+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: LotR: RotK (/thread-9658.html)
LotR: RotK - Roland - 12-17-2003
Still there, in all its glory, despite all the cut material. At least, that is my impression from it, since I have not read the books for over a decade, and forget almost everything about them. ;) But do not fret about character development. There's OODLES of it, especially in the last hour. Bring a box of tissues. Hell, bring several. You'll need them.
LotR: RotK - TheDragoon - 12-17-2003
Now done wiTh classes,
LotR: RotK - whyBish - 12-18-2003
Roland,Dec 17 2003, 10:19 PM Wrote:Mediocre in some parts, excellent everywhere else.(Spoilers)
OK, so I dare say I will be flamed for saying this, but I thought that (from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the books or seen any extended versions) that the movie came accross as B-grade, and the plot as random.
So Gandalf uses his staff to ward of the flying lizards in an earlier battle, but doesn't use it during the bombardment or finale?
Some random eagles appear to help out in the final battle, why didn't they come earlier?
Chuck in a few random death scenes, and some very random farewell scenes ("I've decided to sail off into the sunset"???).
And a side order of a paedocidal father who is suddenly cured of his mental illness when torched.
IMO it would've been better had Frodo sacrificed himself in Mt. Dune to destroy the ring, and the surrounded party to die in battle and have the 'reunion' subtly in the afterlife to tie in to Gandalfs reference to white sands and green fields.
Yes, Gimli gets two good lines, Smeagol was interesting to watch, and the battles with the Oliphants were well done, but I suppose I was expecting more of a Shakespearean tragedy :o
LotR: RotK - Arutha - 12-18-2003
whyBish,Dec 18 2003, 09:28 AM Wrote:Some random eagles appear to help out in the final battle, why didn't they come earlier?I don't have my Silmarillion at hand to check it out, but if memory serves, that's covered in Tolkien's plot.
Before he reclaimed Mordor and Barad-Dur, Sauron's fortress was located in Mirkwood, south of Legolas's father's realm, and East of Lorien.
Dol Guldur was the name of that fortress. If was briefly evacuated by Sauron's forces some 60 years earlier (the timeframe for The Hobbit), but quickly reclaimed.
When the final battles took place in Gondor and at the doorstep of Mordor, great hosts poured from Dol Guldur, led by a few Nazguls, and assaulted the elven realms.
The Eagles were busy helping with those battles.
LotR: RotK - gimlisam - 12-18-2003
whyBish,Dec 18 2003, 09:28 AM Wrote:And a side order of a paedocidal father who is suddenly cured of his mental illness when torched.The steward of Gondor (the father) had been corrupted by Sauron through a palantir in the book, and that is what drove him mad. The book didn't have Frodo fall into Mount Doom, and if he had done so in the movie, me and my fellow geeks would have formed a lynch mob out for Peter Jackson's head, or something to that effect. I personally thought that it was the best movie that I have ever seen, with the possible exception of Star Wars: A New Hope.
IMO it would've been better had Frodo sacrificed himself in Mt. Dune to destroy the ring,
LotR: RotK - [wcip]Angel - 12-18-2003
Roland,Dec 17 2003, 09:25 AM Wrote:Still there, in all its glory, despite all the cut material. At least, that is my impression from it, since I have not read the books for over a decade, and forget almost everything about them. ;) But do not fret about character development. There's OODLES of it, especially in the last hour. Bring a box of tissues. Hell, bring several. You'll need them.Hear hear!
spoiler:
.
.
.
.
When the riders of Rohan showed up on the flank of the Mordor army, I felt like Wormtongue from The Two towers staring out into the vast armies of Saruman. I felt a tear in my eye as the massive armies of Edoras and the surrounding areas spread out across the horizon.
I don't like to admit it, but I also got choked up seeing Aragorn and Arwen kiss after the ceremony. I felt *so* incredibly bad for Ãowen. I didn't like the way Peter downplayed that aspect of it.
But this is without a doubt the best movie I've ever seen. (And normally, I can't stand movies.)
LotR: RotK - Dozer - 12-18-2003
Quote:When the riders of Rohan showed up on the flank of the Mordor army, I felt like Wormtongue from The Two towers staring out into the vast armies of Saruman. I felt a tear in my eye as the massive armies of Edoras and the surrounding areas spread out across the horizon.
I had that exact same feeling when Aragon says to the hobbits "My friends........ you bow to no one!" and the entire crowd bows to them. I don't see why everyone was fretting abour the end, I don't feel it dragged at all. The Beginning 30 minutes or so, did. Besides that, VERY excellent moviemaking and storytelling, a trilogy that will be still revered 30 years from now.
LotR: RotK - whyBish - 12-19-2003
(Spoiler)
So what about the staff?
.. as to lynching, I was informed by my work'mates' that they would personally lynch me if I had suggested that ending also :) But for the last two years I have always expected Frodo to take the leap :unsure:
On reflection I do think that the tension between Sam and Gollum was very well done, and perhaps gollum was the most interesting (and developed) character in the movie series.
LotR: RotK - Arutha - 12-19-2003
whyBish,Dec 19 2003, 05:53 AM Wrote:So what about the staff?There, as far as I can tell, Jackson wasn't true to the book.
In the book, when the gates of the city are broken, the Witch-King is there, sending the defenders fleeing in terror.
But Gandalf stands and denies him entrance into the city (his second "you cannot pass" utterance ;) ).
The Nazgul don't take such an active role in the attack on the city. They're a weapon of terror, not destruction. In the book, the Nazgul fly high over the city, never coming bowshot range... or within the range of Gandalf's spells.
But their shrieks are enough to send terror within the minds of the defenders.
That also Gandalf counters, to some extent. Because we learn at the very end of the book that he is the wearer of the third elven ring of power.
Elrond wears the ring of Air. Galadriel wears the ring of water.
Gil-Galad, the last high king of the Elves wore the ring of fire. Gil-Galad fell against Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Cirdan, warden of the Grey Havens, then became the keeper of the ring of fire. But when the Istari (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Pallando, Alatar) came to middle-earth upon Sauron's awakening, Cirdan entrusted Narya, the ring of fire, to Gandalf.
Narya is the ring of fire, but its special power is that it's the ring of hope. It rekindles the flame of hope in the hearts of the Free people. That's why Gandalf is ever the traveller, mustering people against Sauron, cleansing people's minds from his evil influence.
And that's also probably why of the five Istari, Gandalf is the only one who stayed true to his mission.
Saruman's fall is detailed in the book.
Radagast's is only briefly mentionned: he didn't betray his cause, but rather grew weary of it. He does help Gandalf a little (he's the one sending the Eagles twice - the butterfly is Radagast's messenger), but mostly keeps out of the fight. The other two Istari are not mentionned in the book, only in other Tolkien writings and we learn that the lure of power was too strong for them to resist.
LotR: RotK - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 12-19-2003
Quote:Gil-Galad, the last high king of the Elves wore the ring of fire. Gil-Galad fell against Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Cirdan, warden of the Grey Havens, then became the keeper of the ring of fire. But when the Istari (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Pallando, Alatar) came to middle-earth upon Sauron's awakening, Cirdan entrusted Narya, the ring of fire, to Gandalf.
Gil-galad was given Vilya, which he entrusted to his herald, Elrond, before his fall at the Last Alliance. Gil-Galad never wore Narya... Cirdan had it from the get-go. But otherwise, dead on.
LotR: RotK - Arutha - 12-19-2003
I had a doubt. Should have checked. :)
Thanks for the correction.
LotR: RotK - [wcip]Angel - 12-19-2003
For those of you learned LOTR-ne... scholars: (:P)
In The two towers, when Grima Wormtongue looks out into the vast armies of Saruman prior to their embarkation for Helm's Deep, Grima sheds a tear. Is it a tear of fear/disgust/remorse or a tear of awe/joy/pride?
Peter said in the audio commentary that Grima realised what he had done in that instant and shed a tear thinking about the horrible consequences his actions would have.
To me, it seems like the actor portraying Grima is so impressed with the vastness of the army, that he sheds a tear because he regards what he sees as a tremendous sight.
How does Tolkien describe the scene?
LotR: RotK - Rhydderch Hael - 12-19-2003
I thought it to be a tear of horror and remorse, to behold fully and in the flesh the very engine that would destroy Rohan.
According to what one intuits of the movie, I thought Grima's overlying intent was to see Rohan subjugated under his hand (or tongue, as it were, speaking on behalf of the king). And with it, Eowyn would be his. When Gandalf messes the whole deal up and Grima is evicted from Rohan the plan, and his prospected outlook on the future, has changed. He now knows that Saruman's intent is not to enslave the people of Rohan, but to slaughter them.
And he got to see that such an intent was very much possible.
"March to Helms' Deep. Leave none alive. To war!" so said Sauruman.
So then did Grima shed a tear. His dreamsâ his lustsâ was about to die under the sword of the orcs at Helms' Deep.
So, you saw the tear. Did you see the expression on his face? Delight was an emotion plainly absent from that countenance. I saw horror there in its stead.
LotR: RotK - [wcip]Angel - 12-19-2003
Well.. I didn't mean "delight".
You're probably right. I forgot about his relationship to Ãowyn.
Grima loves Ãowyn who loves Aragorn.
"All love is unrequited, no?"*
*Except for the hero of the play/film, who always gets the girl.
LotR: RotK - Arutha - 12-19-2003
In the book, the focus stays at all time on the "heroes".
You never get "insider peeps" at the "baddies side".
So that scene just doesn't exist in the book.
What's in the book, though (and maybe in the movie cut scenes), is the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc after the battle of Helm Deep.
At the end of that confrontation, Grima throws down a "stone" at the wizards. The heroes think he was targetting Gandalf and just missed, but Gandalf notes that he probably didn't know whom he hated most, him or Saruman, and thus couldn't decide whom to kill.
And the "stone" which crashes down between the two wizards is... the Palantir.
And obviously, there's the coming home of the hobbits at the end which is totally missing and where you get more of the Grima / Saruman relationship.
LotR: RotK - [wcip]Angel - 12-20-2003
I just saw The two towers (extended edition) again, and still I have to admit seeing a bit of awe in the eyes of Wormtongue.
Remember, awe does not equal happy. It's just an indredibly powerful emotion, biased towards feelings neither good nor bad .
Still, it's probably my way of identifying. I have a tendency to get a bit choked up when beholding something ofincredible sightl, and so I might just be projecting *that* into the role of Wormtongue.
LotR: RotK - [wcip]Angel - 12-20-2003
I know the names of the Rohan people derive from OE (Old English, the language spoken in England a bit over a thousand years ago.) "Théoden" is the OE word for PDE (Present-day English) "leader". (The word was actually in my first glossary when I started studying OE.)
We all know how "Théoden" is pronounced, we've heard it so many times. It's either
* /theoden/
or
* /theioden/
(Due to the forum's lack of phonetic fonts, I have to illustrate this in laymen's symbols, meaning regular letters.)
The former is the one truest to OE.
the digraph "eo" is pronounced with the diphthong /eo/.
However in the word "Sméagol" the digraph "ea" is pronounced "i:" as in /smi:gl/
"Théoden" - /theoden/
"Sméagol" - /smi:gl/ /
(the colon means the i-sound is long as opposed to /I/ which is a short i-sound as in "hit")
Did J.R.R. Tolkien ever write a phonetic transcription of how the names of Middle Earth were to be sounded? If so, does anyone know why he; an expert in OE, changed the way the digraph "ea" were to be pronounced?
Could it be that the name "Sméagol" is not derived from Old English as "Théoden" is, but some variant; some fabrication of Tolkien himself? After all, Sméagol and Théoden are from two different parts of Middle Earth. Would that be a reasonable explanation?
This theory is substantiated by the fact that it's not /smi:gol/ but rather /smi:gl/. Another rule of OE is that there are no weak vowels. A weak vowel is a vowel that doesn't have a stress on it. Such as the last syllable in the word "father". There's stress on /fa/ but not "ther".
The last syllable in "Théoden" is pronounced clearly as /den/. It's not /theodn/. Each syllable is pronounced. There is no weak vowel.
In the word "Sméagol" however, there is, namely "ol". There is no stress on the last syllable, confirming the idea that this word does not come from OE.
I'd sure like to see what Tolkien had to say about this.
LotR: RotK - sampson5k - 12-20-2003
Actually Pallando and Alatar where corrupted not by power, but by other things. I believe Pallando was corrupted by knowledge and Alatar was corrupted by the hunt (but even these inlater writings where never fleshed out one way or the next, as these were all through speculation).
BTW, it nice to see I am not the only one who has the ICE MECCG books that are almost essential tomes of knowledge when dealing with the lore and characters of Tolkein's writings. I was not very impressed with the last movie too much, but then again when it comes to movies being based off books, i admit to being a purist to a certain extent. I could go on about a few things, but of the 7 points of "canon" that the book has, he hits 1, and that being the paths of the dead(and even that was half-arsed). The other 5 parts minus the shire ending are: 1)the watchers at Cirith Ungol (no mention at all in the movie) with the invisible barrier and the temptation of Samwise, 2) when Samwise and Frodo are caught because they overslept on the plains of Gorgoroth, but luck would have it they are mistaken as orcs and are forced back into the march, 3) the suidcide of Denethor (which was handled very poorly in the movie) and the madness caused by the palantir that was located in Minis Tirith "dos thou think that the eyes are the white tower are BLIND!?!?!" 4) The red tipped Arrow that was presented to Rohan from Gondor representing the final sign of despair there and the fact they needed help ASAP and 5) the whole "GROND" scene and arrival of the hosts of Rohan to the battle (what happened to " And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city a cock crowed. Shrill and clear, recking nothing of wizardry or war , welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horn horns............ ). There are a slew of small details that were totally disreguarded by Jackson and crew for the sake of Hollywood creative liscence. I hate to say it......but the Rankin/Bass cartoon from '79 is a whole lot better as far as following the high points of this book (then again they too left out the shire ending, but their excuse is a whole lot more palatable than "I didn't like the ending so there, nyar") and kept alot of the music and poetry that was Tolkein's. Those who haven't seen it, should check it out.......sure it isn't all glitzy hollywood, but it keeps truer to what was written.
LotR: RotK - whyBish - 12-20-2003
sampson5k,Dec 20 2003, 09:25 PM Wrote:"I didn't like the ending so there, nyar"So he could've safely had the fellowship all killed in the end anyway? :P
LotR: RotK - Arutha - 12-20-2003
Appendix E & F provide somes clues as to why it's pronouced that way in the book.
Quote:"The Westron or Common Speech has been entirely translated into English equivalents. All Hobbit names and special words are intended to be pronounced accordingly"
Quote:"This assimilation also provided a convenient way of representing the peculiar local hobbit-words that were of northern origin. They have been given the forms that lost English words might well have had, if they had come down to our day. Thus mathom is meant to recall ancient English mathm, and so to represent the relationship of the actual Hobbit kast to R. kastu. Similarly, smial (or smile) 'burrow' is a likely form for a descendant of smygel, and represents well the relationship of Hobbit trân ro R. trahan. Sméagol and Déagol are equivalents made up in the same way for the names Trahald 'burrowing, worming in' and Nahald 'secret' in the Northern tongues."
Elsewhere pronunciation rules are given for all "foreign" tongues. Under these, "Sméagol" should be pronounced with "éa" as in "bear" and "o" as in "for".
So what it boils down to is whether Sméagol should be considered a Hobbit name, or a "foreign" name.
I think the movie pronunciation is correct, since the paragraph I quoted seems to clearly consider Sméagol as a Hobbit name (hence following modern English rules).