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 09:35:36 PM  

Fano: The idea of having a battle scene in the Prologue to Fellowship was inspired by the tradition of a James Bond pre-credits action scene.

Yeah, no one ever thought of that before. (Granted, it's only in shadow)


Its not that no one thought of it before. It's what inspired this director. It doesn't have to be the first to be inspiring.
 
2012-11-24 09:52:56 PM  

kim jong-un: Fano: The idea of having a battle scene in the Prologue to Fellowship was inspired by the tradition of a James Bond pre-credits action scene.

Yeah, no one ever thought of that before. (Granted, it's only in shadow)

Its not that no one thought of it before. It's what inspired this director. It doesn't have to be the first to be inspiring.


Being that there wasn't a credit smash with the Ring encircling Frodo, I would have just figured that it is the most logical way to tell the backstory, in short form no need to claim James Bond as inspiration. I mean, MAYBE it did. But how to set up Sauron as a menace without an old battle scene? (I'll still grant the Bakshi version had a very reserved and simplified version of the war against Sauron.)
 
2012-11-24 10:01:47 PM  
The power of the One Ring had over races was related to the members of those races using the Rings of Power. The Hobbits didn't have a ring of power and neither did the eagles so I'm not sure about the argument about them becoming corrupt. Of course the is also the link between the riders and their horses which also comes from the power of the One Ring.

/One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
/One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
/In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
//I need a new ring
 
2012-11-24 11:27:05 PM  

Zombalupagus [TotalFark]
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.




"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys Balrogs could fly!
 
2012-11-24 11:33:15 PM  

Fano: kim jong-un: Fano: The idea of having a battle scene in the Prologue to Fellowship was inspired by the tradition of a James Bond pre-credits action scene.

Yeah, no one ever thought of that before. (Granted, it's only in shadow)

Its not that no one thought of it before. It's what inspired this director. It doesn't have to be the first to be inspiring.

Being that there wasn't a credit smash with the Ring encircling Frodo, I would have just figured that it is the most logical way to tell the backstory, in short form no need to claim James Bond as inspiration. I mean, MAYBE it did. But how to set up Sauron as a menace without an old battle scene? (I'll still grant the Bakshi version had a very reserved and simplified version of the war against Sauron.)


Not sure what you are arguing about.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:08 PM  
Really though, no reason why they cut out what happened to Sauroman? He was kind of an important character.
 
2012-11-24 11:37:10 PM  

Mugato: 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?


The most unforgiveable part about Jackson's "King Kong" is that he had Fay Wray, at age 96, ready to come and film the final scene- she was going to say, "'Twas beauty killed the beast," and he didn't get around to filming it in time, and she died. When you have a 96 year old ready to do a cameo in a film, the first farking thing you film is the 96 year old, not jerk around with 45 minutes of dinosaurs running after people or giant penile vaginae dentate (?) eating people.

Also, is it just me, or did Andy Serkis play the cook character as Popeye, the way he talked?
 
2012-11-24 11:43:06 PM  

Straelbora: Mugato: 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?

The most unforgiveable part about Jackson's "King Kong" is that he had Fay Wray, at age 96, ready to come and film the final scene- she was going to say, "'Twas beauty killed the beast," and he didn't get around to filming it in time, and she died. When you have a 96 year old ready to do a cameo in a film, the first farking thing you film is the 96 year old, not jerk around with 45 minutes of dinosaurs running after people or giant penile vaginae dentate (?) eating people.

Also, is it just me, or did Andy Serkis play the cook character as Popeye, the way he talked?


unforgiveable? wow, get a life
 
2012-11-24 11:52:11 PM  

Fano: Nemo's Brother: LoneWolf343: 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.

Another thing people don't realize is that Tolkien didn't intent that Orcs were to be always evil, and regretted not ever having a "hero" Orc.

In the great war against Sauron it was written that only Elves were not seen on both sides of the battlefield. That means some orcs did fight with the alliance and presumably valiantly.

Where was it written that only Elves were seen on the alliance side? Were there evil Ents and Eagles that fought for Sauron. Nope, the orcs all fought for Sauron or Saruman.


Don't quote me on this, but I believe that Treebeard mentioned that some Ents were less than trustworthy.
 
2012-11-24 11:55:16 PM  

kim jong-un: Fano: kim jong-un: Fano: The idea of having a battle scene in the Prologue to Fellowship was inspired by the tradition of a James Bond pre-credits action scene.

Yeah, no one ever thought of that before. (Granted, it's only in shadow)

Its not that no one thought of it before. It's what inspired this director. It doesn't have to be the first to be inspiring.

Being that there wasn't a credit smash with the Ring encircling Frodo, I would have just figured that it is the most logical way to tell the backstory, in short form no need to claim James Bond as inspiration. I mean, MAYBE it did. But how to set up Sauron as a menace without an old battle scene? (I'll still grant the Bakshi version had a very reserved and simplified version of the war against Sauron.)

Not sure what you are arguing about.


I'm saying that the inspiration would have come straight from the book and original movie. Saying "I came up with the idea of having the prior battles filmed comes from James Bond" may be true but doesn't make much sense, given that every person so far that tried to commit it to film did the same thing.

"I had the inspiration from [x] to do things the same way everyone else did."
 
2012-11-24 11:59:41 PM  

drewsclues: Straelbora: Mugato: 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?

The most unforgiveable part about Jackson's "King Kong" is that he had Fay Wray, at age 96, ready to come and film the final scene- she was going to say, "'Twas beauty killed the beast," and he didn't get around to filming it in time, and she died. When you have a 96 year old ready to do a cameo in a film, the first farking thing you film is the 96 year old, not jerk around with 45 minutes of dinosaurs running after people or giant penile vaginae dentate (?) eating people.

Also, is it just me, or did Andy Serkis play the cook character as Popeye, the way he talked?

unforgiveable? wow, get a life


img.youtube.com
 
2012-11-25 01:52:00 AM  
Oh goddamn that stupid plot hole:

listen: I love the How It Should Have Ended clips as much as the next guy, but you can't possibly believe that Eagles, with their predilection for shiny things, would do anything with the One Ring other than keep it for themselves, and then you got a bigger problem on your hands, especially when the first movie SPENT A WHOLE HOUR EXPLAINING HOW THE RING IS AN EVIL INFLUENCE OF CORRUPTION.

Did you not pay attention to that part? The part where the ring corrupts its wearer? And that only the jolly, loveable hobbits -- the only creatures who don't desire power or wealth or conquest -- could be trusted with its safekeeping? ...because that was kind of the whole point of the big epic: Getting rid of something so evil it will devour you if you try.
 
2012-11-25 02:18:55 AM  

Fubini: 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.


Maybe so....

I don't think this is what Tolkien had in mind, but I've always thought of the Elves and elder races like the old European powers. The elves set up this nice orderly system and showed Sauron the secrets of ring making. It all went bad and they fought a bit, but finally got tired of it. They then handed over the mess they made of things to the younger races basically saying "Yeah, we pretty much boned the world through our hubris, but meh. If you succeed, we'll be here to let you thank us for for our years of wisdom. If you fail, and all of Middle Earth goes to run, well, we'll just farking pack it in and talk about how weak you younger races are. Either way, we're good".

It put me in the mind of the post colonial world. Europe fought each other for centuries over their colonial territories. Then, when Empire became too burdensome, they carved up borders convenient to European powers, with little regard to historical boundries, and left everyone else to sort out the mess. Sure they'll step in when their old territories have some high profile problem, but in then, they may send a token force and some advisers. Either way, they are tired of it and can just go home and not worry about it.
 
2012-11-25 02:35:19 AM  
The situation with the eagles is stupendously obvious if you read the books and have a brain. If not then who cares what you think?

The scouring of the shire would have been a very very long addition to an already long series, but it is painfully missed in the story arc.

Bombadil however would have been a disastrously incomprehensible pile of nonsense to most audiences. There is simply no damned way it could be incorporated sensibly into a mass-market movie.
 
2012-11-25 10:18:25 AM  

LoneWolf343: Fano: Nemo's Brother: LoneWolf343: ZeroCorpse:

Another thing people don't realize is that Tolkien didn't intent that Orcs were to be always evil, and regretted not ever having a "hero" Orc.

In the great war against Sauron it was written that only Elves were not seen on both sides of the battlefield. That means some orcs did fight with the alliance and presumably valiantly.

Where was it written that only Elves were seen on the alliance side? Were there evil Ents and Eagles that fought for Sauron. Nope, the orcs all fought for Sauron or Saruman.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that Treebeard mentioned that some Ents were less than trustworthy.



Those damned Pine bastards.
 
2012-11-25 02:25:17 PM  

NetOwl: On second thought, Bombadil is too old to be a barrow wight.

I still think Goldberry might be a dryad, though.


Correct about Bombadill. The Barrow Wights came from those who died during the overthrow of old Arnor, the realm ruled by Aragorn's ancestor, Anarion. They were defeated by the forces of the Witch King of Angmar - who then became the chief of the Nazgul.

I tend to think of Goldberry and Bombadill as the ultimate Spirits of Nature. Capricious, untamed, at once both benevolent and uncaring, new and ancient, with great power greatly limited. Only Illuvitar truly knows who and what they are...
 
2012-11-25 03:13:34 PM  

Son of Thunder: 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?


Anyone that's two tabs to the right.

/Fark, where even the trolls are goblins.
 
2012-11-25 04:41:09 PM  
Peter Jackson was going to have Sauron be personally at the Battle of the Dark Gate at the end of RotK in his Maia form.

img236.exs.cx

He realized it didn't make sense, since Sauron couldn't take his original form, and the troll was put in his place.
 
2012-11-25 04:45:06 PM  

stevetherobot: ZeroCorpse: 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.

As God is my witness, I thought Balrogs could fly.


Balrogs had wing structures, but no membranes. They were for show and intimidation, not for flight.

There, argument settled.
 
2012-11-25 05:27:14 PM  

Benni K Rok: 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.

They only owed ONE favor, and each taxi direction is a favor?


Sorry but there were NO Nazgul left when the eagles entered Mordor to rescue Frodo and Sam. When the One Ring was destroyed so were the remaining 8 Nazgul. The Nazgul are not the winged creatures but the ring enslaved human spirits that ride them AKA the black riders.
 
2012-11-25 10:47:34 PM  
Forget the eagles;l they should have just used a catapult. Of course, with an object that small they'd need some sort of targetting system.
 
2012-11-25 10:50:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Forget the eagles;l they should have just used a catapult. Of course, with an object that small they'd need some sort of targetting system.


*snrk* I remember those gifs.
 
2012-11-26 06:40:30 AM  

Hoboclown: Everyone forgets that Middle-Earth isn't just good guys and bad guys


Probably because it's such a bad offender in that aspect. Never is it explained why orcs are outcasts. They're pretty easy to sympathize with. Sauron is sooooooo evil, even his language is evil. Him and his ilk just do evil all the live-long day. Like what? Wanting to be in charge? If that's evil, lock me up.
 
kab
2012-11-26 09:18:31 AM  

moothemagiccow: Sauron is sooooooo evil, even his language is evil. Him and his ilk just do evil all the live-long day. Like what? Wanting to be in charge? If that's evil, lock me up.


Like (among other things) wanting to wipe out the race of man, perhaps?
 
2012-11-26 10:09:02 AM  

moothemagiccow: Hoboclown: Everyone forgets that Middle-Earth isn't just good guys and bad guys

Probably because it's such a bad offender in that aspect. Never is it explained why orcs are outcasts. They're pretty easy to sympathize with. Sauron is sooooooo evil, even his language is evil. Him and his ilk just do evil all the live-long day. Like what? Wanting to be in charge? If that's evil, lock me up.


How about torturing and killing anyone who gets in his way?
 
2012-11-26 03:21:02 PM  
To me the biggest annoyance of LOTR was the fact that Gandalf, a wizard, restricts his magic use to making a staff & stone flashlight.
 
2012-11-26 05:27:08 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Balrogs had wing structures, but no membranes. They were for show and intimidation, not for flight.

There, argument settled.


No, Syrnyxx covered this already.

syrynxx: 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...'

 

If you really want to get nit-picky about this sort of thing google "Tolkein Professor" + "Do Balrogs have wings" and you'll get the most exhaustive reasoning for why they don't by somebody that knows way more about Tolkein than anybody in this thread.
 
2012-11-27 03:27:58 PM  

Night Night Cream Puff: Keizer_Ghidorah: Balrogs had wing structures, but no membranes. They were for show and intimidation, not for flight.

There, argument settled.

No, Syrnyxx covered this already.

syrynxx: 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...' 

If you really want to get nit-picky about this sort of thing google "Tolkein Professor" + "Do Balrogs have wings" and you'll get the most exhaustive reasoning for why they don't by somebody that knows way more about Tolkein than anybody in this thread.


Eh, I think it looked better with the wing structures and the shadows flowing from them like the membranes, very spooky and menacing. It was definitely a lot better than the Ralph Bakshi Balrog.

periannath.com

And this bastard actually did fly, then forgot he could when Gandalf crumbled the bridge.
 
Displayed 28 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