The LotR Trilogy

[VainEldritch]

Oh the hell with Bombadil. Some things just don't work on film.

Oh, come on WUA that's bullshit.

Anything can work on film, and I do mean anything, in the same way anything can work in print: all that is required is talent and the conditions to make it work. The LotR movies were deprived in both of these areas - the director and screenplay writers lacked sufficient talent, and the producers (New Line) failed to provide the material with the conditions to flourish into anything beyond a simplistic meller draped (well, smothered) in wank-tastic CGI of totally inappropriate designs. Clear examples abound - Shelob was absolutely nothing like the loathsome monstrous form depicted so well by Tolkien (and in fact the movie Shelob looked like something from a Harryhausen movie, albeit computer-smooth). The balrog was just plain wrong - big fiery monster (perfect for a merchandise toy...) replaced what could have been a genuinely frightening study of a fallen angel (and no, they did not have huge bat-like wings) and Gandalf's staff was broken when he cracked the bridge (the broken staff foreshadows his fall, as it did with Saruman). I really could go on and on about the inadequacies of these movies and I would be happy to debate you on the grounds that the LotR movies are biggest missed opportunity in the history of motion pictures.

edit by samwise: rules, motherfucker.  No editorializing in the thread title.

[DraconianOne]

and no, they did not have huge bat-like wings

Is that it had wings that upsets you or that they were bat-like?  Because Tolkien never described it's wings, only that it had them. Would you have preferred dove's wings perhaps?

[Ironwood]

Oh the hell with Bombadil. Some things just don't work on film.

Oh, come on WUA that's bullshit.

Anything can work on film, and I do mean anything, in the same way anything can work in print: all that is required is talent and the conditions to make it work. The LotR movies were deprived in both of these areas - the director and screenplay writers lacked sufficient talent, and the producers (New Line) failed to provide the material with the conditions to flourish into anything beyond a simplistic meller draped (well, smothered) in wank-tastic CGI of totally inappropriate designs. Clear examples abound - Shelob was absolutely nothing like the loathsome monstrous form depicted so well by Tolkien (and in fact the movie Shelob looked like something from a Harryhausen movie, albeit computer-smooth). The balrog was just plain wrong - big fiery monster (perfect for a merchandise toy...) replaced what could have been a genuinely frightening study of a fallen angel (and no, they did not have huge bat-like wings) and Gandalf's staff was broken when he cracked the bridge (the broken staff foreshadows his fall, as it did with Saruman). I really could go on and on about the inadequacies of these movies and I would be happy to debate you on the grounds that the LotR movies are biggest missed opportunity in the history of motion pictures. 

 

[WindupAtheist]

[Slyfeind]

Oh the hell with Bombadil. Some things just don't work on film.

Oh, come on WUA that's bullshit.

Rita Skeeter.

[UnSub]

I really could go on and on about the inadequacies of these movies and I would be happy to debate you on the grounds that the LotR movies are biggest missed opportunity in the history of motion pictures. 

And you'd be wrong.

They aren't perfect films, but Jackson did an incredible job.

And he left out most of the singing. Top marks for that.

and no, they did not have huge bat-like wings

Is that it had wings that upsets you or that they were bat-like?  Because Tolkien never described it's wings, only that it had them. Would you have preferred dove's wings perhaps?

Tolkien clearly states butterfly wings. Giant black glossy butterfly wings. Jackson ruined the entire movie the entire trilogy the rest of my year reality as we know it by NOT making them butterfly wings. 

[VainEldritch]

and no, they did not have huge bat-like wings

Is that it had wings that upsets you or that they were bat-like?  Because Tolkien never described it's wings, only that it had them. Would you have preferred dove's wings perhaps?

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation. This is however complicated further if one chooses to consider Tolkien's desciptions of balrogs and their activities in other works. For example, in the Silmarillion when Morgoth is ensnared by Ungoliant and he calls out for help, the balrogs come to his aid and appear to cover an immense distance in a very little time - some say they flew to his aid on wings, others that like Morgoth himself, they passed over the land like a great cloud of darkness - I prefere the latter.

And I do not agree that Jackson did "an incredible job" with the LotR movies - I think he did an adequate job of making event movie "blockbusters" out of a literary work that deserved much, much more. 

[Fordel]

 

[Tebonas]

I'm going out on a limb here and say nobody could have made a movie that would satisfy every single fan and the picture he made for himself in his mind.

Jackson succeeded as well as anyone could. Sure, I could bludgeon Legolas to a bloody pulp with his skater shield, but that doesn't invalidate the rest as a great movie.

[Cyrrex]

To be fair, elves in literature tend to do shit exactly like skate shield Legolas.

And the Rings trilogy was extremely well done.  Of course it strays from the books here and there...not like it's the first time that's happened.  Shit, it's unavoidable for books-turned-movie.  I don't think it could have been done much better in any reasonable way.

[Nevermore]

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation.

I bet those panel discussions can get pretty heated.

[WindupAtheist]

Oh fuck, VE probably wanted some ten-hour marathon of hobbits walking and walking and singing and walking and singing and walking and walking that nobody normal would have ever sat through.

[HaemishM]

Geekrage

Please stop talking now.

[DraconianOne]

Geekrage

Please stop breathing now.

[VainEldritch]

Oh fuck, VE probably wanted some ten-hour marathon of hobbits walking and walking and singing and walking and singing and walking and walking that nobody normal would have ever sat through.

You mean as opposed to the eleven or more hours of material we were presented with that still managed to throttle the story leaving a twitching corpse with Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's finger prints all over it?

Recently I watched the associated commentaries from the extended version DVD releases. I hooted with laughter when Boyens in an act of supreme condescension, after she and her literary hatchet-wielding cronies had struggled with the story and screwed up monumentally, admitted that Tolkien "knew what he was doing"... Wow - I bet the ghost of JRRT can sleep at last knowing that all his erudition and literary efforts have been approved by a cack-handed pulp screenplay hack.

[Cyrrex]

Your posts make baby Jesus cry.

[Hindenburg]

Oh man, this is even better than the tank vs. mech discussion.

[K9]

Recently I watched the associated commentaries from the extended version DVD releases. I hooted with laughter when Boyens in an act of supreme condescension, after she and her literary hatchet-wielding cronies had struggled with the story and screwed up monumentally, admitted that Tolkien "knew what he was doing"... Wow - I bet the ghost of JRRT can sleep at last knowing that all his erudition and literary efforts have been approved by a cack-handed pulp screenplay hack.

Anyone who strives to remove Tom Bombadil from anything is a hero.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I post a bit in the wow forums defending the game.  I was starting to think I was a rabid fanboy or something but these posts have shown me how truly delusional people can get over something.  Thank you for putting things in perspective for me.

[Slyfeind]

Wow, when Tolkien said the balrog had wings, I never thought to disagree with him. I'm starting to think Harry Potter doesn't wear glasses and Superman doesn't have a cape, and instead those are allegories too.

[Nevermore]

Obviously it was just drinking Red Bull.

[AutomaticZen]

You mean as opposed to the eleven or more hours of material we were presented with that still managed to throttle the story leaving a twitching corpse with Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's finger prints all over it?

Recently I watched the associated commentaries from the extended version DVD releases. I hooted with laughter when Boyens in an act of supreme condescension, after she and her literary hatchet-wielding cronies had struggled with the story and screwed up monumentally, admitted that Tolkien "knew what he was doing"... Wow - I bet the ghost of JRRT can sleep at last knowing that all his erudition and literary efforts have been approved by a cack-handed pulp screenplay hack.

Tolkien was an excellent world-builder, but an average writer.  Many, as you see here, are just fine with the exclusion of Bombadil.

[Ironwood]

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation.

No, it isn't.  It might be to people who don't get, for example, English.  He had wings of shadow.  You know.  Black ones.

Seriously, what the fuck are you on ?

[VainEldritch]

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation.

No, it isn't.  It might be to people who don't get, for example, English.  He had wings of shadow.  You know.  Black ones.

Seriously, what the fuck are you on ?

No, it did not have "wings of shadow" as you wrote above, it had in fact a shadow about it that "reached out like two vast wings" - which is exactly what Tolkien wrote. Now forgive me if I take the Professor's words over yours?

"Seriously", I (cordially) invite you to consider carefully the definition of the word "similie": an explicit likening of one thing to another, a semblance if you will. Ergo, equally explicitly not the thing it was compared to. Thusly, not wings - shadow that is like wings, but not in fact wings.

*listens for sound of penny landing in some unfathomable depth of emptiness*
   

[Lakov_Sanite]

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation.

No, it isn't.  It might be to people who don't get, for example, English.  He had wings of shadow.  You know.  Black ones.

Seriously, what the fuck are you on ?

No, it did not have "wings of shadow" as you wrote above, it had in fact a shadow about it that "reached out like two vast wings" - which is exactly what Tolkien wrote. Now forgive me if I take the Professor's words over yours?

"Seriously", I (cordially) invite you to consider carefully the definition of the word "similie": an explicit likening of one thing to another, a semblance if you will. Ergo, equally explicitly not the thing it was compared to. Thusly, not wings - shadow that is like wings, but not in fact wings.

*listens for sound of penny landing in some unfathomable depth of emptiness*
   

I think you may just be bitter and can't appreciate that Jackson was a better writer and storyteller than tolkien.

[Nevermore]

"Seriously", I (cordially) invite you to consider carefully the definition of the word "similie": an explicit likening of one thing to another, a semblance if you will. Ergo, equally explicitly not the thing it was compared to. Thusly, not wings - shadow that is like wings, but not in fact wings.

So I considered the definition of the word "similie".  Here's what I found:

Did you mean: simile

Now, I already knew this but I felt like being an extra big jackass about it.  If you're going to go to all the effort to define the word, you could at least make sure you spell it correctly.  That's twice now you've referred to similes and you've managed to spell it two different ways, both times incorrectly.  I mean, I wasn't going to go all grammar snake on you the first time but you opened up that can of worms by going the condescending definition route in order to assert your literary superiority.  So now I feel obligated.  Learn to spell, Mr. English Professor.  Then maybe people will take your PhD in Tolkien Studies more seriously instead of thinking you're just whining about the movie not being a 42 hour literal interpretation snoozefest.  I don't really care if Peter Jackson got the size of the bunion on Bilbo Baggins' left toe exactly the right size.  I just care that the movie was fun to watch.

[DraconianOne]

Ergo, equally explicitly not the thing it was compared to. Thusly, not wings - shadow that is like wings, but not in fact wings.

You might want to write a strongly worded letter to John Howe about his 1989 illustration "Glorfindel and the Balrog" then. And the Tolkien Estate for putting his painting in various official calendars and books of Lord of the Rings art, bat-wings and all. They obviously didn't get the memo. His contact details are here. I'm sure he'd be delighted in hearing just exactly how he - and the estate - misinterpreted Tolkiens writings. I gather he's pretty chummy with Peter Jackson too (and may have been largely responsible for the movie design of the Balrog along with some bloke called Alan Lee who apparently has done the odd LOTR inspired scribble) so I'm sure he'll pass the word on.

edit by samwise: BBCODE FUCK

[Slyfeind]

 

[Ironwood]

Funny thing is that I could easily pull all the previous posts about my BA (Hons)  in English Literature and Language.  I can even pull out my Dissertation on Ian Banks and my Third Year work on....wait for it.... Tolkien vs Beowulf.

But, really, that would be too much silliness for one page.

Mate, Seriously, loosen your grip on it a little and use a little lubrication before making the sliding motion.  Things will get better.  The only 'unfathomable depth of emptiness' would appear to be right in the centre of your soul.  Have some more Cheesecake.

Also, The Turtle Moves and the Balrog had Wings.

[Samwise]

TBH I think PJ is a bit of a hack, if a very successful one.  He considers LotR to be the lowest common denominator of fantasy, set out to use it as the framework for a profitable and fairly generic fantasy movie because he thought it'd be easier than coming up with his own IP, and succeeded at what IMO was a pretty low goal.  But then I paid to see the movies in the theaters and again to get them on DVD, so clearly he did one or two things right along the way.  

In any case, though, you can spend as much time trying to convince people that JRR Tolkien was a good writer as you can trying to convince them that Dan Brown is a bad one, and never get anywhere on either point.  People like what they like.

[Trippy]

Awwww, Samwise changed my title

[Samwise]

LOL, I thought that was just VE being a punk when he posted the thread, not you being a punk after the fact.  I stand by my ironfisted modding, though.

[01101010]

Anyone else have to double check the dates to make sure this was not some sorta zombified thread? Where the fuck did this topic skip up from given the fact the movies have been out awhile now? 

[IainC]

The former... from the description in The Ring Goes South, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, the balrog has no wings. Tolkien uses the term "wings" as a simili: "... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings".

Later in the same section he writes "... and its wings were spread from wall to wall...", and I take this to be allusive of the aforementioned shadow.

This is of course a subject of considerable debate to those who are interested in arguing interpretation.

I bet those panel discussions can get pretty heated.

Seriously, go to any Tolkien fansite like Barrowdowns.com or theonering.net, register and post something like "Hi, I've been into Tolkien's stuff since Orlando Bloom opened my eyes to the majesty of the Elven race but I have a quick question; do Balrogs have wings?'

Then sit back and watch the 90 page threadnaught ensue.

[Ingmar]

Oh for fuck's sake, not the motherfucking Balrog wings argument again.  

EDIT: I love the books more than any sane person should, and even I will admit that the Tom Bombadil/Barrow Downs section would have messed up the flow of the movie. It nearly does so to the book.