagol, try to dive into the falls. The rocks have such teeth there as would slay you before your time."
Suspicious - David Wenham's acting. This might be unfair, but Faramir certainly seemed much more open and less secretive in the book.
Self-interested - Diverting the hobbits to Osgiliath despite knowing their quest. Taking the ring so that he could look good in Dad's books (and save Gondor, I guess) despite knowing the hobbits' quest. Whereas the book: "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it... And be comforted, Samwise.. For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this (that Frodo carried the ring) to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power... But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough."
Bastard - by extension of the above.

He certainly redeems himself in the movie as your quote shows (and I didn't forget that one), but in the book, he never wronged the hobbits in the first place, thus not needing that redemption. That makes a really big difference to me. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

He 'wronged' the hobbits? Indeed? He found two strange people--the like of which he had never seen before--wandering around in an area he and his men were responsible for guarding. These two had no good explanation for why they were there and what they were up to, and even though they denied being associated with a third, even more suspicious looking creature, they had been seen traveling with it. Wronged? On the contrary, I think it he acted very responsibly--and completely with his duties as a Ranger of Ithilien, by the way--to detain them and try to find out what was going on with them.

You seem to acting under the assumption that whatever actions Tolkien decided Faramir should take regarding the hobbits is by definition right, and anything else is an act of evil. On one level, I can see your point, since it's Tolkien's story and he gets to decide what kind of person Faramir is. However, on the level of "were movie Faramir's actions reasonable and responsible given the situation he was in?", I think the answer is an unqualified "you bet".

Quote
By the way, I still enjoyed the movie and my initial post was just to point out some of the changes to the TT that Eral had missed, not to slam Peter Jackson. I still admire his work.

Nice to hear.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 28, 2004, 11:53:29 PM
You can call your theory "light-hearted" as much as you like, but this is a at least a two  ::) ::) post for me.

Sorry, but as much as I liked it, the Eowyn/Faramir romance was just not of critical importance to the story. Sure, you got to see that Eowyn didn't remain heartbroken over Aragorn, and it ties up some loose ends, but that's it.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was long because 1) He decided to showcase it as the central conflict of the movie, which is a completely legitimate decision for a filmmaker, and 2) it takes a heck of a lot longer to show something like a battle on screen than it does to describe it in a book. If he had devoted 15 minutes to it on screen, I guarantee that people would bitch that he wasn't treating it like it was important, and that it didn't seem as long as it should have been. Besides, 3) It was only 45 minutes if you count all the stuff leading up to the battle and the cutting away in the battle. I bet there wasn't more than a 1/2 hour of actual fighting scenes all told.

Lastly, as PJ as said in countless interviews, he cut the *Scouring* of the Shire because it would have seemed anticlimatic after the real climax of the story, the destruction of the Ring. And, given how much complaining there was about the "overlong" ending, I have no doubt he was right.

The only reason the ending was long was because of crap cinematography. He used too many fadeouts and they were too long. And the stupid reunion scene. GAH!
The Scouring of the Shire rather changes the story though. With it, you have the War of the Ring spilling over to every area of Middle Earth (especially when coupled with the fact that the Elves and Dwarves were being attacked as well). The way it's in the film implies that a) Saurons army was a lot smaller than in the books, b) It wasn't large enough to take all of Middle Earth, c) he didn't realise there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 29, 2004, 12:23:24 AM
SeanFan, please stop rolling your eyes at me. I am getting motion-sick.

I referred to my theory as light-hearted, twice, in the hope that you would get that I was having some fun. Making a joke. About how seriously many fans of LotR take it, including myself.  In order to avoid having to explain it in so many words.

Of course PJ can make any film he wants, how he wants. It is his vision, dictated by the demands of the reality of making a film on this scale. I, in my turn, can make facetious comments about it. Which is what I was doing. And enjoying it.

Please don't make any further derogatory statements about Faramir. I have already explained my feelings about him, and will feel obliged to challenge you to a duel if you continue. 

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 29, 2004, 12:49:07 AM
The two were Galadriel and Legolas? Although Hugo Weaving was delightfully snotty as Arwen's dad.

You're right about Elrond, but I generally love Hugo Weaving in anything - even tights. :)
For the other, I liked the elf who died in the battle at Helm's Deep, but I can't recall his name. And I didn't like him because he died, but because he ended up being chummy and friendly. Legolas, I might have liked if not for all the fancy tricks the CG artists made him do. Plus the constant glowy lighting around him.

Quote
PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.

I understand why he left it out of the TE, but for the EE, it would have been nice to have something a little longer... even putting it in the Appendices would have been ok. Besides, I mainly wanted it because - well, more Faramir. :)


Quote
You seem to acting under the assumption that whatever actions Tolkien decided Faramir should take regarding the hobbits is by definition right, and anything else is an act of evil.

Not really. I was speaking from the hobbits', the fellowship and Middle Earth's pov. From Faramir and Gondor's perspective, he did the right thing. My assumption is that whatever Tolkien does to continue the quest to save Middle Earth nicely and smoothly is by definition right (it doesn't have to be Faramir-related). Whenever Tolkien throws a giant roadblock in their path, I consider that a huge inconvenience to the hobbits. Therefore they are wronged, even when the giant roadblock (eg Shelob) is just doing what they do best.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 29, 2004, 01:23:39 AM
Yes, he was nice. I particularly liked his music as he passed on. The poignant question...do elves go West when they die, or not? Did he sacrifice his chance for immortality? So beautifully done...

I think you are taking an unnaturally hard view of golden lighting.(You are definitely a 5.) How else will we know they're special?
I know they did the Oliphaunt trick for the kids. Kind of like the Ewoks in the last Star Wars. But I have to admit I was charmed.

Let's face it, we need far more information on Faramir. How did he manage his city? Did he get schtick for choosing a Shieldmaiden as his bride? If it was TV he'd be a spin-off.


Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: nethrin on December 29, 2004, 02:44:41 AM
you need to look at the Silmarillion, its not an easy read (nor in my mind particualry fun)

what?! it is both easy and fun.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jester on December 29, 2004, 04:53:59 AM
The lives of all elves are tied to Arda and they must wait in Mandos' halls until the day the world comes to an end. So in a way they all pass into the west although my x rereads of the Sil never revealed to me where these halls were located.

As long as you can keep Jerry Bruckheimer, Wolfgang Petersen and Oliver Stone away from the script I would love to see Turin, Beren and Luthien, Gondolin or Angband in a film. :)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 29, 2004, 05:43:40 AM
I think you are taking an unnaturally hard view of golden lighting.(You are definitely a 5.)

I'm more of a 2 with some very 5ly held viewpoints. Including "More hairy dwarves! Less uber elves!" :)

Quote
Let's face it, we need far more information on Faramir. How did he manage his city? Did he get schtick for choosing a Shieldmaiden as his bride?

Eowyn asked him that question too. He basically answered, "Screw 'em". :)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 29, 2004, 06:13:14 AM
The lives of all elves are tied to Arda and they must wait in Mandos' halls until the day the world comes to an end. So in a way they all pass into the west although my x rereads of the Sil never revealed to me where these halls were located.

As long as you can keep Jerry Bruckheimer, Wolfgang Petersen and Oliver Stone away from the script I would love to see Turin, Beren and Luthien, Gondolin or Angband in a film. :)

Gondolin would make a wonderful movie. Dragons and Balrogs and Elves and Treachery and awesomness. omg *collapses at the mere thought*.
Yeah, anyhow, I loved the tale of Gondolin in the Book of Lost Tales (which tell the tales a lot better than the Simirillion. Which isn't surprising since Sim was concerned with the history of the Simiril rather than protomiddle earth.)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 12:31:55 PM

The only reason the ending was long was because of crap cinematography. He used too many fadeouts and they were too long. And the stupid reunion scene. GAH!

I'm not a big fan of the slo-mo reunion scene either, and I'd be the first to admit that the editing and transitions in the post-Mt. Doom part of RotK were not ideal. However, I don't see what that has to do with the length of movie. Those types of changes wouldn't reduce the actual length of the movie much at all--seconds at most.

Quote
The Scouring of the Shire rather changes the story though. With it, you have the War of the Ring spilling over to every area of Middle Earth (especially when coupled with the fact that the Elves and Dwarves were being attacked as well).

I agree it would have been nice to see how the war with Sauron affected the other parts of ME. I would have liked to have had a quick montage of scenes of elves, dwarves and men fighting Sauron's armies with significant landmarks, like say, The Lonely Mountain, in the background. Maybe PJ thought it would be confusing to non book-readers or a distraction from the main story, I don't know why he didn't do it, but I'm okay with the decision.

Showing the Scouring is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, however. Since we have seen more of the Shire than the other lands, and we know that hobbits are not exactly "renowned as great warriors", I think they would have had to spend considerable time showing how the hobbits got into the situation and got out of it. That takes time. I don't see how they could adequately do the SofS in less than 20-30 minutes of screen time. But the biggest problem is the timing of the Scouring.  The climax of the movie was done, and the action needed to be wrapped up. Introducing a whole new set of conflicts and adding another 1/2 hour of action oriented material to the end would have ruined the pace of the movie and distracted from the real climax, IMO.

Quote
The way it's in the film implies that a) Saurons army was a lot smaller than in the books, b) It wasn't large enough to take all of Middle Earth, c) he didn't realise there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.

Huh? Sauron's army looked enormous compared to Aragorn's troops, and since we hadn't been shown any large armies in ME other than the ones in Rohan and Gondor, to me it looked like they could easily sweep them aside and go on to conquer the rest of the continent.

Honestly, I have no clue what you mean about not realizing that there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 12:37:19 PM
The lives of all elves are tied to Arda and they must wait in Mandos' halls until the day the world comes to an end. So in a way they all pass into the west although my x rereads of the Sil never revealed to me where these halls were located.

FYI, here's what the Encyclopedia of Arda, (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/) which is generally considered to be a reliable source of information on all things Tolkien, has to say on the subject:

The dwellings of the Doomsman of the Valar, the mighty being properly called Námo, though he was more often given the name Mandos from his own halls. The name comes from two Elvish words meaning 'prison' and 'fortress', and the Halls stood on the western shores of Valinor, looking out across the Encircling Sea. They were said to grow in size as the World aged, and their walls were hung with the tapestries of Námo's spouse Vairë, depicting all the events of unfolding history.

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 12:55:50 PM
Not really. I was speaking from the hobbits', the fellowship and Middle Earth's pov. From Faramir and Gondor's perspective, he did the right thing. My assumption is that whatever Tolkien does to continue the quest to save Middle Earth nicely and smoothly is by definition right (it doesn't have to be Faramir-related). Whenever Tolkien throws a giant roadblock in their path, I consider that a huge inconvenience to the hobbits. Therefore they are wronged, even when the giant roadblock (eg Shelob) is just doing what they do best.

Let me get this straight...you think Faramir as depicted in the movie is an evil, self-centered bastard because he acts in a way consistent with his POV as a Ranger of Ithilien, and doesn't react to the hobbits in a way that is advantageous to them in the completion of their quest. Even though he had no way of knowing about their quest before he met them and had no reason to trust them or believe they were telling the truth. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

The idea that Shelob somehow 'wronged' the hobbits is also a very bizarre one, IMO. "Wronged", to my mind, implies unfair or unjust treatment. Shelob's attack on the hobbits had absolutely nothing to do with fair or unfair, she is a evil creature who acted completely within her nature. That's like saying that being hit by lightning is "unfair". Sure it sucks, but how is it 'unjust'?

BTW, while we're on the subject of Faramir, explain please why book-Faramir seemed absolutely immune to the temptations of the Ring, when just as good-hearted, but much more powerful characters like Galadriel and Gandalf were not?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 01:07:39 PM
Please don't make any further derogatory statements about Faramir. I have already explained my feelings about him, and will feel obliged to challenge you to a duel if you continue. 

Bring it on. I'll take "informed debate" at 10 paces. A warning, though, I've had a lot of experience debating this and other LotR book/movies issues.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 29, 2004, 03:11:12 PM
Considering how he felt about making LotR into movies, I don't think he'll sell the rights to The Sil anytime soon.

Why, what were his thoughts? I haven't heard anything.


@Eral: Hey, I like the movies too, but I mean come on. They're movies!
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 03:28:29 PM
Considering how he felt about making LotR into movies, I don't think he'll sell the rights to The Sil anytime soon.

Why, what were his thoughts? I haven't heard anything.

He hated the idea, and I think if he could have stopped it from being made, he would have. When his son, Simon Tolkien, suggested it might be a good idea to cooperate with the production in the hopes that a faithful version of the book might be made, they had such a serious falling out that they're still not speaking to one another.

Weird, huh? Must be a British thing.  ;)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Dark Raven on December 29, 2004, 03:47:01 PM
Stodgy Christopher Tolkien would have made a lot of enemies if he would have caused trouble with the film being made. I know he is protective of his dads work.  He should be fortunate that the movies were made very close to the book. Since his dad did sell the writes to it, any one could have picked up the writes to it and made a screwed up version of the movie.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 29, 2004, 04:04:40 PM
@Eral: Hey, I like the movies too, but I mean come on. They're movies!
And you're posting on a forum dedicated to modding a four-year-old game.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 29, 2004, 04:46:30 PM

Let me get this straight...you think Faramir as depicted in the movie is an evil, self-centered bastard because he acts in a way consistent with his POV as a Ranger of Ithilien, and doesn't react to the hobbits in a way that is advantageous to them in the completion of their quest. Even though he had no way of knowing about their quest before he met them and had no reason to trust them or believe they were telling the truth. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

The idea that Shelob somehow 'wronged' the hobbits is also a very bizarre one, IMO. "Wronged", to my mind, implies unfair or unjust treatment. Shelob's attack on the hobbits had absolutely nothing to do with fair or unfair, she is a evil creature who acted completely within her nature. That's like saying that being hit by lightning is "unfair". Sure it sucks, but how is it 'unjust'?

Yes, I talk gibberish most of the time. Me = tailchewing monkey, you = Gandalf. :)

Maybe I should have sprinkled more smilies into my previous posts.

Quote
BTW, while we're on the subject of Faramir, explain please why book-Faramir seemed absolutely immune to the temptations of the Ring, when just as good-hearted, but much more powerful characters like Galadriel and Gandalf were not?

I do have an answer for this, but fear it will be microanalysed, requiring me to explain my viewpoint yet again, which will require me to explain, etc etc etc. So I won't post. (Which means you win this argument. Yay for you!) :D

But you'll have to ask Tolkien.


Disclaimer: My tone is intended to be light-hearted, slightly weary and banterish, not sarcastic, though it may come across this way in text form.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 29, 2004, 05:28:50 PM
It's good to see so many 6's coming out of the woodwork.
I am not at all surprised that Jester is a 6, but you too Veloxyll? :D

I have come to the conclusion that sense of humour affects your rating, and may lead to a skewing of results.
With your permission, Cliffette,as it's your brilliant idea, those of us who have not suffered from that painful affliction, necrosis of the funnybone, which can only be treated by a complete humourectomy, may need to use a slash to indicate their position. e.g 2/5, 4/6. I would hate for the scale to be inaccurate.

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 29, 2004, 08:58:37 PM

The only reason the ending was long was because of crap cinematography. He used too many fadeouts and they were too long. And the stupid reunion scene. GAH!

I'm not a big fan of the slo-mo reunion scene either, and I'd be the first to admit that the editing and transitions in the post-Mt. Doom part of RotK were not ideal. However, I don't see what that has to do with the length of movie. Those types of changes wouldn't reduce the actual length of the movie much at all--seconds at most.

Ahh, but it's at the end of the movie, so it'll make the end feel like it drags and makes it feel longer.
Quote
Quote
The Scouring of the Shire rather changes the story though. With it, you have the War of the Ring spilling over to every area of Middle Earth (especially when coupled with the fact that the Elves and Dwarves were being attacked as well).

I agree it would have been nice to see how the war with Sauron affected the other parts of ME. I would have liked to have had a quick montage of scenes of elves, dwarves and men fighting Sauron's armies with significant landmarks, like say, The Lonely Mountain, in the background. Maybe PJ thought it would be confusing to non book-readers or a distraction from the main story, I don't know why he didn't do it, but I'm okay with the decision.
Yeah, not showing the fights with the Elves and Dwarves is acceptable. re showing the Lonely mountain though, how would we know it's the lonely mountain? Never having seen it before and all :)

Quote
Showing the Scouring is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, however. Since we have seen more of the Shire than the other lands, and we know that hobbits are not exactly "renowned as great warriors", I think they would have had to spend considerable time showing how the hobbits got into the situation and got out of it. That takes time. I don't see how they could adequately do the SofS in less than 20-30 minutes of screen time. But the biggest problem is the timing of the Scouring.  The climax of the movie was done, and the action needed to be wrapped up. Introducing a whole new set of conflicts and adding another 1/2 hour of action oriented material to the end would have ruined the pace of the movie and distracted from the real climax, IMO.
Most of the scouring isn't action. There's one short fight, and the death of Sauruman IIRC. Of course not having the rangers show up means there's no reason for the Bree scene, which explained a lot of what went wrong rather quickly IIRC.

Quote
Quote
The way it's in the film implies that a) Saurons army was a lot smaller than in the books, b) It wasn't large enough to take all of Middle Earth, c) he didn't realise there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.

Huh? Sauron's army looked enormous compared to Aragorn's troops, and since we hadn't been shown any large armies in ME other than the ones in Rohan and Gondor, to me it looked like they could easily sweep them aside and go on to conquer the rest of the continent.
All the armies looked enormous in the movie. Remember though that the Mordor Orcs were in a loose formation so there weren't as many as it appeared (based on what we see in the charge scene. The only way they could've maintained such a charge, which is backed up by visual evidence from the film, is if the Orcs were in a loose formation allowing the horses to regain some of their speed between Orcs, and not having them pile up as well. I wasn't a real fan of the lack of Gondors provinces either (their lands to the south that provided quite a few troops, and the army that came up on the Corsair ships).
And remember Saurons army only consisted of Orcs :P

Or Minas Tirith being vulnerable to catapaults...

Quote
Honestly, I have no clue what you mean about not realizing that there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.

Mostly that he could've launched armies against the Northen lands without going through Minas Tirith.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 29, 2004, 09:55:32 PM
@Eral: Hey, I like the movies too, but I mean come on. They're movies!
And you're posting on a forum dedicated to modding a four-year-old game.

Hey, you can't beat the classics, can you?  :pirate

Especially when the future brings wonderful suprises.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 29, 2004, 10:21:13 PM

Yes, I talk gibberish most of the time. Me = tailchewing monkey, you = Gandalf. :)

Maybe I should have sprinkled more smilies into my previous posts.

I do have an answer for this, but fear it will be microanalysed, requiring me to explain my viewpoint yet again, which will require me to explain, etc etc etc. So I won't post. (Which means you win this argument. Yay for you!) :D

But you'll have to ask Tolkien.

Disclaimer: My tone is intended to be light-hearted, slightly weary and banterish, not sarcastic, though it may come across this way in text form.

Hmm, I'm kind of at a loss here. How was I supposed to respond to your post? Ignore it? Assume you didn't mean what you were saying? Seems like you and Eral have set up a no-win situation for me here; you make points I disagree with, but if I try to actually address the points you've made, I'm taking it too seriously and don't have a sense of humor.

Silly me, I thought since you were posting your opinion you might actually might to discuss it. Next time, just flag it "NO DISAGREEMENT, PLEASE" or something. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jcompton on December 29, 2004, 11:19:49 PM
that painful affliction, necrosis of the funnybone, which can only be treated by a complete humourectomy

My medical advisors have asked me to point out that there's no need to drastically accuse another of having rotting flesh just because one's unique sense of humor isn't shared by all.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 29, 2004, 11:36:50 PM
Quote
Hmm, I'm kind of at a loss here. How was I supposed to respond to your post? Ignore it? Assume you didn't mean what you were saying? Seems like you and Eral have set up a no-win situation for me here; you make points I disagree with, but if I try to actually address the points you've made, I'm taking it too seriously and don't have a sense of humor.

Silly me, I thought since you were posting your opinion you might actually might to discuss it. Next time, just flag it "NO DISAGREEMENT, PLEASE" or something. Sheesh.

I haven't actually consciously set up any situation for you. You were free to disagree with me, as I was free to explain myself and disagree with you. All my points have been on the defensive and are explaining myself, thus I have given your responses the respect they deserve.

However - I didn't originally post in this thread to argue or to debate. I pointed out some differences that Eral missed, you disgreed, I explained my point, you disagreed with my wording, I explained my point again, you disagreed with my wording, so I gave up before it led to another round.

I am saying that I don't have the heart to continue arguing this with you and was trying to indicate this to you through my warped sense of humour, because you seem to have misinterpreted the tone of all my posts, which slid from earnest and non-combative to flippant and non-combative, all of which indicated my unpreparedness to enter a heated debate.

Basically, I don't want you to waste your time, effort and energy in arguing these points with someone who is not a worthy opponent, being unversed in most of the books or the lore. You've targeted the wrong person (or people) for your debate. I applaud your passion, but that doesn't change the fact that to continue this with me would be a fruitless exercise.

Therefore I have folded my cards and am leaving the table. I understand how this will leave you feeling all fired up with nowhere to go, but it's really for the sake of your sanity and my own. I will repeat- we should agree to disagree. Can we shake on this?



Eral - all I can say is that she's sending herself up about 100% of the time. I guess it's up to her to explain herself otherwise. :)

And you may ignore my post if you wish. I am sorry if I have insulted you or frustrated you.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 12:14:56 AM
Therefore I have folded my cards and am leaving the table. I understand how this will leave you feeling all fired up with nowhere to go, but it's really for the sake of your sanity and my own. I will repeat- we should agree to disagree. Can we shake on this?

Fine. It was never my intention to provoke a fight, I just like debating about this stuff.

Quote
Eral - all I can say is that she's sending herself up about 100% of the time. I guess it's up to her to explain herself otherwise. :)

And you may ignore my post if you wish. I am sorry if I have insulted you or frustrated you.

BTW, I wouldn't have gotten so frustrated by your responses if you and Eral hadn't been tittering behind your hands about what a humorless dink I am, as you still seem to be doing above. Just a hint here, but if you want someone to believe you're sincere, it might be better to move the snarky little inside jokes at their expense to PM.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 30, 2004, 12:34:26 AM
Quote
about what a humorless dink I am, as you still seem to be doing above
I'm not. You're reading too much into it. Maybe my tone appears patronising, but I've written a few hundred more words than I intended to and put alot of effort and time into my post, which should indicate to you that I genuinely do not want hard feelings between us and wish to give you the respect and explanation you deserve. Beyond that, I can do no more.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 01:24:11 AM
I'm not. You're reading too much into it. Maybe my tone appears patronising, but I've written a few hundred more words than I intended to and put alot of effort and time into my post, which should indicate to you that I genuinely do not want hard feelings between us and wish to give you the respect and explanation you deserve. Beyond that, I can do no more.

Yes, you did put a lot of time and effort into your post, which is why that comment to Eral surprised me.

But no matter. I agree that at this point, we have both put too much time and effort into what should have been a minor disagreement. Consider the subject dropped.

However, I am a little bummed that this thread got sidetracked into a movie vs book discussion. (And yes, I'm to blame as much as anyone) Tthe OP had a lot of interesting questions about the backstory to LotR.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 30, 2004, 01:52:02 AM
Yes, you did put a lot of time and effort into your post, which is why that comment to Eral surprised me..
You mean this?
Eral - all I can say is that she's sending herself up about 100% of the time. I guess it's up to her to explain herself otherwise. :)
If so, I think you may be misunderstanding, though I read that the same way you did at first.  I think she meant it to be about Eral to you, rather than to Eral about you.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 09:51:04 AM
Yes, you did put a lot of time and effort into your post, which is why that comment to Eral surprised me..
You mean this?
Eral - all I can say is that she's sending herself up about 100% of the time. I guess it's up to her to explain herself otherwise. :)
If so, I think you may be misunderstanding, though I read that the same way you did at first.  I think she meant it to be about Eral to you, rather than to Eral about you.

Yes, that's what I meant, and I must confess that alternative interpretation never even occured to me. I guess it might have helped if I'd noticed that Eral is also female.  :)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jcompton on December 30, 2004, 11:30:47 AM
...however, for the record, I was able to read it correctly the first time.

So. How 'bout them elves?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jester on December 30, 2004, 12:02:41 PM
We hates them, nasties!
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 01:16:09 PM
...however, for the record, I was able to read it correctly the first time.

Yes, yes, we all bow to your greatness.  :)

Quote
So. How 'bout them elves?

Actually, I am interested in why cliffette doesn't like elves much. I don't have a strong opinion on them either way, but as I noted in the thread about The Silmarillion, the picture you get of them in The Sil is very different than you get just reading LotR or seeing the movies.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: DoughyGuy on December 30, 2004, 02:26:20 PM
I have a question... :)

Seeing as how I've watched the ROTK:EE about six times so far, something still bothers me, and I was talking about it last night with my friends while we watched it...

Why did Frodo have to leave to the Undying Lands? One friend said "Well he's seen to much...", which to me isn't really an explaination. I mean Sam has been to the same places that he has and Merry and Pippin undoubtably saw more terrible things in the middle of a war...

Another friend suggested that since he had been touched by Sauron, he had some of his evil inside of him, and it could come back... But I feel that isn't explicitly said, so that's not a complete explaination to me.

Yet another person there said something to the effect "Well when he got stabbed he got a little bit of evil in him, and if he doesn't leave with the elves, the magic they used to keep him alive will go away and he'll die." Well to me isn't adequately explained either and doesn't stand up as an explaination. I mean if that were true then wouldn't that mean anyone who was wounded by a Morgul weapon, like that wielded by the Witch King, (i.e. Eowyn) would die as soon as the person who healed it died?

One thing I was thinking about was that it was some sort of 'reward'... Like since he carried he ring in order to destroy it, then he was to be rewarded with everlasting life (kind of like Bilbo). But maybe it's because I never quite understood the Undying Lands, other than the literal connotation of the name, that I'm having this problem...

So I was thinking, since some folks here obviously have knowledge of the books and the movies which surpasses my own, that you could give me a little insight into the reasoning behind Frodo leaving. Maybe it's something that is explained better in the books? Maybe it's something that I missed in the movies?

<BDG>

"That still only counts as one!!!"

 
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 30, 2004, 02:47:17 PM
Whooaaaaaaaa what happened to the threaddd? ;_; The wonderful, glorioussssss threaddddddddd ;_;

Ok anyway!

That elf guy who died was named Haldir, umm... was he a book guy? I thought that was sad too, him dying reminded me of a Star Trek ensign. :'(

Ummm, isn't Shelob Neutral instead of evil? Or is she a spider... from HELL!? ;_;

Ummm ummm, I kind of want to know what's wrong with the elfies, too. I thought they were cools! I wish their specialty was halberdness instead of archery, but I don't know why. Did anyone have a halberd in the movies? :( I wanted to see some. :(

I hated that scene where Legolas takes down an Oliphaunt, ugghhughh. ;_; That last part seemed so unnecessary (The riders had already been OWNED), but my brother in law said it's so the Oliphaunt didn't wander around trampling on people. So ok... but stop snowboarding, Legolas!!!!

Oh, oh! I kind of remember samurai guys at the scene where Sam and Frodo find the Black Gate. Where'd they goooo???? Are they the ones who attacked the dwarves or something?

I liked Faramir still! Uhhhh, is it bad to like him in the movie? Anyway, I did!

What's the scouring of the Shire? Were they attacked or something? The place looked fine at the end of the movie I think, ummm. Do the hobbits have an army?

Why am I so interested in the Haradrim? :(

Sorry for the random list of replies to lots of different posts! But everyone said a lotttt of things!

Oh wait, I just remembered something! Thank you "Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post." warning! You are a true friend!

I thought it was reallyyyyy really weird that Sam left Frodo when Frodo told him to. He already heard Gollum talk about killing them and getting the ring (Or was it only one of those two? I think it was both.), so that was pretty uhhh... yeah. But when I think about what else he should have done, I have no idea. Umm. And because he went down, he found the foodses. And meow, not sure what I'm tryinnngggg to say!

Did the Rohan really do bad things to the people with the funny teeth? The uhhh... I think they were just called wildmen. That doesn't sound like the Rohan, unless they did it when Theoden was zombified. ;_;
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: cliffette on December 30, 2004, 04:09:57 PM
I'm not. You're reading too much into it. Maybe my tone appears patronising, but I've written a few hundred more words than I intended to and put alot of effort and time into my post, which should indicate to you that I genuinely do not want hard feelings between us and wish to give you the respect and explanation you deserve. Beyond that, I can do no more.

Yes, you did put a lot of time and effort into your post, which is why that comment to Eral surprised me.

Just to totally clear things up, I did mean - "As for Eral - all I can say.."
So the 'sending herself up' referred to Eral sending herself up, not you. I was wondering what was wrong with my previous post, so thanks for naming it. What a difference two little words can make. I won't be quite so lazy next time. :)


And WolfCat, I'm sorry!  :-*

Here is the Oliphaunt poem from the books, to make up for the derailing. :)

Grey as a mouse,
Big as a house,
Nose like a snake,
I make the earth shake,
As I tramp through the grass;
Trees crack as I pass.
With horns in my mouth,
I walk in the South,
Flapping big ears,
Beyond count of years,
I stump round and round,
Never lie on the ground,
Not even to die.
Oliphaunt am I,
Biggest of all,
Huge, old, and tall.
If ever you'd met me,
You wouldn't forget me.
If you never do,
You won't think I'm true;
But Oliphaunt am I,
And I never lie.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 04:17:07 PM
I have a question... :)

Seeing as how I've watched the ROTK:EE about six times so far, something still bothers me, and I was talking about it last night with my friends while we watched it...

Why did Frodo have to leave to the Undying Lands? One friend said "Well he's seen to much...", which to me isn't really an explaination. I mean Sam has been to the same places that he has and Merry and Pippin undoubtably saw more terrible things in the middle of a war...

Another friend suggested that since he had been touched by Sauron, he had some of his evil inside of him, and it could come back... But I feel that isn't explicitly said, so that's not a complete explaination to me.

Yet another person there said something to the effect "Well when he got stabbed he got a little bit of evil in him, and if he doesn't leave with the elves, the magic they used to keep him alive will go away and he'll die." Well to me isn't adequately explained either and doesn't stand up as an explaination. I mean if that were true then wouldn't that mean anyone who was wounded by a Morgul weapon, like that wielded by the Witch King, (i.e. Eowyn) would die as soon as the person who healed it died?

It was a combination of things, IMO. Perhaps the best way to explain it is that Frodo was so wounded in body and spirit by his long struggle with the Ring, and the other wounds he'd taken--especially being stabbed by the Morgul blade--that neither time nor mortal magic could heal him. He wouldn't have dropped dead if he had stayed in the Shire, but neither would he have been healed and able to live a normal, happy life. Personally, I think the most important wound was to his spirit, though the book also says explicitly that the pain from the Morgul knife wound never really leave him.

Eowyn's arm was broken by the Witch King's mace, which is quite different, I think. She was never in peril of being turned into a wraith like Frodo was.

Quote
One thing I was thinking about was that it was some sort of 'reward'... Like since he carried he ring in order to destroy it, then he was to be rewarded with everlasting life (kind of like Bilbo). But maybe it's because I never quite understood the Undying Lands, other than the literal connotation of the name, that I'm having this problem...

Good call. It definitely was a reward for what he endured to save ME. Part of that reward was the chance that the magic of the immortal Valar could heal the wounds that could not be healed if he stayed in ME.

I won't go into too much detail about the Undying Lands, 'cause there's a lot you could say, but the basics are this. "The Undying Lands" are the continent of Aman which lies across the ocean to the west of Middle Earth. The immortal Valar, their servants the Maiar (of which Gandalf is one) and many elves live there. For the elves, who are also immortal, Aman is considered to be thier 'true home' in a sense, and all elves are welcome to travel there. It is not accessible by normal means, but elves can sail "the straight path" and find their way there.

In general, mortals are not allowed in Aman. (Which is the core of the story of the Downfall of Numenor, but that's another tale.) However, Frodo and Bilbo--and some others later, it is told--were given special dispensation to go there as a reward for their service. Though the name "Undying Lands" kind of implies it, Tolkien was clear that mortals who travel there do not become immortal themselves. Frodo will live out the rest of his life there, hopefully healed and happy.

Quote
So I was thinking, since some folks here obviously have knowledge of the books and the movies which surpasses my own, that you could give me a little insight into the reasoning behind Frodo leaving. Maybe it's something that is explained better in the books? Maybe it's something that I missed in the movies?

Yes, it is explained somewhat better in the books, but some of it you still have to read between the lines. I'll give PJ credit, he tried to put some dialog in there that would help explain it, but it's kind of a subtle concept so I'm not surprised that it wasn't terribly clear to the non-book readers in the audience.

Hope I helped some.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 30, 2004, 04:20:07 PM
What's the scouring of the Shire? Were they attacked or something? The place looked fine at the end of the movie I think, ummm. Do the hobbits have an army?
In the books, after the big Gandalf/Saruman confrontation (which was cut from the movies ::)), Saruman went to the Shire and essentially did as much damage as he could to Frodo's hometown, out of spite and bitterness over having lost.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 30, 2004, 04:22:49 PM
Why did Frodo have to leave to the Undying Lands? One friend said "Well he's seen to much...", which to me isn't really an explaination. I mean Sam has been to the same places that he has and Merry and Pippin undoubtably saw more terrible things in the middle of a war...
But Frodo carried the ring.  All the way to Mordor.  It got to him, enough that he gave up his quest at the end in order to keep it, even knowing what the consequences would be.  The scars the ring left on his soul could never come out.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 30, 2004, 04:48:39 PM
SeanFan, sorry for offending you. It was wrong of me to get cranky. I felt you were not debating and discussing and got snippy. If you reread some of your posts maybe you will see why I felt we were at cross-purposes. Friends?

Umm, jc, you say the sweetest things, but I think you'll find Australia has a population of about 18 million. At least 14 million of us are like this. And then there's Ireland, no idea what the population there is, all I can say is, a significant proportion are similarly affected. You may decide for yourselves if the Tourist Boards of both countries are going to be really pissed off with me for saying that. And I believe we want more hairy dwarves, not elves.

The battles are important in the film, with it's focus on the noble characters with great destinies, but the book's focus is the hobbits and their ordinary simple lives. Sam is the inheritor of the hobbits' kingdom - the most down-to -earth and simple of all the characters. For the hobbits to return from righteous battle, scarred and changed, to find the home they were fighting for damaged and maybe destroyed, is very powerful.
I think the message is ordinary people have to fight battles against evil at home or else the sacrifice of the soldier is wasted.

I want to discuss why Sam would never have left Frodo, but I've been terribly serious for about ten minutes now, and the strain is tremendous.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 05:48:58 PM
SeanFan, sorry for offending you. It was wrong of me to get cranky. I felt you were not debating and discussing and got snippy. If you reread some of your posts maybe you will see why I felt we were at cross-purposes. Friends?

NOT debating and discussing?!? I don't know how it works in Australia, but in this neck of the woods, civilly explaining why you disagree with someone's opinions is exactly that. Dismissing changes PJ made to adapt LotR to film by saying they're a result of "the corrupting influence of Hollywood" is not a debate point, its a diatribe, and a darn unconvincing one at that. That is, of course, unless you were joking when you said that, and if that's the case, I don't know how I supposed to know it at the time.

My main point in all this film/book discussion is that changes can be made in adapting a book to film for good, sound filmmaking reasons that do not jibe with someone's personal conception of the book. Just because you really don't like the idea that Frodo would send Sam away doesn't mean that it was a bad filmmaking decision or it makes RotK a bad film. There's definitely no universal agreement that the change violates Tolkien's depiction of their relationship in the book.  Most of the people I know who've read the books are okay with it, certainly more so than, say, the depiction of Denethor.

I'd be happy to discuss these issues with you, but it would be easier if you could try to separate your personal likes and dislikes in regard to the source material from the issue of what changes did and did not work in the movies.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 30, 2004, 06:12:07 PM
Civilly discussing what we agree and disagree with is debating here too.
In future I shall mark all my hyperbolic statements with IAJJ. This  stands for It's a joke Joyce - a line from an old vaudeville show.  So, are we OK?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 07:14:50 PM
Civilly discussing what we agree and disagree with is debating here too.
In future I shall mark all my hyperbolic statements with IAJJ. This  stands for It's a joke Joyce - a line from an old vaudeville show.  So, are we OK?

Yep.

BTW, I have seen people make just such hyperbolic statements in complete seriousness. On another board, after TTT came out someone posted, "So, I guess we can all agree that Peter Jackson has no respect whatsoever for Tolkien's work" and was quite surprised when no, not everyone agreed with that statement.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 30, 2004, 07:21:39 PM

And WolfCat, I'm sorry!  :-*

It's fine, I was mostly joking, aaiiioww!

And cute poemish, thankies. I've seen brown mice though. ^_^

Quote from: Kish
In the books, after the big Gandalf/Saruman confrontation (which was cut from the movies ::)), Saruman went to the Shire and essentially did as much damage as he could to Frodo's hometown, out of spite and bitterness over having lost.

Thankies Kish sir. Yowwwch. Well umm, I think they looked fine at the end... I mean, I take it the hobbits won, woof?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Kish on December 30, 2004, 07:24:46 PM
Thankies Kish sir. Yowwwch. Well umm, I think they looked fine at the end... I mean, I take it the hobbits won, woof?
In the movies, there was nothing to win--the whole thing was cut.  In the books...well, Frodo came back and rescued the Shire, but not without casualties and lasting effects.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: WolfCatBot on December 30, 2004, 07:26:10 PM
Oh. :(
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 30, 2004, 07:26:22 PM
BTW, I have seen people make just such hyperbolic statements in complete seriousness. On another board, after TTT came out someone posted, "So, I guess we can all agree that Peter Jackson has no respect whatsoever for Tolkien's work" and was quite surprised when no, not everyone agreed with that statement.

;D Poor Tolkien. Little did he know his body of work would attract such a body of  loons: their ideas so scary, and yet so strangely compelling.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 30, 2004, 09:30:18 PM
Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, Sam also went to the Undying lands. And I finally remembered the thing that annoyd me the most in the movies.

Trolls

In sunlight

And not Turned to Stone.

It was supposed to be DARK at the Battle of Minas Tirith too :< Right up till Rohans cavalry arrived, but quite often there was sunlight all over the place. And the Beacons scene was too long. About 6 beacons too long. Also, the White Tree sapling scene was missed. IIRC someone even quoted the prophecy mentioning the White Tree.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 30, 2004, 10:17:45 PM
Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, Sam also went to the Undying lands. And I finally remembered the thing that annoyd me the most in the movies.

Trolls

In sunlight

And not Turned to Stone.

It was supposed to be DARK at the Battle of Minas Tirith too :< Right up till Rohans cavalry arrived, but quite often there was sunlight all over the place. And the Beacons scene was too long. About 6 beacons too long. Also, the White Tree sapling scene was missed. IIRC someone even quoted the prophecy mentioning the White Tree.

Hmm, not all trolls turn to stone in sunlight. As a matter of fact, Sauron developed a race of "super-trolls" called the Olog-Hai which could exist in direct sunlight. Tolkien also specifically mentioned that there were trolls at the battle of the Black Gate, which took place during the day, so obviously trolls in sunlight was not a big problem for him.

Actually, I'd never really considered whether there were too many beacons or not, though I couldn't help but think that some of those beacons were on incredibly inaccessible mountain-tops, so who the heck was lighting them? But that is a very good example of a scene that was done so well, and was so beautiful and just, well, cool, that I couldn't care less that it was implausible.

Really, Veloxyl, don't you think complaining that the number of beacons wasn't exactly correct is a little, well actually, *very* nit-picky?
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 31, 2004, 01:05:26 AM
I hadn't heard about the muta-trolls. It would've still been dark at the black gate too since there's only so far the wind can go against the smoke of Mt Doom. I imagine Sauron could keep it over the immediate surrounds of Mordor enough to shield any trollish troops from being stonified. Although the Stonable trolls did speak, while the mountain trolls just growled. So I suppose they could've been Muta-trolls. But if that were the case there shouldn't have been any mention of Bilbos encounter with the Trolls (although that might've only been EE it's not like they pointed out the difference)

And it'd be nitpicky if it didn't make the scene TOO LONG. And a beacon surrounded by clouds. Uh, how did it see the previous one? There's only so far my suspension of disbelief will go. And it was worn out when Helms Deeps doors opened inwards.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: neriana on December 31, 2004, 04:08:45 AM
Sam went to the Undying Lands? When? After he had a family and a long and healthy life and finished the history? I don't remember that from the books, but if he did -- are you saying you wanted them to make the end of Return of the King longer?! Doors opened the wrong way... um... yeah... no nitpicking there!

I only have one more thing to add. The LoTR movies are far more enjoyable than the LoTR books, with the exception of The Hobbit, which is the only one that is written well. You can go on about "great story" (kill evil guy and destroy evil object) and "interesting characters" (Boromir, Eowyn, Gollum, Galadriel, Gandalf, maybe Saruman, Merry and Pippin, the rest are almost as dull as possible, IMO) all you want, but the writing is simply not there. I liked every change the script writers made. I still haven't read all of The Two Towers. "Frodo and Sam trudging through wastes." Ten pages later: "Frodo and Sam trudging through wastes." 30 pages later: "Oh look! Frodo and Sam trudging through wastes." Not exactly riveting.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: DoughyGuy on December 31, 2004, 04:53:26 AM
It was a combination of things, IMO. Perhaps the best way to explain it is that Frodo was so wounded in body and spirit by his long struggle with the Ring, and the other wounds he'd taken--especially being stabbed by the Morgul blade--that neither time nor mortal magic could heal him. He wouldn't have dropped dead if he had stayed in the Shire, but neither would he have been healed and able to live a normal, happy life. Personally, I think the most important wound was to his spirit, though the book also says explicitly that the pain from the Morgul knife wound never really leave him.

Yeah, I guess that kind of made sense, but I just felt that maybe all of them were damaged in some way by their experiences, and that by breaking up the four of them, it didn't make much sense. I know Frodo wouldn't have been the same for the rest of his life, but it just seemed to me that he was doing OK but not great, after all was said and done, once Sauron was destroyed...

Quote
Eowyn's arm was broken by the Witch King's mace, which is quite different, I think. She was never in peril of being turned into a wraith like Frodo was.

True, but in the House of Healing scene you see that her arm is covered in the same black 'veins' that Frodo's shoulder had on it in Fellowship, and in the commentary for ROTK:EE, Miranda Otto mentioned that Eowyn was supposed to have 'The Black Breath', and I assumed that it was another name for the sickness that was killing Frodo.

And wasn't the Witch King the same one who stabbed Frodo in the first place, IIRC? (Gandalf's line to Pippin was something to the effect that 'You've seen him before', and it showed the Ringwraiths attacking the hobbits from Fellowship)

But I guess what you said makes sense :D It was never explicitly said that the mace broke the skin, after all. And if it were the same kind of sickness that inflicted Frodo, and since it was implied in the EE that Aragorn's abilities were what helped her through the ordeal, why wouldn't he have done the same thing two movies ago... So it probably wasn't the same situation...

Many thanks to all who attempted to answer my questions, I think I understand things better...

So now, a hypothetical question... If things had turned out differently inside Mount Doom, and Gollum hadn't died, and the Ring was still destroyed... Would he have gotten an invite to spend the rest of his days in the Undying Lands? Kind of makes me chuckle to think of Gollum hopping around amongst all those elves for the rest of his life...

<BDG>
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on December 31, 2004, 05:13:34 AM
Sam went to the Undying Lands? When? After he had a family and a long and healthy life and finished the history? I don't remember that from the books, but if he did -- are you saying you wanted them to make the end of Return of the King longer?! Doors opened the wrong way... um... yeah... no nitpicking there!
Doors opening outwards isn't that complex to figure out that's what they do! Minas Tirith shows EXACTLY why it's the case too! The door could've taken much more beating (I'd insult any movie that opens doors the wrong way on castles).

I wasn't saying they needed to add in Sam going to the Undying lands. I was just pointing out he did. It was something to do with having been touched by the Ring.

IIRC it should be Eowyns sword arm that was all messed up by the Wraiths ability, her shield arm just broke.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 31, 2004, 10:12:55 AM
I really wish that had kept Bilbo from that scene. I mean, god, what the hell was keeping him together? Look liked the site of troll would turn him to dust. He wasn't even looking(moviewise) too good back in FotR.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Ghreyfain on December 31, 2004, 10:26:03 AM
I really wish that had kept Bilbo from that scene. I mean, god, what the hell was keeping him together? Look liked the site of troll would turn him to dust. He wasn't even looking(moviewise) too good back in FotR.

Pretty sure everyone in Elfland is immortal.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Alarielle on December 31, 2004, 10:29:50 AM
I really wish that had kept Bilbo from that scene. I mean, god, what the hell was keeping him together? Look liked the site of troll would turn him to dust. He wasn't even looking(moviewise) too good back in FotR.

O.o

Well, if you read the book you would discover that ownership of the Ring delays the effects of old age (look at Gollum).  Bilbo's life was extended significantly by his possession of the Ring, and his years only began to catch up with him after he lost it.  Even then, he was granted a life longer than the average Hobbit, so that was what was 'keeping him together'.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: SeanFan on December 31, 2004, 10:30:25 AM
Pretty sure everyone in Elfland is immortal.

If by this you mean going to Undying Lands would make mortals like Frodo and Bilbo immortal, nope, not true. Everyone else in "elfland" is immortal, but mortals who go there will die, just as they would if they had stayed in Middle Earth.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: discharger12 on December 31, 2004, 10:39:14 AM
I really wish that had kept Bilbo from that scene. I mean, god, what the hell was keeping him together? Look liked the site of troll would turn him to dust. He wasn't even looking(moviewise) too good back in FotR.

O.o

Well, if you read the book you would discover that ownership of the Ring delays the effects of old age (look at Gollum).  Bilbo's life was extended significantly by his possession of the Ring, and his years only began to catch up with him after he lost it.  Even then, he was granted a life longer than the average Hobbit, so that was what was 'keeping him together'.

So what, he'd have about 20 more years left in him? Bah.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Reverendratbastard on December 31, 2004, 01:55:04 PM
True, but in the House of Healing scene you see that her arm is covered in the same black 'veins' that Frodo's shoulder had on it in Fellowship, and in the commentary for ROTK:EE, Miranda Otto mentioned that Eowyn was supposed to have 'The Black Breath', and I assumed that it was another name for the sickness that was killing Frodo.

And wasn't the Witch King the same one who stabbed Frodo in the first place, IIRC? (Gandalf's line to Pippin was something to the effect that 'You've seen him before', and it showed the Ringwraiths attacking the hobbits from Fellowship)

But I guess what you said makes sense :D It was never explicitly said that the mace broke the skin, after all. And if it were the same kind of sickness that inflicted Frodo, and since it was implied in the EE that Aragorn's abilities were what helped her through the ordeal, why wouldn't he have done the same thing two movies ago... So it probably wasn't the same situation...

  regardless of where she sustained what sort of wound, eowyn wasn't healed by elven magic.  she was healed by aragorn, who {even if he hadn't yet entered the city officially as king, my memory is fuzzy here} was manifesting the legendary healing power of the king.  so in that context, the movie excuse for not having him heal frodo in tFotR would be because he started out 'reluctant' to claim his birthright, or simply that they weren't {aragorn wasn't} in minas tirith, or that minias tirith was under stewardship...
  and it still plays out smoothly in the movies, in that while frodo was healed by arwen and arwen didn't leave, her immortality did, and therefore most likely the power behind that healing - she gave him a portion of herself so that he would survive the journey to rivendell iirc - and elrond or whoever did the rest of the healing had left or was leaving with frodo.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on December 31, 2004, 05:39:18 PM
or maybe they didn't have any leaves,(I didn't see any, but then I didn't see Faramir get corrupted) what was the stuff? kingsheal?... though "Sorry my Lord Aragorn, we're fresh out" - probably would have brought down the tone of the film.
They did put in the banner of the white tree, Veloxyll, and a long helicopter shot of the tree in bloom. If they had put any more in, the hobbits wouldn't have had time for their beer in the pub. Where no-one treated them with deep suspicion for having been away. ;D
Perhaps the saddest thing about cutting the Scouring from the film, was we never got to see Sam's dad, and hear his immortal line "Where's his weskit? I don't hold with wearing ironmongery."

The LoTR movies are far more enjoyable than the LoTR books
Some people are more visual, and I believe that's why the films have been a success, bringing things that can be difficult to imagine to life. I myself found TT harder going when I was young, as there was much less action in it (war does have long periods of boring bits while you wait for things to happen) but I suppose as my admiration for Sam and Frodo grew into it's current state of utter devotion, I developed greater appreciation for TT.

Some people remain on the sane side of the scale, and others go right over the 4 point.

 
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Dark Raven on January 01, 2005, 12:06:36 AM
i found the book to be longwinded and contain things that were irrelevent that did not further the plot. I am sure the Tolkien mega fans would blast me for saying that but it's true. Don't get me wrong I like the book and his works but the movies were a bit easier to digestt.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jester on January 01, 2005, 08:46:39 AM
Granted that LotR worked well as a five page appendix to my Sillmarillion you may say that, but you would also miss out on a lot of scenery. :D
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Curufinwe on January 10, 2005, 07:54:23 AM
Hi i am new to the site and i was wondering can anyone answer these questions for me please?
Who built Moria? Where can i find info on the second age, particularly in ME while Numenor was still in exsistance?
Where can i find a history of the dwarves, and not just the account of the orcs overrunning moria and azog fighting with the dwarves, (the 1 from the appendices)?
Does anyone know who or what tom bombadil is and goldberry? Don't say the "master", some theories would be welcome!
Also when did the 1st age begin? i am currently reading the silmarillion, and Melkor and Ungoliant have just killed the two trees and darkened valinor but when exactly did it start? When Melkor was first captured he was banished to the halls of mandos to dwell for 3 ages, so what ages are these?
 Anyone have any ideas? much abliged
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on January 10, 2005, 02:37:33 PM
Well Moria was built by the dwarves. Otherwise I think Tolkien kinda skimped on Dwarven history, but I could be wrong.

The History of Middle Earth series has all the other answers I'm pretty sure.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Ashara on January 11, 2005, 09:02:13 AM
who {even if he hadn't yet entered the city officially as king, my memory is fuzzy here} was manifesting the legendary healing power of the king.

I was a bit dissappointed with the "hands of a king are hands of a healer" being left out and the cloak... after all the expectations about HoH added :) But then, thge extended version was simply great. The theatrical now feels like a cut movie. Heh, I spent a wonderful week watching the extended version of all 3 movies on DVD that I got for NY :) It was splendid.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on January 11, 2005, 04:15:35 PM
(note that Ashara was actually watching the EEs for a week non-stop. They'er just that long :D )
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Ashara on January 12, 2005, 09:49:10 AM
Well, I did do some misculaneous things between watching, like going to work, eating, sleeping, modding...  ::)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Veloxyll on January 12, 2005, 12:15:25 PM
*sigh* my humour is so unappreciated
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 12, 2005, 03:26:29 PM
I got it Vel.  I got it.






































But it wasn't funny!  Har har har!  :pirate
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jester on January 19, 2005, 08:58:29 AM
I only wonder what is on the 12 DVDs that are in the big set.
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Caswallon on January 19, 2005, 04:24:47 PM
Big set = all three Extended Editions together?
Then it's easy... every EE consists of four DVDs - two with the actual movie, and two with additional material (lots of Making-Ofs and the like, some of them quite interesting). So they just packaged them all together...

(It is absolutely impossible that I don't get some subtle humour here. Or whatever.) ;)
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: jester on January 19, 2005, 06:15:53 PM
So 6 Making-of DVDs. I am impressed. :D
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Eral on January 19, 2005, 06:25:18 PM
I guess they think the audience are obsessive with long attention spans. However did they arrive at that conclusion?  ;D
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: DoughyGuy on January 20, 2005, 02:34:27 AM
They've recently announced that PJ's going to be working on a 'deluxe-extended-cut-box-set' thingee where all the movies will be packaged together in one unit (as opposed to the one just released where the three EE units were packaged together in an outer sleeve box)

The extended editions of the movies themselves won't be recut or have scenes added to them, but the set is supposed to include a feature-length 'fly on the wall' style documentary for each film (meaning no narration or interviews, just strung together bits of on the set footage) and blooper footage...

I, personally, don't see the need to buy these new versions, because I already have all three extended cuts, and since the movies themselves won't be changed, I'll prolly just Netflix it... But they'll still sell like clothespins at a skunk farm, I'm sure...

<BDG>

Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Curufinwe on January 25, 2005, 06:32:20 AM
Hi again people, since my last post i have finished the sil and started on unfinished tales (for the second time) and although it has some extra info about ME throughout all the ages it mostly just expands on certain sections from the sil and tlotr! Are the HoME books just good or excellent as sources of new info about ME, coz they are quite expensive where i am in the world and i know that there are 12 of them! I am a very big Tolkienite, i find the idea of ME fascinating and would love to know as much about its history and the history of all its peoples as possible! Also does anyone have any idea about any stories from the 4th age, which i have heard rumuor of? Thanx for your time
Title: Re: Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)
Post by: Shadow Ishtar on January 31, 2005, 07:45:35 PM
They've recently announced that PJ's going to be working on a 'deluxe-extended-cut-box-set' thingee where all the movies will be packaged together in one unit (as opposed to the one just released where the three EE units were packaged together in an outer sleeve box)

Sigh. I wish people would stop messing with already released DVDs...George Lucas is even going to do a SPECIAL SPECIAL edition of all six SW movies in one box set. This is why I haven't bought the original trilogy yet.

I have to keep asking for these things for Christmas...luckily I have an uncle who utilises Netflix. :)