If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Empire Magazine)   One hundred things you probably didn't know about the Lord of the Rings, both the book and film trilogy, including why the eagles didn't just fly everyone to Mount Doom and Gandalf's original name   (empireonline.com) divider line 178
    More: Cool, Mount Doom, Gandalf, polystyrene, Lord of the Rings, Viggo Mortensen, Discworld, Uruk  
•       •       •

14178 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Nov 2012 at 7:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-24 11:22:36 AM

cowboybebop: cowboybebop: The Eagles didn't help, I hypothesize, because they represented America who, in Tolkein's opinion, didn't get involved in WWII until well after they should have.

Tolkien hated allegory, so no.


And so Gandalf wasn't even a little bit of a Christ figure? Saruman (or however it's spelled) didn't represent forces of the industrial revolution?


"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."


― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
 
2012-11-24 11:22:52 AM

ZeroCorpse: Re: The Eagles. Why couldn't they carry Frodo and Sam into Mordor?

Do you remember at the beginning when Gandalf was interacting with Biblo and Frodo in regards to the One Ring? How he wouldn't touch it? How he wouldn't even let them get near him with it because the ring's terrible power is known to have way more influence over every other race than it seems to have with hobbits? Gandalf made Bilbo drop the ring on the floor. He would not touch it. He would not go near it. Later, he made Frodo hold out his hand and read the writing. The closest Gandalf would get was to snag it with tongs, and even then he dropped it like it was burning him.

The same goes for Galadriel. She would not have the ring in her hands, either. She told Frodo exactly what would happen if she did lay hands on it.

Elrond wouldn't touch it. He knew better, too. He wouldn't even go near it.

Do you remember the history lesson? Humans are basically corrupted simply by being within shouting distance of the ring. Boromir went homicidal just being in the same company with Frodo for a few weeks. Isildur went over the deep end as soon as he touched it.

So why won't the Eagles carry Frodo while he bears the One Ring? Because the One Ring has such a great and terrible power over all races, save for hobbits (and even they succumb, eventually), that it's very likely they would be affected and end up either keeping it for themselves, or dropping Frodo to watch him die, and then retrieving it to do its bidding.

The Eagles didn't carry the ringbearer because they knew better than to be that close to that particular object. It would have overpowered them and it would never have been disposed of.

Tolkien doesn't come out and say this, but I think it's pretty well implied by the foreshadowing and lore attributed to the ring. If it could turn a man to an evil being in a split second from touch, make him attempt to murder his friends after just being near it for a week, make a hobbit murder his best friend ...


Hmmm, didn't think about that one. Good point.
 
2012-11-24 11:24:31 AM
"they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it."
-During the Council of Elrond

The Eagles belonged to Manwe, king of the Valar. The ring was Middle-Earth's problem and only the free people of Middle-Earth could take any direct action to destroy it.
 
2012-11-24 11:27:15 AM

taurusowner: Metaluna Mutant: Roto-Rot: How Not To Get Laid 101:

Fierce debate rages over whether Balrogs have wings.

Well there's no real debate because THEY DON'T HAVE WINGS. THE END.

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...'
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm


Wings or no wings, it falls to its death either way.
 
2012-11-24 11:33:15 AM
I guess I should clarify: it wasn't a Hobbit that murdered his best friend upon seeing the Ring. It was one of the Stoorish Hobbits, who were almost-but-not-quite Hobbits as they are in Frodo's era. So while Frodo was able to resist (as was Bilbo and Sam) for much of the time they had the ring, Smeagol and Deagol could not. The latter two reacted to it as if they were Men.

So as I understand it:

Men: Contact equals instant corruption. Proximity equals corruption within a short time frame.
Elves: Contact equals eventual corruption, though not sure how long it would take. Proximity takes much longer.
Wizards: Contact equals eventual corruption. Proximity takes longer.
Orcs: Unknown, but considering they're already evil it's probably pretty quick, I'd assume.
Hobbits: Contact equals corruption, though it takes a long time. Proximity takes decades.
Dwarves: Contact equals corruption, though we know not how long it takes. Proximity seems to take a very long time.
Eagles: Unknown, but we can assume they're more susceptible than Hobbits.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:26 AM

Zombalupagus: taurusowner: Metaluna Mutant: Roto-Rot: How Not To Get Laid 101:

Fierce debate rages over whether Balrogs have wings.

Well there's no real debate because THEY DON'T HAVE WINGS. THE END.

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...'
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Wings or no wings, it falls to its death either way.


I vote for non-functional wings.
 
2012-11-24 11:36:25 AM

ZeroCorpse: Re: The Eagles. Why couldn't they carry Frodo and Sam into Mordor?

Do you remember at the beginning when Gandalf was interacting with Biblo and Frodo in regards to the One Ring? How he wouldn't touch it? How he wouldn't even let them get near him with it because the ring's terrible power is known to have way more influence over every other race than it seems to have with hobbits? Gandalf made Bilbo drop the ring on the floor. He would not touch it. He would not go near it. Later, he made Frodo hold out his hand and read the writing. The closest Gandalf would get was to snag it with tongs, and even then he dropped it like it was burning him.

The same goes for Galadriel. She would not have the ring in her hands, either. She told Frodo exactly what would happen if she did lay hands on it.

Elrond wouldn't touch it. He knew better, too. He wouldn't even go near it.

Do you remember the history lesson? Humans are basically corrupted simply by being within shouting distance of the ring. Boromir went homicidal just being in the same company with Frodo for a few weeks. Isildur went over the deep end as soon as he touched it.

So why won't the Eagles carry Frodo while he bears the One Ring? Because the One Ring has such a great and terrible power over all races, save for hobbits (and even they succumb, eventually), that it's very likely they would be affected and end up either keeping it for themselves, or dropping Frodo to watch him die, and then retrieving it to do its bidding.

The Eagles didn't carry the ringbearer because they knew better than to be that close to that particular object. It would have overpowered them and it would never have been disposed of.

Tolkien doesn't come out and say this, but I think it's pretty well implied by the foreshadowing and lore attributed to the ring. If it could turn a man to an evil being in a split second from touch, make him attempt to murder his friends after just being near it for a week, make a hobbit murder his best friend ...


In the end, even Frodo would not willingly part with the Ring, and if it were not for Gollum, he would have failed.

(though the movie did mess around with WHY Gollum fell in.. they cut the part near the end where Gollum tries for the Ring, and Frodo grabs it and orders Gollum not to touch him ever again, else he will be cast into the fire himself)
 
2012-11-24 11:41:52 AM

ZeroCorpse: I guess I should clarify: it wasn't a Hobbit that murdered his best friend upon seeing the Ring. It was one of the Stoorish Hobbits, who were almost-but-not-quite Hobbits as they are in Frodo's era. So while Frodo was able to resist (as was Bilbo and Sam) for much of the time they had the ring, Smeagol and Deagol could not. The latter two reacted to it as if they were Men.

So as I understand it:

Men: Contact equals instant corruption. Proximity equals corruption within a short time frame.
Elves: Contact equals eventual corruption, though not sure how long it would take. Proximity takes much longer.
Wizards: Contact equals eventual corruption. Proximity takes longer.
Orcs: Unknown, but considering they're already evil it's probably pretty quick, I'd assume.
Hobbits: Contact equals corruption, though it takes a long time. Proximity takes decades.
Dwarves: Contact equals corruption, though we know not how long it takes. Proximity seems to take a very long time.
Eagles: Unknown, but we can assume they're more susceptible than Hobbits.


The Seven Dwarf Lords who accepted rings from Sauron never faded into Ringwraiths; the Dwarves were made to endure. So Sauron worked hard to get them back, and succeeded with 3 of them. The other 4 perished in dragonfire.

Now, the corrupting power of the One Ring would be greater than that of the Seven. Hard to guess how much it would affect them.
 
2012-11-24 11:54:22 AM

Alphax: In the end, even Frodo would not willingly part with the Ring, and if it were not for Gollum, he would have failed.


And that is probably the best reason why the Eagles couldn't have provided a magic shortcut - Frodo needed to fail, and his saving grace needed to be his earlier treatment of gollum. That was one of the major points of the book.
 
2012-11-24 11:56:46 AM
And all the discussion of who would get corrupted and how quickly just reminds me how disappointing it was that they cut Tom bombadil out of the story.

He considered the ring a trinket and a trifle thing.
 
2012-11-24 11:58:41 AM
Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?
 
2012-11-24 12:01:28 PM

farkeruk: Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?


Not just that, but Shrek? Really? I guess it got a lot of ticket sales since it's a children's movie, but that still seems ridiculous.
 
2012-11-24 12:01:51 PM
WEll it includes the Star Wars prequels too. Which as shiatty as they are, everyone still watched them. And paid their money.

I really hope after The Hobbit comes out, it bumps Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean off the list. At least Bond, Harry Potter, and Star Wars have LotR movies beat number wise. But there's no reason a movie series as epic as LotR can't best two lame goofy kids movies.
 
2012-11-24 12:04:33 PM

Alphax: (though the movie did mess around with WHY Gollum fell in.. they cut the part near the end where Gollum tries for the Ring, and Frodo grabs it and orders Gollum not to touch him ever again, else he will be cast into the fire himself)


I never understood why Jackson changed this part and some crucial bits of the Witch-king's fight. The film changes replaced the story impact of both scenes with trite Hollywood schmaltz.

/If I never see another actor hanging from something I'll be happier
 
2012-11-24 12:07:31 PM

DerAppie: taurusowner: Keep in mind the eagles were pretty much solely under the control on Manwe. And the Valar already had a "we're not doing it all for you" attitude. The Valar and Maiar for the most part restricted their interactions to giving advice and small miracles. Sending the eagles to carry the Ring all the way would have been too much interference.

Sauron was a Maiar (once? still?). How is mitigating the damage one of your own inflicts, in direct opposition of the order to not interfere, wrong? Having an overwhelmingly powerful enemy against ordinary people and then hoping everything works out seems much more intrusive if you ask me.


Take a look at the map of Middle Earth. See in the far north west, that broken mountain range, and further west is big honkin ocean? In the first age, that was the EASTERN reaches of Beleriand, the land the elves came to after their self (and later, enforced) exile from Valinor. It's destroyed because what Morgoth damn near won it all, the Vala, Maia, and Elves who stayed faithful came and kicked some serious ass. The Vala looked around and said "Ohhh, fark. We better stay out of this shiat in the future before we destroy the world (again)"
 
kab
2012-11-24 12:09:24 PM

Jim_Callahan: There were, what, about half the Nazgul left when they went in and out with no trouble, so no dice there. And Tolkien saying "'cause I didn't wanna" isn't the same as an actual explanation and does nothing whatsoever to close the plot-hole.


Read the books, and you'll see why it's not a plot hole at all.
 
2012-11-24 12:12:22 PM

Jim_Callahan: The reason the eagles don't just fly everyone to Mount Doom because "the eagles are their own race and do things for their own reasons". Also, Tolkien didn't like them to be seen as "Middle-Earth taxis"...


...Also, the Nazgul would have totally killed them.

There were, what, about half the Nazgul left when they went in and out with no trouble, so no dice there. And Tolkien saying "'cause I didn't wanna" isn't the same as an actual explanation and does nothing whatsoever to close the plot-hole.


It would have violated the Prime Directive.

Happy?
 
2012-11-24 12:13:12 PM

taurusowner: DerAppie: taurusowner: Keep in mind the eagles were pretty much solely under the control on Manwe. And the Valar already had a "we're not doing it all for you" attitude. The Valar and Maiar for the most part restricted their interactions to giving advice and small miracles. Sending the eagles to carry the Ring all the way would have been too much interference.

Sauron was a Maiar (once? still?). How is mitigating the damage one of your own inflicts, in direct opposition of the order to not interfere, wrong? Having an overwhelmingly powerful enemy against ordinary people and then hoping everything works out seems much more intrusive if you ask me.

Except I don't think there was any "hoping" involved. Within the Tolkein universe, what essentially amounts to angels, archangels, and God do indeed exists. It's very possible that the Valar left Sauron in Middle Earth because they already knew that the people of Middle Earth would be able to win in the end. Not quite the "here's the exact reason" answer you might have been looking for, but in the context of LotR, it fits pretty well. Eru Illuvatar (God in LotR) did many things even the Valar didn't understand. Even when Gandalf says to Frodo that "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." he was very likely referring to Eru.

Middle Earth could not deal with Morgoth on their own, and in the end The Valar came and saved them. But one of his servants, Sauron, was a challenge that was just small enough that Middle Earth could indeed win on their own. And they did. Eru knew this. Is that the reason why the Valar would not directly intervene or send agents (the eagles, other Maiar acting with their full power) to intervene either? Tolekin doesn't say. But it would make sense within the context of the LotR universe.


Eh. Sauron turned him self in to Manwe's Herald at the end of the first age, and had a change of heart and ran like hell. Keep in mind that at the time, Sauron was still VERY good at deception, and changed his will and outward nature enough that he could have reasonably posed as a good Maia that did not wish to return to Valinor, and I believe masqueraded as a Maia of Aule to the elves/dwarves/men. It wasn't until the Fall of Numenor, when he was destroyed and essentially stuck in his horrid form was he truly exposed to all.
 
2012-11-24 12:16:49 PM

farkeruk: Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?


re-release after re-release after re-release
 
2012-11-24 12:20:12 PM
Read the books many times, and it does indeed continue to be a plot hole.

Making it worse - the Eagles are able to fly to Mt. Doom. faster than the Nazgul can from the Black Gate even while carrying Gandalf.

As for "the ring corrupts them!", people seem to forget that Frodo was hanging around with humans and elves for MONTHS while carrying the ring in close proximity to them without any ill effects (Zerocorpse is very wrong).

It was a plot hole, everyone knows it, and no amount of retconning will change it. It simply didn't occur to Tolkien until after the fact.
 
2012-11-24 12:21:16 PM

Tryfan: Read the books many times, and it does indeed continue to be a plot hole.


I suspect you've never read The Silmarillion.
 
2012-11-24 12:22:23 PM

NeoCortex42: farkeruk: Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?

Not just that, but Shrek? Really? I guess it got a lot of ticket sales since it's a children's movie, but that still seems ridiculous.


Shrek has five films in its franchise, and it has more adult content that you apparently know about.

/kids aren't going to get John Woo references, see the third meaning behind the 'ogres are like onions' dialog, or notice delicate subversion of traditional characters into real-world caricatures
 
2012-11-24 12:25:16 PM

thrasherrr: NeoCortex42: farkeruk: Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?

Not just that, but Shrek? Really? I guess it got a lot of ticket sales since it's a children's movie, but that still seems ridiculous.

Shrek has five films in its franchise, and it has more adult content that you apparently know about.

/kids aren't going to get John Woo references, see the third meaning behind the 'ogres are like onions' dialog, or notice delicate subversion of traditional characters into real-world caricatures


Kids wouldn't get a lot of the references in the My Little Ponies show. Doesn't mean it's not a kids show.

The adult stuff is there just to make it bearable for the parents.
 
2012-11-24 12:26:57 PM

ZeroCorpse: Re: The Eagles. Why couldn't they carry Frodo and Sam into Mordor?

Do you remember at the beginning when Gandalf was interacting with Biblo and Frodo in regards to the One Ring? How he wouldn't touch it? How he wouldn't even let them get near him with it because the ring's terrible power is known to have way more influence over every other race than it seems to have with hobbits? Gandalf made Bilbo drop the ring on the floor. He would not touch it. He would not go near it. Later, he made Frodo hold out his hand and read the writing. The closest Gandalf would get was to snag it with tongs, and even then he dropped it like it was burning him.

The same goes for Galadriel. She would not have the ring in her hands, either. She told Frodo exactly what would happen if she did lay hands on it.

Elrond wouldn't touch it. He knew better, too. He wouldn't even go near it.

Do you remember the history lesson? Humans are basically corrupted simply by being within shouting distance of the ring. Boromir went homicidal just being in the same company with Frodo for a few weeks. Isildur went over the deep end as soon as he touched it.

So why won't the Eagles carry Frodo while he bears the One Ring? Because the One Ring has such a great and terrible power over all races, save for hobbits (and even they succumb, eventually), that it's very likely they would be affected and end up either keeping it for themselves, or dropping Frodo to watch him die, and then retrieving it to do its bidding.

The Eagles didn't carry the ringbearer because they knew better than to be that close to that particular object. It would have overpowered them and it would never have been disposed of.

Tolkien doesn't come out and say this, but I think it's pretty well implied by the foreshadowing and lore attributed to the ring. If it could turn a man to an evil being in a split second from touch, make him attempt to murder his friends after just being near it for a week, make a hobbit murder his best friend upon sight, and cause a wizard such as Gandalf to keep a wide berth, then touching the Ringbearer for the amount of time it would take to go from the Shire to Mordor would almost certainly be enough to corrupt the Eagles, thus dooming the mission.

People read and watch, but they apparently don't think things through.


Interesting analysis. However, how do you account for Bilbo riding the eagles while in possession of the Ring?
 
2012-11-24 12:28:23 PM

Blue_Blazer: Interesting analysis. However, how do you account for Bilbo riding the eagles while in possession of the Ring?


Sauron's power was still weak? He was much stronger by the time Frodo was on his trip.
 
2012-11-24 12:32:29 PM

thrasherrr: Alphax: (though the movie did mess around with WHY Gollum fell in.. they cut the part near the end where Gollum tries for the Ring, and Frodo grabs it and orders Gollum not to touch him ever again, else he will be cast into the fire himself)

I never understood why Jackson changed this part and some crucial bits of the Witch-king's fight. The film changes replaced the story impact of both scenes with trite Hollywood schmaltz.

/If I never see another actor hanging from something I'll be happier


THE ENTIRE FILM TRILOGY WAS TRITE SCHMALTZ.

*sigh*

/overrated movies are overrated
 
2012-11-24 12:34:50 PM
101: Apparently, one actually does simply walk into Mordor.

102: Òleomárgerine is not actually a fully qualified wizard.

103: The eagles were not able to fly everyone to Mount Doom because Henley was touring with his solo band at the time.

104: Rómendacil is not an effective topical treatment for Gondorrhea.
 
2012-11-24 12:39:32 PM
Gandalf's real name?

Goldberg. He changed it for "professional reasons".

/damn anti-Semitic elves
 
2012-11-24 12:44:07 PM
Can I tell you how much I hate this movie? Jackson ruined Faramir, put Dwarf-tossing jokesin the film, gave us Aragorn over a cliff, made the Uruk-hai look like something out of KISS, gave us wizard-fu in Orthanc, turned Gollum into Jar Jar Binks, made Merry and Pippin into empty-headed idiots; there was a.stairsurfing Legolas, he made Denethor into Nixon, screwed up the Mouth of Sauron...aarrghh.

Okay, got Galadriel right, Gandalf, Saruman, and Frodo were casted correctly. Helms Deep wasn't bad. Other than that, fuggedabouddit.

Oh, and Gandalf's name was Olorin. The article fails to mention it. It's a piece of crap, too.
 
2012-11-24 12:44:35 PM
fairly decent list but as a big fan of the books and movies i knew 90% of it already.
 
2012-11-24 12:45:49 PM

NeoCortex42: Blue_Blazer: Interesting analysis. However, how do you account for Bilbo riding the eagles while in possession of the Ring?

Sauron's power was still weak? He was much stronger by the time Frodo was on his trip.


Yeah I'm not sure I buy this whole line of thinking.

To me, the two best explanations are:
Manwe wouldn't let them because it was up to Men to see it done. OR
The Eagles would not have been very secret, and the full might of Sauron could have dealt with them if he saw them coming. It was not until the Ring was destroyed that the eagles save Frodo, when the might of Sauron was thrown down.
 
2012-11-24 12:51:44 PM
"Could you turn that down? I've had a bad day and I hate the farking eagles, man!"
 
2012-11-24 12:56:55 PM
105: In the books, there was no "Battle of Minoxidil."

106: Helms Deep was named after Jesse Helms.

107: Bilbo's mom was not actually named "Bimbo Baggins." Her maiden name was "Took."

108: Gimlet, son of Gróin, was the tallest Dwarf.
 
2012-11-24 01:03:30 PM

scotzrewl: cowboybebop: The Eagles didn't help, I hypothesize, because they represented America who, in Tolkein's opinion, didn't get involved in WWII until well after they should have.

Tolkien hated allegory, so no.


My understanding wasn't that he hated allegory, but he hated the thought of the author dictating how the work should be interpreted. In my mind, the books are at least influenced by his life (WWI, WWII, and Christianity in particular), if not allegorical to him. I don't even think it's necessarily a conscious allegory, but it was an aspect of his experience that worked it's way into the books.

The idea of the eagles as Americans is a little too specific for this view, but I think the broad strokes are there.
 
2012-11-24 01:07:50 PM

NeoCortex42: thrasherrr: NeoCortex42: farkeruk: Lord Of The Rings is the sixth-highest grossing franchise ever, behind Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek.

I don't buy it. I know those 3 Star Wars films were big in the 70s and 80s, but surely inflation must have put them behind LOTR?

Not just that, but Shrek? Really? I guess it got a lot of ticket sales since it's a children's movie, but that still seems ridiculous.

Shrek has five films in its franchise, and it has more adult content that you apparently know about.

/kids aren't going to get John Woo references, see the third meaning behind the 'ogres are like onions' dialog, or notice delicate subversion of traditional characters into real-world caricatures

Kids wouldn't get a lot of the references in the My Little Ponies show. Doesn't mean it's not a kids show.

The adult stuff is there just to make it bearable for the parents.


Yeah but calling something a "kids show" usually just means it's shiat. Some things it doesn't matter how old you are.
 
2012-11-24 01:08:00 PM
The Special Editions, in total, are 158 minutes longer than the Theatrical releases (718 minutes to 560 minutes).

Jesus Christ, Jackson, hire a farking editor. I'm available.

Yes, Jackson is a hugely successful filmmaker and I'm an editor and FX guy but Christ. How long did it take King Kong to die, like 20 minutes? Reign yourself in once in a while.

....and really Christopher Lee didn't get a proper death scene?
 
2012-11-24 01:10:30 PM

GentlemanJ:
Oh, and Gandalf's name was Olorin. The article fails to mention it. It's a piece of crap, too.



6.) Gandalf's original name was "Olórin". He also goes by Tharkun and Mithrandir
 
2012-11-24 01:10:59 PM

taurusowner: Metaluna Mutant: Roto-Rot: How Not To Get Laid 101:

Fierce debate rages over whether Balrogs have wings.

Well there's no real debate because THEY DON'T HAVE WINGS. THE END.

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...'
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm


They are metaphorical wings of shadow.

[1] 'His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.'

The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Which is about one inch up on the page where you got your quote. If the Balrog had real wings, functional or not, the sentence about shadow reaching out "like" two vast wings would make absolutely no sense. Whereas using these metaphorical wings a few sentences later is perfectly legitimate. Would this syntax clarify things?

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings of shadow were spread from wall to wall...'
 
2012-11-24 01:14:05 PM

Scorpion: GentlemanJ:
Oh, and Gandalf's name was Olorin. The article fails to mention it. It's a piece of crap, too.


6.) Gandalf's original name was "Olórin". He also goes by Tharkun and Mithrandir


Okay, you got me there. My eyes glazed over when I realized the article was about the movies, not the book. The article was still written by someone who read the Cliff's Notes about LotR.
 
2012-11-24 01:46:21 PM

GentlemanJ: My eyes glazed over when I realized the article was about the movies, not the book.


Glad I wasn't the only one who was annoyed by this. 90% of these are about filmmaking, not Lord of the Rings. It's like the LotR Trivial Pursuit, with one of the categories based on the movies - you only get those right if you've watched the dvd extras a thousand times. Eventually we decided that if someone landed on one of those, they could pick one of the other categories instead.
 
2012-11-24 02:22:49 PM
Appropriate for this thread (especially the last 10 seconds):
Link
 
2012-11-24 02:24:01 PM

Jim_Callahan: The reason the eagles don't just fly everyone to Mount Doom because "the eagles are their own race and do things for their own reasons". Also, Tolkien didn't like them to be seen as "Middle-Earth taxis"...


...Also, the Nazgul would have totally killed them.

There were, what, about half the Nazgul left when they went in and out with no trouble, so no dice there. And Tolkien saying "'cause I didn't wanna" isn't the same as an actual explanation and does nothing whatsoever to close the plot-hole.


By then, the ring was destroyed, Sauron was undone, and the Nazgul were likely in disarray. It'd be much easier for the eagles to get in at that point. Before then, Sauron has his all-seeing eye, and could easily order the Nazgul to take them down.
 
2012-11-24 02:26:18 PM

Honest Bender: born_yesterday: I'd say the error in storytelling, if any is to be argued at all, was them helping in the Hobbit, not their failure to help in LOTR.

In The Hobbit, the crew is treed by a bunch of wolfs and goblins. I think the only reason the eagles helped was because, "Hey, fark goblins!" That's why they couldn't get them to carry them very far. They had other shiat to do.


What's a fark goblin?
 
2012-11-24 02:26:18 PM
Tryfan
It was a plot hole, everyone knows it, and no amount of retconning will change it.


Didn't feel like that to me when reading the books.

To me it seemed quite obvious that Sauron or the Witch King would have made them witness the power of his fully operational battlestation upon entering Mordor and then fed his troops on buckets of MFE (Mordor Fried Eagles) for weeks.
 
2012-11-24 02:27:43 PM

syrynxx: taurusowner: Metaluna Mutant: Roto-Rot: How Not To Get Laid 101:

Fierce debate rages over whether Balrogs have wings.

Well there's no real debate because THEY DON'T HAVE WINGS. THE END.

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...'
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

They are metaphorical wings of shadow.

[1] 'His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.'

The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Which is about one inch up on the page where you got your quote. If the Balrog had real wings, functional or not, the sentence about shadow reaching out "like" two vast wings would make absolutely no sense. Whereas using these metaphorical wings a few sentences later is perfectly legitimate. Would this syntax clarify things?

'...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings of shadow were spread from wall to wall...'


Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen. I think we all know that the real question here isn't whether the Balrog had wings... it's whether it had fuzzy slippers.
 
2012-11-24 02:30:14 PM

msupf: And all the discussion of who would get corrupted and how quickly just reminds me how disappointing it was that they cut Tom bombadil out of the story.

He considered the ring a trinket and a trifle thing.


Frodo: Can't anyone else take this shiat?
Tom: I can
Frodo, sweet, here it is
Tom: LOLZ SWITZERLAND. Now go away.

It's great and all that he is an unstoppable juggernaut, but he just comes off as a dick. It's best not to introduce a Dues Ex device, then have him say no because "he prefers to stay home and have sex with his hot wife". I skip those 2 chapters everytime I read that book. It's like the birth of the filler episode.
 
2012-11-24 02:33:29 PM

AppleOptionEsc: It's great and all that he is an unstoppable juggernaut, but he just comes off as a dick. It's best not to introduce a Dues Ex device, then have him say no because "he prefers to stay home and have sex with his hot wife". I skip those 2 chapters everytime I read that book. It's like the birth of the filler episode.


This. Alternatively, you're allowed to substitute the Tim Benzedrine & Dingleberry section from "Bored of the Rings"...
 
2012-11-24 02:38:37 PM

ObeliskToucher: AppleOptionEsc: It's great and all that he is an unstoppable juggernaut, but he just comes off as a dick. It's best not to introduce a Dues Ex device, then have him say no because "he prefers to stay home and have sex with his hot wife". I skip those 2 chapters everytime I read that book. It's like the birth of the filler episode.

This. Alternatively, you're allowed to substitute the Tim Benzedrine & Dingleberry Hashberry section from "Bored of the Rings"...

 
2012-11-24 02:41:25 PM
Thanks, FB, was just coming in to make that correction...

/time for a re-read, I guess...
 
2012-11-24 02:43:46 PM

HeartBurnKid: Before then, Sauron has his all-seeing eye, and could easily order the Nazgul to take them down.


Well obviously not all seeing, if the hobbits just walked in.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report