# any lord of the rings fans?



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Oct 27, 2006)

hi , any lord of te rings fans on the forum? and if you are whos your fave character?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 27, 2006)

I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
No real fav character


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

Of course!!

I always thought Faramir was great.  Leading a ragged band of rangers in the wilderness, understaffed and fighting a guerrilla battle, hit and run, ambushes, fading away into the forest to regroup and hit again, harrassing the enemy and doing whatever damage he could.  Underappreciated, even scorned by his crazy father, yet never wavering from his command.  A big hitter, popular and loved by the people, but sort of flies under the radar.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
> No real fav character



I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 27, 2006)

used to be aragorn.

after the movies, sam is my hero.  seriously.  there's no braver character in the story.  of all the changes jackson made, his elevation of sam gamgee was the best.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
> No real fav character




Same here, read them years ago, watched the movies and I don't really have a favorite.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....



Yes, same here.   I had the same feeling after reading Mythago Wood (by Robert Holdstock).


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Yes, same here.   I had the same feeling after reading Mythago Wood (by Robert Holdstock).



I haven't read the Holdstock book but will look for it. There's such an awful feeling of _loss_ in LoTR, especially in the final parts. I used to think that it was just youthful sensitivity or something, but I found myself feeling exactly the same thing reading the book in my 30s and 40s.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....


 
yup.  the characters almost become real. it's hard to say goodbye to them at the end.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> used to be aragorn.
> 
> after the movies, sam is my hero. seriously. there's no braver character in the story. of all the changes jackson made, his elevation of sam gamgee was the best.


 
Actually, of all the liberties that Jackson took, some of which I was OK with, others I questioned, I don't think he really changed this.  Sam's role in the movies followed very closely to his role in the books.  He was the one true, steadfast member of the group who never wavered from the cause, was never tempted to drift away, he even had the ring for a short time, even wore it, but then willingly gave it up.  He was the rock upon which Frodo was able to depend thru thick and thin, and clearly never would have succeeded without Sam.  I read an essay where it is suggested that Sam really is the hero of the story.  He is so key to the success of the mission that he deserves almost more credit than anyone else.  But he is so genuinely humble.  He wants nothing more that to complete the unpleasant business no matter the cost, then go home and see Rose again, raise a family and have a quiet life in the Shire away from all the problems of the world.  He doesn't want wealth or glory.  Just his family and friends.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> yup.  the characters almost become real. it's hard to say goodbye to them at the end.



I kept looking for them again in a lot of the stuff that came out under Christopher Tolkien's editorship/reconstruction after JRRT's death. But none of it had the same poignancy or level of engatement with the characters, with the wrinkles in their personalities. Disappointing, but I should've known better in advance, probably.



Flying Crane said:


> Actually, of all the liberties that Jackson took, some of which I was OK with, others I questioned, I don't think he really changed this.  Sam's role in the movies followed very closely to his role in the books.  He was the one true, steadfast member of the group who never wavered from the cause, was never tempted to drift away, he even had the ring for a short time, even wore it, but then willingly gave it up.  He was the rock upon which Frodo was able to depend thru thick and thin, and clearly never would have succeeded without Sam.  I read an essay where it is suggested that Sam really is the hero of the story.  He is so key to the success of the mission that he deserves almost more credit than anyone else.  But he is so genuinely humble.  He wants nothing more that to complete the unpleasant business no matter the cost, then go home and see Rose again, raise a family and have a quiet life in the Shire away from all the problems of the world.  He doesn't want wealth or glory.  Just his family and friends.



The key thing is the point you mention---that he gave the Ring back to Frodo with barely a twinge. The Ring corrupts those who possess (or desire) it in proportion to their own weakness and need for power. The hobbits as a whole do way better than anyone else in resisting it (compare Frodo or Sam with Isildur, or Boromir), and Sam does best of all, except for Tom Bombadil---over whom the Ring has no power whatever, not even to make him invisible. By that criterion, Sam is about as incorruptible as it's possible for a mortal being to be...


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> I haven't read the Holdstock book but will look for it. There's such an awful feeling of _loss_ in LoTR, especially in the final parts. I used to think that it was just youthful sensitivity or something, but I found myself feeling exactly the same thing reading the book in my 30s and 40s.



I think alot of it has to do with how well the author writes.  IMO, Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Tracy Hickman (The Dark Sword Trilogy), and even Holdstock, wrote in such a way that it was very absorbing and one could really relate to the characters and feel the emotion, danger, and excitement.  When it is all over, we all have to come back to reality, like Michael was referring to.

Although this thread is about a favorite character out of LOTR, I do have a favorite character from Terry Brooks Shanara series.  It is definitely Garret Jax.  That was one bad *** warrior (only to die by creature that thrives on pain and whose bite and claw is poisonous)!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron...

I suppose he would have given Sauron a tough battle, but in the end, Sauron would have won.  I think Sauron really had a good measure more of power and strength than the other immortals had, including Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the other two wizards.  It would have been an interesting showdown if all 5 wizards had stayed true to the cause and worked together until the end to bring down Sauron.  If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot.  But it just went against his nature.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 27, 2006)

I first read the books sometime around 1977 and have read them many many times since! I admit that in High school a friend and I would pass notes back and forth in class written in Dwarvish and Elvish. I handed in an English paper once written in Elvish just to see the reaction of the teacher. I think she was very worried about me!!  
I can't say I have a favorite character although both Gandalf and Aragorn stand out. The variety of characters make it great.
I had always hoped for some good LOTR movies would come, out and they were worth the wait!
Sure hope everything gets straightened out and "The Hobbit" will be made also.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot.  But it just went against his nature.



He was a rather free spirited individual, wasn't he?  When Jackson was making the movies, I was hoping he would put the journey through the barrow downs in there.  The whole section where they were rescued by Tom Bombadil from the downs would be great material for the special effects people.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> He was a rather free spirited individual, wasn't he? When Jackson was making the movies, I was hoping he would put the journey through the barrow downs in there. The whole section where they were rescued by Tom Bombadil from the downs would be great material for the special effects people.


 

Agreed.  I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't make it into the films.  A lot of good stuff there.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Agreed.  I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't make it into the films.  A lot of good stuff there.



I understand alot of the hardcore fans were disappointed. I know I was.  He was a character that at first I didn't know what think of him, but after awhile one can't help but like his character.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I think alot of it has to do with how well the author writes.  IMO, Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Tracy Hickman (The Dark Sword Trilogy), and even Holdstock, wrote in such a way that it was very absorbing and one could really relate to the characters and feel the emotion, danger, and excitement.  When it is all over, we all have to come back to reality, like Michael was referring to.



It's true, the writer's ability to create a kind of emotional intensity is a very big part of the story's effectiveness. That's why Ursula Leguin's Earthsea trilogy (it may be a quartet, now) has so much more impact than a lot of the swords-and-socery genre (Andre Norton, for example, leaves me stone cold). There's just no substitute for good writing!



Bigshadow said:


> Although this thread is about a favorite character out of LOTR, I do have a favorite character from Terry Brooks Shanara series.  It is definitely Garret Jax.  That was one bad *** warrior (only to die by creature that thrives on pain and whose bite and claw is poisonous)!



I've got a couple of Shanara books somewhere in my house, but never got to read them... have always meant to, though, and will, someday.

Tolkien doesn't do this, but some writers, even good ones, just don't... `play fair', I want to call it. Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising_ is a great series, but I feel she cheats her characters, in the end, and we the readers along with it, by depriving her battle-weary children of their memories of the whole bitter epic they've lived through so heroically, except for Will himself, the immortal guardian destined to join Arthur and Merlin again at the end of time. That really was _not_ fair!



Flying Crane said:


> Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron...
> 
> I suppose he would have given Sauron a tough battle, but in the end, Sauron would have won.  I think Sauron really had a good measure more of power and strength than the other immortals had, including Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the other two wizards.  It would have been an interesting showdown if all 5 wizards had stayed true to the cause and worked together until the end to bring down Sauron.  If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot.  But it just went against his nature.



I agree completely---he was an ancient force, older than the Wizards, or the Ents, probably older than everyone except the Valar. And also, yes, Sauron, though a Maiar like the other wizards, seems to have been more powerful than they. But would he have been more powerful than the combined might of all five? Guess we'll never know. But doesn't it seem as though Tolkien is constantly telling us that power and corruption are intimately associated?


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

From the movies Gandalf really is my favorite.  I love the wizard battle in the first movie and I think he did a really good job of playing all the sides, trying to bring everyone together for Aragon to take control and Frodo to have enough time to destroy the ring....


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> I agree completely---he was an ancient force, older than the Wizards, or the Ents, probably older than everyone except the Valar. And also, yes, Sauron, though a Maiar like the other wizards, seems to have been more powerful than they. But would he have been more powerful than the combined might of all five? Guess we'll never know. But doesn't it seem as though Tolkien is constantly telling us that power and corruption are intimately associated?




Tom didn't really seem concerned about any of that.  I don't remember exactly what he said, but I got the feeling that he didn't have any regard for Sauron and didn't worry at all about Sauron's power.

Yes, Tolkien did make the connection throughout the entire story, from sauron, smeagol/gollum, borimir, saruman, and grimer worm-tongue.

Speaking of Tolkien, has anyone heard the audio of Tolkein reading the hobbit?  It was so cool.  I remember listening to it in high school.  It was on vinyl.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

Ping898 said:


> From the movies Gandalf really is my favorite.  I love the wizard battle in the first movie and I think he did a really good job of playing all the sides, trying to bring everyone together for Aragon to take control and Frodo to have enough time to destroy the ring....



I really liked how Peter Jackson opened the Fellowship of the Ring with the battle against Sauron.  That whole cut was just freaking awesome, it made me get goosebumps!    Gotta give credit to Howard Shore with his musical scores, they really made the opening scene and the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf!  I bought the CD, it is excellent!


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Oct 27, 2006)

id have to say tom bombadil and the balrog are my fave characters , jackson said he wanted  the hobbits to go throught the old forest , hear singing and see a hat above the bushes and run away as fast as they can but he didnt have time to do it , its a shame really

a few random facts about tom bombadil:

tom bombadil can be used in the pc game "battle for middle earth 2" , a very powerful character , dances right throught batalions of enemys knocking them everywhere then starts punching them lol


bombadil was sent by iluvutar (sp?) to ea (earth) to look after the forests , it says this in "unfinished tales" , i havent read it so this may be false info , its just what i heard

he could have been a maja or vala

tolkien made the poem "bombadil goes boating" long before and other books , he made it for his children and then made more , he then put bombadil and goldberry into the lord of the rings keeping him and goldbery the same as they were in the poems , kinda like a tribute to his children , he also put "bombadil goes boating" into the lord of the rings , it was made up by one of the hobbits

he was called tom bombadil by the hobbits , orald (very old) by northern men and iarwain ben-adar and "oldest" by the elves


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I really liked how Peter Jackson opened the Fellowship of the Ring with the battle against Sauron. That whole cut was just freaking awesome, it made me get goosebumps!  Gotta give credit to Howard Shore with his musical scores, they really made the opening scene and the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf! I bought the CD, it is excellent!


I definitelly agree there!!!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 27, 2006)

tom bombadil was, for me, like the razing of the shire.  two wonderful parts of the book that would have looked great on film.  but when you're already packing almost 10 hours of movie into three flms, you've got to cut something.  both were segments you could cut wholesale without affecting anything.

i figured they'd be missing going in, so i wasn't disappointed.

but did anybody else notice the tip of the hat to tom bombadil in the two towers extended version?  treebeard rescues merry and pippin from a cranky old tree...


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I really liked how Peter Jackson opened the Fellowship of the Ring with the battle against Sauron.  That whole cut was just freaking awesome, it made me get goosebumps!    Gotta give credit to Howard Shore with his musical scores, they really made the opening scene and the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf!  I bought the CD, it is excellent!



Yeah, that opening battle---the Last Alliance versus Sauron---was fantastic! And the music was absolutely haunting... it needed to be, given the huge scope of the story and that persistent theme of loss, and it _was_.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> but did anybody else notice the tip of the hat to tom bombadil in the two towers extended version? treebeard rescues merry and pippin from a cranky old tree...


 
Yup, and Treebeard even uses Bombadils' line when he tells the tree to eat earth.

Another similar thing, in the first movie, right after Bilbo leaves the Shire, then Frodo enters Bag End and finds Gandalf deep in thought.  Gandalf is muttering to himself, thinking about the ring, and he says "Riddles in the Dark".  That was the title of the chapter in _The Hobbit_, where Bilbo first meets Gollum.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> That's why Ursula Leguin's Earthsea trilogy (it may be a quartet, now) has so much more impact than a lot of the swords-and-socery genre
> 
> There's just no substitute for good writing!
> 
> I agree completely---he was an ancient force, older than the Wizards, or the Ents, probably older than everyone except the Valar. And also, yes, Sauron, though a Maiar like the other wizards, seems to have been more powerful than they. But would he have been more powerful than the combined might of all five? Guess we'll never know. But doesn't it seem as though Tolkien is constantly telling us that power and corruption are intimately associated?


 
The Earthsea Trilogy I think has six books now.  Excellent story, deep writing even tho they aren't very long.  I think Rowling borrowed pretty heavily from this story with the school for wizards, in the Harry Potter books.  Earthsea was much much much much etc. better, however!  

The Maiar were sort of lesser versions of the Valar, basically being sort of their assistants, and helpers, and whatnot.  In a way, the Valar and Maiar can be compared to angels of different rank, as well as the gods and goddesses of Greek Mythology.  There are definite parallels in both of them, yet Illuvatar is the supreme creator of all who resides outside the world.  I think the Valar and Maiar are of essentially equal age, being the Children of Illuvatar, tho they hold different rank and levels of power.

Sauron was a very strong Maiar.  Saruman and Gandolf were as well, but probably not as strong.  Radagast was less strong.  The other two wizards are only mentioned in one of the Lost Tales, or something, and don't come into the story.  They are just listed as among the five wizards, and these two (both dressed in Blue) passed into the East and out of memory, nobody knows what became of them.  Radagast was the friend of the animals, but he got too wrapped up in that and drifted away from the Cause.  Saruman, obviously, fell into the trap of power lust.  ONly Gandalf remained true to the cause, of acting as a challenge to Sauron's power, encouraging the people of Middle Earth to resist him.

I suspect Bombadil was also one of the Maiar, but just what his rank is, I don't know.  I think he just stayed in Middle Earth after the other Valar and Maiar departed in the early days of the world's creation.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 27, 2006)

_Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron..._

He wouldn't   I don't think Sauron could touch him but I don't think Tom would care.  Tom was sort-f above it all, or beneath it all, or just generally uninvolved.  More a concious will of nature; good in the way the earth and the trees re good, but not in a way that would take an act to overtly fight evil.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I really liked how Peter Jackson opened the Fellowship of the Ring with the battle against Sauron. That whole cut was just freaking awesome, it made me get goosebumps!  Gotta give credit to Howard Shore with his musical scores, they really made the opening scene and the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf! I bought the CD, it is excellent!


 
Now that was actually a creative liberty that I didn't like.  I think the story should have started in the Shire, as it did in the books.  Let the story build, let there be some mystery about the ring, what it was, where it came from, why it was a problem, even who is Sauron?  Later, when everyone has arrived in Rivendell, Gandalf tells the story of the battle, and Isuldur and stuff, just like in the book.  Keep the suspense, then get some clarity and focus on what the mission is to be.  I think it could have been more effective if this part was saved for later, as it was done in the book.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron..._
> 
> He wouldn't I don't think Sauron could touch him but I don't think Tom would care. Tom was sort-f above it all, or beneath it all, or just generally uninvolved. More a concious will of nature; good in the way the earth and the trees re good, but not in a way that would take an act to overtly fight evil.


 

Well, I remember in the book, Frodo suggested to Gandalf that maybe Bombadil would be a good keeper of the ring.  He wouldn't want to use it, and maybe Sauron couldn't get it from him.  Gandalf replied that Bombadil would probably just forget about the ring because he isn't interested in it, and that might enable Sauron to recover it.  Gandalf also states that if Sauron wins in the end, Bombadil would probably be the last to stand against him, but ultimately Bombadil would also be defeated.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 27, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I really liked how Peter Jackson opened the Fellowship of the Ring with the battle against Sauron. That whole cut was just freaking awesome, it made me get goosebumps!  Gotta give credit to Howard Shore with his musical scores, they really made the opening scene and the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf! I bought the CD, it is excellent!


 
That was a great opening!


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I remember in the book, Frodo suggested to Gandalf that maybe Bombadil would be a good keeper of the ring.  He wouldn't want to use it, and maybe Sauron couldn't get it from him.  Gandalf replied that Bombadil would probably just forget about the ring because he isn't interested in it, and that might enable Sauron to recover it.  Gandalf also states that if Sauron wins in the end, Bombadil would probably be the last to stand against him, but ultimately Bombadil would also be defeated.



You have a good memory... I am like Bombadil, I forgot... I now remember that conversation.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 27, 2006)

I remember that as well.  Bombadil just would not have been interested enough to keep the ring safe.  At least that is what I took from that passage.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I remember that as well.  Bombadil just would not have been interested enough to keep the ring safe.  At least that is what I took from that passage.



Yes, me too. And the way Bombadil acts when Frodo gives him the Ring (and remember, Frodo had absolutely no reluctance to give it to Bombadil, in spite of the fact that he'd already been showing signs of becoming really possessive of it---just handed to him without any hesitation?) is like, oh, what's this little trinket? Hmmm, nothing very interesting... It's like it meant absolutely nothing to him at all, held no value whatever.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 27, 2006)

that's one compelling reason to have kept bombadil out of the movie.  one of the strengths of FOTR was how heavy and terrifying jackson made the ring feel.

to have someone with the essential attitude of 'ring, schming' would have been lethal to that tone.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> to have someone with the essential attitude of 'ring, schming' would have been lethal to that tone.



You may have something there---very nicely put!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 27, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> that's one compelling reason to have kept bombadil out of the movie. one of the strengths of FOTR was how heavy and terrifying jackson made the ring feel.
> 
> to have someone with the essential attitude of 'ring, schming' would have been lethal to that tone.


 
Yes I could defintely see that as well.  Plus with so many characters already in the movie how would he have made it work.  It would have been really hard.  The passage where they meet Tom would have at least taken up 15-20 minutes.  However it would have been *cool*!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> that's one compelling reason to have kept bombadil out of the movie. one of the strengths of FOTR was how heavy and terrifying jackson made the ring feel.
> 
> to have someone with the essential attitude of 'ring, schming' would have been lethal to that tone.


 

Interesting point.  

When Tolkien began writing the book, he really didn't know where it would go, nor even what its purpose was.  It took a while before he even decided upon the ring as the central focus, and even longer to decide exactly what the ring was, and why it was so dangerous.  But in the mean time, he just began writing to get things moving.  The first half of the _Fellowship of the Ring_ show this pretty clearly.  The four hobbits, upon leaving Bag End, are just sort of on a random series of adventures that they stumble into, not exactly with any culminating purpose.  While Mr. Tolkien tightened things up once he determined the purpose of the story and the journey (elements like the presence of the Nazgul in the Shire were added later), I think Bombadil was one of those sort of random encounters that they had in the mean time.  It wasn't until they reached the village of Bree, and more so when they reached Rivendell, that the story began to go in a more focused direction.  Still, Bombadil found a place in the story, and I think it was good that Mr. Tolkien didn't eliminate him.


----------



## zDom (Oct 27, 2006)

Fan? You kidding?  "Fan" would be an understatement 

(although I did laugh *hard* at the Randall vs LoTR fan scene in Clerks II )

Stickarts: I had to laugh at what you wrote. In sixth grade, our teacher would have us come forward and read our favorite poems out loud to the class on occassion.

On one occassion, I read one one of the poems Tolkien wrote entirely in Elvish  Talk about worried looks! 

Me and a buddy also used to pass notes in Middle Earth languages. I had to look at your name and make sure I wasn't about to reconnect with a long-lost friend. 



exile said:


> I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....



Me too  very much so. I get the same from the Silmarillion, although understandably most people just can't get into those stories as well as LoTR.

Somehow, his books touch me deep inside.

Good discussion, by the way.

- Faramir is also one of my favorite characters.

- Sam WAS very heroic. Based on the relationship of British officers and their enlisted orderlies, so I've read (They're not gay  they're HOBBITS! -- another Clerks II quote )

Tom Bombadill (Tom Bombadill-oh!): he was not Valar nor Maia. He was "first." From what I understand, he was the first created life in creation.
(He was based orginally on a toy Tolkien's children had )

The Ring had no power over him  nor did he have any power over the Ring. Two lines that just don't intersect.

- Sauron was NOT more powerful than the other Maia. He just brokered his power in a way that made him more powerful and more vulnerable by committing a great deal of his power and essence into the Ring. And he was unencumbered by any mandate of non-interference.

Back "in the day," there were even Elves who could defeat Sauron in a one-vs-one battle.

There was, by the way, a Maia that eventually grew so powerful by sucking the essence from the Silmarills that she made Morgoth Bauglir (formerly the Valar known as Melkor) afraid: Ungoliath, who took the form of a giant spider and belched and spun webs of darkness. She was the mother of the spiders that went on to terrorize the elves and attack Frodo and Sam.

She would have kicked Sauron's butt. 

From what I understand, there were indeed five Maia that were sent to Middle Earth to help oppose Sauron.

Saruman the White, sent to the western men
Mithrandir the Grey, sent to the elves
Radagast the Brown, sent to the animals

and two others.

Mithrandir/Gandalf wasn't the ONLY one that stayed faithful  he just ended up being most involved in the action without becoming corrupt, like Saruman, or tricked into becoming mostly ineffective, like Radagast.

Presumably, the other two were semi-effective in that Sauron was not able to recruit as many of the other races of men as he would have liked, thanks to their efforts.

It is my belief (Christopher's copywrite notwithstanding )

that one of the other two was Sar'Dacat the Blue, sent to the seafaring and southern men.

The other, his name escapes me (because I haven't made it up yet.. cough.. ) was sent to the men of the east.

All jokes aside, I would very much like to write a couple of novels which would be about what these two Maia did during the Great War of the Ring.

Anybody want to help me convince Christopher to let me do it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

zDom said:


> - Sauron was NOT more powerful than the other Maia. He just brokered his power in a way that made him more powerful and more vulnerable by committing a great deal of his power and essence into the Ring. And he was unencumbered by any mandate of non-interference.
> 
> Back "in the day," there were even Elves who could defeat Sauron in a one-vs-one battle.
> 
> ...


 

Well, some Maiar were stronger than others, but it was never clearly defined how to measure that.  There is a passage in one of the later volumes that Christopher published, with his fathers old notes and unfinished story segments and revisions and such where Gandalf/Olorin (his Maiar name) was given marching orders by the Valar to return to Middle Earth with Saruman/Curunir and the others, and act as a challenge to Sauron.  Olorin expressed his reluctance to go, because he feared Sauron.  He was told that that is exactly why he must go.  Olorin was also counted among the stronger of the Maiar, but his fear of Sauron is indicative that Sauron was stronger, altho admitedly that was never clearly stated and his fear could just be because Sauron was meaner and more willing to get nasty.  The five who returned to Middle Earth were given clear orders that they were not to act as an open power challenge to Sauron, nor to rule and lord over the elves and men and other races.  Rather, they were to act as agents of inspiration, to provoke the people to fight back on their own.  I guess they sort of went in with at least one arm tied behind their backs.

As far as elves being able to defeat Sauron, and even give Morgoth a good fight, this is an element of the Silmarillian that never quite reconcilled properly in the Lord of the Rings.  I think Tolkien sort of switched gears and changed his mind about how powerful certain individuals were, and there were clear inconsistencies between the early works and TLOR.  Another example would be the Balrogs.  In the Silmarillion, they were fairly common, and could certainly be defeated in the course of battle.  But in TLOR, they were rare, and even Gandalf feared to fight one.  The balrogs were implied to also be Maiar who joined Melkor when he rebelled against the Valar in the early days.  Sauron was Melkor/Morgoth's chief lieutenant, and took up the cause when Melkor was finally defeated.  This is another example of the inconsistencies in defining the characters that plagued Tolkien's works.  He unfortunately died before working out all those issues, tho he constantly revised things thru his entire life.

I don't recall Ungoliant being a Maiar.  Maybe she was, but I don't remember that.  She always seemed like a separate power, not clearly defined.

The Valar were certainly the oldest, being created by Iluvatar even before Middle Earth was created.  They, in fact, had a hand in its creation, and later entered Middle Earth to dwell there.  So Bombadil, whatever he was, was not older than the Valar, even if he was somehow put first into Middle Earth.  I remember the passage you are thinking of, I believe Gandalf refers to Bombadil as "oldest".  But to consider him absolutely older than the Valar, and perhaps the Maiar, just doesn't jive with the earlier history.  Again, I think this is just one of the inconsistencies that plagued Tolkien's work.

I guess the true Tolkien Geeks are showing their colors here...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 27, 2006)

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 27, 2006)

you know that the 'nazgul scream' from the movies was made by peter jackson's wife?

how could they get her to make that sound, you ask?

peter told her he bought the rights to the silmarillion.


----------



## HG1 (Oct 27, 2006)

Thanks guys for the excellent posts. It's been a while since I've read the books. Here are some questions. 

Illuvatar created the Valar, then together in song they created Middle Earth or the Universe?

Illuvatar had a plan(?) for mankind only known to himself. Was it ever explained? 

The Valar were shown a vision by Illuvatar of what Middle Earth will look like. Those Valar that went to Middle Earth were responsible for making the vision a reality. Did I get it right?

Why did the Valar leave Middle Earth?

Were the Men of Numenor nearly wiped out for attempting to sail to the undying lands? 

Is there any explanation of what happens to the Dwarf race during the fourth age?

I could go on but I'll stop here.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 27, 2006)

zDom said:


> Fan? You kidding?  "Fan" would be an understatement
> 
> (although I did laugh *hard* at the Randall vs LoTR fan scene in Clerks II )
> 
> ...


 
Scary that there are some other people out there like me!  
Yeah, at the end of my paper that I handed in, I put a footnote "for more information, contact Dain Ironfoot in the Iron Mountains"
I think I got a "C" for composition and an "A" for originality.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 27, 2006)

HG1 said:


> Thanks guys for the excellent posts. It's been a while since I've read the books. Here are some questions.
> 
> Illuvatar created the Valar, then together in song they created Middle Earth or the Universe?
> 
> ...


 
As far as the Dwarf question goes, I believe they dwindled because there were so few Dwarf Women and many of those chose not to marry.
I remember reading about some of your other questions but its been so long reading about that era that I would hate to give incorrect answers!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

*quote=HG1*

*Thanks guys for the excellent posts. It's been a while since I've read the books. Here are some questions. *

*Illuvatar created the Valar, then together in song they created Middle Earth or the Universe?*

Essentially, it was the Void, or kind of the Universe I guess, not clearly defined exactly, and thru song they created Middle Earth

*Illuvatar had a plan(?) for mankind only known to himself. Was it ever explained?* 

Yup he had a plan, nope, it was never explained.  Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and his Creation Myth, while unique to Middle Earth, also didn't directly conflict with Genesis too much.  I think part of this is that it is just beyond the scope of any being to know the mind of God/Illuvatar.  Think of Illuvatar as God, and the Valar as the highest ranking Angels, the Maiar as lower ranking Angels.  The downfall of Melkor the first Dark Lord, who was the brightest, strongest, and most promising of the Valar, parallels the downfall of Lucifer.  He became the Enemy Number One, and the rest of the Valar, along with the Elves and later the Men, fought him.

*The Valar were shown a vision by Illuvatar of what Middle Earth will look like. Those Valar that went to Middle Earth were responsible for making the vision a reality. Did I get it right?*

Don't remember exactly, but that's kind of it, perhaps.  Or really, I think in their Music, Middle Earth was created without the Valar even knowing it.  Then Illuvatar revealed Middle Earth to them, and they recognized their work within it.

*Why did the Valar leave Middle Earth?*

First, they entered Middle Earth, and then withdrew to the lands across the sea.  I believe they did this to give room to the Elves, who were newly born as children of Illuvatar.  Middle Earth was meant to be for the races of Elves, Humans, and the other races that came later.  The Valar didn't have a hand in creating them.  The Dwarves were created by the Vala named Aule, who was the Smith and Master Craftsman.  Illuvatar almost made him destroy the dwarves, but then relented and allowed them to exist, but they were always separate from the elves and men.

*Were the Men of Numenor nearly wiped out for attempting to sail to the undying lands?* 


Yup, some recognized the folly of this attempt, and fled back to the mainland before the island was destroyed.

*Is there any explanation of what happens to the Dwarf race during the fourth age?*

I don't recall any of this...


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting point.
> 
> When Tolkien began writing the book, he really didn't know where it would go, nor even what its purpose was.  It took a while before he even decided upon the ring as the central focus, and even longer to decide exactly what the ring was, and why it was so dangerous.  But in the mean time, he just began writing to get things moving.  The first half of the _Fellowship of the Ring_ show this pretty clearly.  The four hobbits, upon leaving Bag End, are just sort of on a random series of adventures that they stumble into, not exactly with any culminating purpose.  While Mr. Tolkien tightened things up once he determined the purpose of the story and the journey (elements like the presence of the Nazgul in the Shire were added later), I think Bombadil was one of those sort of random encounters that they had in the mean time.  It wasn't until they reached the village of Bree, and more so when they reached Rivendell, that the story began to go in a more focused direction.  Still, Bombadil found a place in the story, and I think it was good that Mr. Tolkien didn't eliminate him.



That's an interesting angle on why the part before they all get to Rivendell has this... what? kind of picaresque quality, like a road movie. The dangers they face, like the Barrow-wight, seem to have no further role or bearing on events---the kind of thing you might conjure up if you wanted to have something menacing to keep readers engaged with the story, but not driving them to any big narrative target. Once they get to Rivendell, and the Council is held, though, everything become very tightly connected and you have a sense of a lot of economy in the narrative. 

At one point I felt the Ents were kind of a reversion to that same episodic pace, but I realized after a while they they were essential both for the destruction of Orthanc and the final part of the victory at Helm's Deep. As the epic goes on, Tolkien's narrative style---not his descriptive prose, but his plot development---seems to get more and more lean and spartan, as though, like Sam and Frodo, his choices are becoming increasingly limited and everything is forcing him toward a single point.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Middle Earth was meant to be for the races of Elves, Humans, and the other races that came later.



Everything else you've got here seems familiar, Michael, but I didn't think that Middle Earth was for the Elves, in particular---otherwise, why would they have had their own Undying realm, east of the Valinor but west of Middle Earth, to dwell in? And look at the Elves who go to Middle Earth at the beginning, the Exiles (distant spiritual kinsman to me, I suppose!), like Galadriel, who try to recreate Elvenholm in Lothlorien---their existence there is a long exercise in penitence for the Kinslaying in Elvenholm, and the hope of eventual forgiveness. I had thought from all this that Middle Earth was really created for the mortal races, humans and dwarves (though it's not clear that Dwarves are exactly mortal---aren't they supposed to reincarnate after a few generations?), and that the Elves who were there were there because of their transgressions or because they got restless in the Undying Realms and went east. 

And now, while we're all together on this great thread and there's all this expertise here, will someone *please, please, FINALLY* explain to me why Celeborn stays behind when Galadrial returns over the seas to the Undying Lands. _Please????_


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

If hes a leader and any of his people are left behind than he should stay and lead them.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> That's an interesting angle on why the part before they all get to Rivendell has this... what? kind of picaresque quality, like a road movie. The dangers they face, like the Barrow-wight, seem to have no further role or bearing on events---the kind of thing you might conjure up if you wanted to have something menacing to keep readers engaged with the story, but not driving them to any big narrative target. Once they get to Rivendell, and the Council is held, though, everything become very tightly connected and you have a sense of a lot of economy in the narrative.


 
But the way he ties the past history into the story. The barrow being the resting place of a king of the carin of the last prince of Cardolan and the swords that were forged to fight the ancient evil being recovered to fight the current evil. It all seems pretty well planned. I think Tolkien realized he had to pick up the pace after Rivendell or this story was going to need 6 books.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If hes a leader and any of his people are left behind than he should stay and lead them.



It's more than that, Blotan---they were husband and wife, and things seemed to be quite good between them. And it seems, from what Celeborn says to Aragorn shortly before the end, that he knew well in advance that she would be returning over the seas once the Valar finally determined that---by her willingness to forego the One Ring when it was in her power after the Fellowship reached Lothlorien---she had earned an end to her exile. 

Which, of course, is what we all long for...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> It's more than that, Blotan---they were husband and wife, and things seemed to be quite good between them. And it seems, from what Celeborn says to Aragorn shortly before the end, that he knew well in advance that she would be returning over the seas once the Valar finally determined that---by her willingness to forego the One Ring when it was in her power after the Fellowship reached Lothlorien---she had earned an end to her exile.
> 
> Which, of course, is what we all long for...


 
Still, hes a King and Im sure not all the Galadhirim (sp?) had left yet so it was his duty to stay. I also dont think he was finished with middle earth yet and as he had not come from the undying lands like his wife (or bore a ring) his desire to go there wasnt as strong.

Also remember they are immortal, Im sure their concepts of love and being together or apart for a long time would be far different from ours. A few hundred years apart for them would be like a "you go ahead Ill catch up with you in a bit" for us.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If hes a leader and any of his people are left behind than he should stay and lead them.



Thinking some more about what you've said...

so you think it was kind of a conscious sacrifice on his/their part? She had to leave in a sense because her exile had been so long and she needed to return (and maybe also because when the Elven Ring of Power she had borne finally lost its power with the destruction of the One Ring, then she experienced something like what Frodo experienced when the One Ring was destroyed, a pain that couldn't be healed as long as she stayed in Middle Earth)? But that he decided to stay to lead the Elves who were not yet ready to take ship to Elvenholm?

Could be, could well be... I'd never thought of it from that angle...


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Still, hes a King and Im sure not all the Galadhirim (sp?) had left yet so it was his duty to stay. I also dont think he was finished with middle earth yet and as he had not come from the undying lands like his wife (or bore a ring) his desire to go there wasnt as strong.
> 
> Also remember they are immortal, Im sure their concepts of love and being together or apart for a long time would be far different from ours. A few hundred years apart for them would be a "you go ahead Ill catch up with you in a bit" for them.



You know something? I do believe you're right. And for some reason it makes me feel much much better about that part of it. Thanks much for the new perspective on it! :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> Everything else you've got here seems familiar, Michael, but I didn't think that Middle Earth was for the Elves, in particular---otherwise, why would they have had their own Undying realm, east of the Valinor but west of Middle Earth, to dwell in? And look at the Elves who go to Middle Earth at the beginning, the Exiles (distant spiritual kinsman to me, I suppose!), like Galadriel, who try to recreate Elvenholm in Lothlorien---their existence there is a long exercise in penitence for the Kinslaying in Elvenholm, and the hope of eventual forgiveness. I had thought from all this that Middle Earth was really created for the mortal races, humans and dwarves (though it's not clear that Dwarves are exactly mortal---aren't they supposed to reincarnate after a few generations?), and that the Elves who were there were there because of their transgressions or because they got restless in the Undying Realms and went east.
> 
> And now, while we're all together on this great thread and there's all this expertise here, will someone *please, please, FINALLY* explain to me why Celeborn stays behind when Galadrial returns over the seas to the Undying Lands. _Please????_


 
Essentially, the Valar jumped the gun and started meddling where they weren't supposed to.  They brought the Elves across the sea, but the elves should have stayed in middle earth. The elves then returned to Middle Earth to chase Morgoth and reclaim the Silmarils and all that stuff.  But they never should have left Middle Earth in the first place, at least not until Men came into their own and were prepared to be the dominant race in the world.  The only reason the Elves are in exile, so to speak, is because the saw Valinor and know its beauty, but have rejected it.  They never should have seen Valinor in the first place.  The Valar were trying to be nice and overly protective by bringing them to Valinor, but it shouldn't have been done.

As to your last question, I have no idea.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> You know something? I do believe you're right. And for some reason it makes me feel much much better about that part of it. Thanks much for the new perspective on it!



Yes. I also dont think it would have been a big deal for them as neither of them was going to die before they could meet again. If you think about it thats part of the human grasping most of us call love. I want to enjoy as much of my time (and worry about them) with my loved ones before any,or ultimately all of us die. The elves wouldnt have that drive.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But the way he ties the past history into the story. The barrow being the resting place of a king of the carin of the last prince of Cardolan and the swords that were forged to fight the ancient evil being recovered to fight the current evil. It all seems pretty well planned. I think Tolkien realized he had to pick up the pace after Rivendell or this story was going to need 6 books.


 

That's true, but I think those points may have been worked into the story in a later draft.  I think in the early draft, this also would have been one of those random encounters, altho I could be wrong.  There is so much stuff in the later volumes published by Christopher Tolkien, it is quite confusing and not exciting reading, hard to remember all the detail.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

Of course, Celeborn WAS sort of an emasculated "lesser light" to his wife. If all you ever read was the trillogy you may be hard pressed to even remember him..."CeleWHO?".


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> That's true, but I think those points may have been worked into the story in a later draft. I think in the early draft, this also would have been one of those random encounters, altho I could be wrong. There is so much stuff in the later volumes published by Christopher Tolkien, it is quite confusing and not exciting reading, hard to remember all the detail.


 
You are probably right. I think he probably had an outline of what he wanted to accomplish and like any endeavor, theres a point where you pick up steam and drive on through a project until you reach the spot where you see the finishline, and round that turn heading for home.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....


 
YES! I cant put it down then am a little sad that its over.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Yes. I also dont think it would have been a big deal for them as neither of them was going to die before they could meet again. If you think about it thats part of our human grasping most of us call love. I want to enjoy as much of my time with my loved ones before any (or ultimately all) of us die. The elves wouldnt have that drive.



Yes, this aspect of it is of course one that we as mortal being can't possibly see the same way as immortal beings would. It had bothered me for a long time---decades, in fact, though that probably sounds absurd---because Tolkien himself offers nothing in the way of an explanation for their separation, acts as though it were just perfectly normal; yet in other parts of the narrative, when there is a separation or sundering between companions, as when Frodo leaves the Shire to take ship at the Grey Havens, there's a very careful explanation of why it is that he can no longer stay. It seemed as though either I was missing something or, much worse, that it was simply going to be Just One Of Those Things, and I would never get an answer. So I'm very glad to have one that really does make sense of it all...






Flying Crane said:


> Essentially, the Valar jumped the gun and started meddling where they weren't supposed to.  They brought the Elves across the sea, but the elves should have stayed in middle earth. The elves then returned to Middle Earth to chase Morgoth and reclaim the Silmarils and all that stuff.  But they never should have left Middle Earth in the first place, at least not until Men came into their own and were prepared to be the dominant race in the world.  The only reason the Elves are in exile, so to speak, is because the saw Valinor and know its beauty, but have rejected it.  They never should have seen Valinor in the first place.  The Valar were trying to be nice and overly protective by bringing them to Valinor, but it shouldn't have been done.



But Elvenholm and Valinor aren't the same place, are they? I had believed that Valinor lay well to the west of the Undying Islands where the Elves lived who had never gone to Middle Earth... it's been too long since I read the Sillmarilion (never really got into it the way I did LoTR---found it too much of an endless series of chronicles, with few if any emotional hooks to the storyline). I had thought that Elvenholm had been created specifically as a home for an immortal race (the Elves) who were however not on the same level in Tolkien's hierarchy of beings as the other immortal races (the Valar and Maiar), that Valinor was reserved for the latter, so that there had to be a place where the bottommost order of immortal beings got to live, just as there was a place for the topmost order of mortal beings (Numenor, for the Numenorians) separate from Middle Earth, which was where we miserable lot came in... I guess I'd better reread the first part of the Sillmarilion...




Flying Crane said:


> As to your last question, I have no idea.



Well, I'm really happy with Blotan's story and figure that it's probably the best shot at the answer.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

exile said:


> But Elvenholm and Valinor aren't the same place, are they? I had believed that Valinor lay well to the west of the Undying Islands where the Elves lived who had never gone to Middle Earth... it's been too long since I read the Sillmarilion (never really got into it the way I did LoTR---found it too much of an endless series of chronicles, with few if any emotional hooks to the storyline). I had thought that Elvenholm had been created specifically as a home for an immortal race (the Elves) who were however not on the same level in Tolkien's hierarchy of beings as the other immortal races (the Valar and Maiar), that Valinor was reserved for the latter, so that there had to be a place where the bottommost order of immortal beings got to live, just as there was a place for the topmost order of mortal beings (Numenor, for the Numenorians) separate from Middle Earth, which was where we miserable lot came in... I guess I'd better reread the first part of the Sillmarilion...


 
Yes. Valinor IS elvenhome. AS to the elves leaving middle earth..if Im remembering my lore correctly...the elves awoke in middle earth and Orome discovered them. The Valar, aware of the risk Melkor posed to the Elves, beleaguered him in Utumno. After a long siege, Melkor and his forces were defeated, and Melkor was taken prisoner to Valinor.

Out of love for the Elves and to protect them from Melkor, Oromë was then sent to the Elves again, to invite any who so wished to come with him to Aman and live there. Most went. but a few remained behind. After the slaying of the trees and the theft of the Silmarills, a band of Elves left for middle earth on a vengeance  mission (where they killed some of their own kind to take their ships) and were banned. After many years of fighting Melkor and many tales of heroism, Earendil sailed to the undeying lands to plea the Valar for help. The Valar ultimately agreed and came to middle earth to ultimately vanquish Melkor and forgive the elves and allow them to return to Elvenhome. At one point Valinor was actually an Island until Men (twisted by Sauron) tried to attack it which lead to the fall of Numenor and the Valar removing Valinor "from the circles of the world". So now only elves that can find the "straight path" across the sea can find it.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Yes. Valinor IS elvenhome. AS to the elves leaving middle earth..if Im remembering my lore correctly...the elves awoke in middle earth and Orome discovered them. The Valar, aware of the risk Melkor posed to the Elves, beleaguered him in Utumno. After a long siege, Melkor and his forces were defeated, and Melkor was taken prisoner to Valinor.
> 
> Out of love for the Elves and to protect them from Melkor, Oromë was then sent to the Elves again, to invite any who so wished to come with him to Aman and live there. Most went. but a few remained behind. After the slaying of the trees and the theft of the Silmarills, a band of Elves left for middle earth on a vengeance  mission (where they killed some of their own kind to take their ships) and were banned. After many years of fighting Melkor and many tales of heroism, Earendil sailed to the undeying lands to plea the Valar for help. The Valar ultimately agreed and came to middle earth to ultimately vanquish Melkor and forgive the elves and allow them to return to Elvenhome. At one point Valinor was actually an Island until Men (twisted by Sauron) tried to attack it which lead to the fall of Numenor and the Valar removing Valinor "from the circles of the world". So now only elves that can find the "straight path" across the sea can find it.



Yes, as I read this a lot of the old stuff from the Silmarillion comes back to me. I had forgotten most of it but I guess it was in there somewhere...

...but now, can you aid me a little further in getting my confusions cleared up with this part of the story? Because I now realize that one of the main reasons I had thought of Valinor as a separate place from Elvenholm was that passage where JRRT writes of Faramir, 

_`So we always do,' he said, as they sat down, `we look towards Numenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be....'_

I had thought for a long time that the last reference was to Valinor... but given what you're saying, it must instead be a reference to Iluvatar Himself?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

Yes. Elvenhome is "heaven on earth" so to speak for the elves (and a holding pen for the Dwarves until all meet "God" at the END). "Beyond Elvenhome" is heaven itself where Men get to see God. Our "gift" that was perverted into fear by Melkor.

Literally, Farimir was talking about looking West where Numenor used to be...beyond that geographically was Valinor and past Valinor was "the wall of night" or eternity.


----------



## exile (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Yes. Elvenhome is "heaven on earth" so to speak for the elves (and a holding pen for the Dwarves until all meet "God" at the END). "Beyond Elvenhome" is heaven itself where Men get to see God. Our "gift" that was perverted into fear by Melkor.
> 
> Literally, Farimir was talking about looking West where Numenor used to be...beyond that geographically was Valinor and past Valinor was "the wall of night" or eternity.



OK, it finally all makes sense! Much appreciated, sir. :asian:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 27, 2006)

_
As far as elves being able to defeat Sauron, and even give Morgoth a good fight, this is an element of the Silmarillian that never quite reconcilled properly in the Lord of the Rings. I think Tolkien sort of switched gears and changed his mind about how powerful certain individuals were, and there were clear inconsistencies between the early works and TLOR_

I just got the impression and I think it was stated that toward the end of t he Third Age, the evles were simply not as powerful as they had been in ages before 

(forgive me for not having read the similarillion in about 20 years and probably LOTR itself since right before Fellowship came out so I may be missing some details)

At one point Elrond could go one on one with Sauron but it seems clear that by the events in LOTR he was no longer in his class (either because Elrond's power had geatly diminished or Sauron's had increased.  But Sauron was not in the same class of power as Melkor and Elrond, while one of the three greatest elves left in Middle Earth, he probably wasn't in the same class as his ancestors either.

Also, it goes beyond individual power but Sauron had been amassing an army and the Elves were leaving so the Elves could no longer mount as great a response to Sauron

I never saw it as a contradiction between LOTR and the Silmarillion, simple that not all Powerzs are created equal and by the time of the end of the Third Age, the players had diminshed greatly

And you gotta afmit, LOTR is really just a small story told in great detail compared to the scope of the evets and sie of the characters in the mythology


----------



## zDom (Oct 28, 2006)

I didn't mean to imply that Bombadil preceded the Valar/Maiar.

Those angelic beings preceded creation.

I meant that he was simply the first living creature created when the Song became a physical, real place.

Also, re: the elves being able to stand toe-to-toe with Melkor and Sauron: the ancient elves where somewhat stronger than latter generations, is the impression I get.

Fingolfin (Finwë Ñolofinwë) was able to give Melkor wounds that never quite healed up, from what I recall. (Very sad, the passing of Fingolfin, one of my favorite characters from the Silmarillion).

Especially the Noldor who lived in the light of the Two Trees side-by-side with the Valar/Maiar before they were extinguished (by Ungoliath and Melkor).

As for Galadriel:

Briefly (and roughly - been awhile since I've read it) the Valar invited the elves to come live with them in Valinor (which at that time was still physically part of Middle Earth) because Melkor was terrorizing them, capturing and distorting them into orcs and whatnot.

Three elven houses (Vanyar, Noldor, Teleri) decided to accept the invitation while the "dark elves" (not bad, just didn't benefit from hanging out with the Valar) loved the starlight and were a bit scared, thinking it another Melkor trick.

When Melkor stole the Silmarils from Fëanor, he got all pissy and made horrible oaths.

So basically, the Noldor were told "if you leave, don't come back."

Oh, and they stole the Teleri elves beloved ships and slaughtered many of them.

Fëanor even betrayed some of the elves who didn't get to ride on the ships and had to make a long, hard march across the icy north.

So Galadriel was among those who were in exile. She was high elf (Noldor) while her husband Celeborn was not.

With the ring, she could make a little corner of Middle Earth bearable (by keeping back the ravages of time). Without it, it was too sad to stay, and I guess she got forgiven for her part in the war against Sauron.

When the High Men of Numenor got tricked by Sauron, who at that time was still able to be physically charming into attempting to sail to Valinor and seize immortality, the Valar temporarily handed things back over to Illuvatar who, as I understand it, re-made the world as a globe, destroyed Numenor and wiped out the Numenoreans  all except a small group of "the faithful" led by Elendil and his sons who sailed to Middle Earth and survived, and founded the kingdoms of Arnor in the north and Gondor in the South.


Really, it is not easy reading, but there are some great stories in the Silmarillion. Epic. Tragic. And overall, very, very sad. But worth reading.

Heck, this thread has me wanting to go back and read it all once again


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 28, 2006)

The whole idea of "even things we see as evil all work to the greater glory of God" is an interesting topic and probably part of Tolkiens own personal rationalization of evil. If God is all knowing and all seeing why do bad things happen? Well, this is just a temporary state and our living or dying isnt really that important to God as that just means we get to return "home". We are all given free will to do go or evil but in the end evil defeats itself and blends into the "great music".


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2006)

_
Heck, this thread has me wanting to go back and read it all once again _

Me too


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

zDom said:


> As for Galadriel:
> 
> Briefly (and roughly - been awhile since I've read it) the Valar invited the elves to come live with them in Valinor (which at that time was still physically part of Middle Earth) because Melkor was terrorizing them, capturing and distorting them into orcs and whatnot....
> 
> ...



Yes, your account and Blotan's are in agreement and are consistent with what I remember from the Silmarillion (yes, it has been a long time, and yes, I also think probably wouldn't hur to revisit it and brush up on some of the really ancient history from the first part of the Silmarillion). 

The immortality of the Elves has always been one of the interesting things about the Silmarillion. The Elves are immortal but they can be killed. But instead of dying in way that mortals do when they're killed, they go to `the Halls of Mandos' and hang around there for a while while he decides how long to keep 'em. And then they get to live again as they had before they'd been killed---isn't this what happened to Glorfindel? And he wound up saving Frodo when the Nazgul seemed to have cornered him at the border of Rivendell. Presumably, the Elves who were murdered in the Kinslaying also went to Mandos to be judged and to wait their turn to return to bodily form, yes?


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Oct 28, 2006)

a random thought - have any of you heard of alatar and polando (sp?) the blue , they were sent to the men of rhun and khand in the south , but were never seen again i read this on a few website , they all said the same thing , not much info on them on google


----------



## stickarts (Oct 28, 2006)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;651498 said:
			
		

> a random thought - have any of you heard of alatar and polando (sp?) the blue , they were sent to the men of rhun and khand in the south , but were never seen again i read this on a few website , they all said the same thing , not much info on them on google


 
Ithryn Luin. The blue wizards. They got the old "doesn't come into this tale".


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 28, 2006)

stickarts said:


> Ithryn Luin. The blue wizards. They got the old "doesn't come into this tale".



I read about them in Unfinished Tales. But it does not list names. Anyone know what book since then let slip their names? Or is their a chance that they were named by fans on some web site?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;651498 said:
			
		

> a random thought - have any of you heard of alatar and polando (sp?) the blue , they were sent to the men of rhun and khand in the south , but were never seen again i read this on a few website , they all said the same thing , not much info on them on google


 

I knew there were two wizards in blue who don't come into the story, but I have never seen them named.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> IOr is their a chance that they were named by fans on some web site?


 
I suspect this may be true.  I've read thru a number of the volumes that Christopher has been publishing (not all, but I've gotten a good way into them) and I have not seen this anywhere yet.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

*quote=zDom*
*Also, re: the elves being able to stand toe-to-toe with Melkor and Sauron: the ancient elves where somewhat stronger than latter generations, is the impression I get*.

I think you are correct, it seems the elves in the later ages have lost some of their power, I suppose due to the waning of their kind in middle earth. Their time is over and it is time now for them to step aside and let Men come into power.  

However, this issue was discussed in the later volumes published by Christopher.  I wish I could remember where the reference was, but it was recognized that at least in part, this different presentation was due to inconsistencies in how Mr. Tolkien wrote and presented his characters.  How they were portrayed in the early stories just wouldn't work so well in the LOR, but it was sort of too late to go back and change it all in the early stories as well, to make it all consistent.  So it just sort of ended up with some inconsistencies and we have to live with it.  Personally, I don't have much problem with it.  In a way, it gives some interesting things to think about.

*Fingolfin (Finwë Ñolofinwë) was able to give Melkor wounds that never quite healed up, from what I recall. (Very sad, the passing of Fingolfin, one of my favorite characters from the Silmarillion).*

Yeah, I loved that part too, Fingolfin was one of my favorites from the old stories.  I think he was Galadriel's brother?  He was less of a hothead than Feanor, and a great guy.  Very heroic, but ultimately I think Morgoth literally pounded him into the dirt with his mace.

*Especially the Noldor who lived in the light of the Two Trees side-by-side with the Valar/Maiar before they were extinguished (by Ungoliath and Melkor).*

Good point, it could be argued that having lived so close to the Valar that they were strengthened by it.


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Oct 28, 2006)

search alatar and palando on google and most of the websites have the same info , im not sure if fans made the names up or not


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Oct 28, 2006)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;651594 said:
			
		

> search alatar and palando on google and most of the websites have the same info , im not sure if fans made the names up or not


 

some info on their names  -   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards


----------



## stickarts (Oct 28, 2006)

Good reference!
I also remember one note stating that Olorin (Gandalf) was the only Wizard to complete the mission successfully.
Maybe that was in "unfinished tales"?


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

So now I have another question... does anyone have a clue about why Jackson changed Faramir's character so fundamentally in the movie? In the novel, the episode in Ithilien is a kind of respite, a reflective time of great beauty in the context of Tolkien's narrative. In the movie it becomes a time of horrific danger for the Quest, a point where it seems almost certain to fail. Is this just Jackson's piling-up-of-peril's approach to the direction of the epic, or there something else involved that I'm missing? Any thoughts? (Like Michael, I'm very fond of Tolkien's Faramir... Faramir in the movie seems to act in a manner I don't find fully consistent, at least in the Ithilien episode).


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

exile said:


> So now I have another question... does anyone have a clue about why Jackson changed Faramir's character so fundamentally in the movie? In the novel, the episode in Ithilien is a kind of respite, a reflective time of great beauty in the context of Tolkien's narrative. In the movie it becomes a time of horrific danger for the Quest, a point where it seems almost certain to fail. Is this just Jackson's piling-up-of-peril's approach to the direction of the epic, or there something else involved that I'm missing? Any thoughts? (Like Michael, I'm very fond of Tolkien's Faramir... Faramir in the movie seems to act in a manner I don't find fully consistent, at least in the Ithilien episode).


 

Yeah, this was one of the places where I think Jackson should have stayed truer to the book.

Loved the movies, I still tend to pop them in the DVD player and let them run in the background while I am puttering around the home and doing chores and stuff.  I think that given what Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a remarkable job and it was truly a monumental task.  That being said, there are definitely parts that I think should have been done differently.  Just my thoughts as a Tolkien die-hard.


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, this was one of the places where I think Jackson should have stayed truer to the book.
> 
> Loved the movies, I still tend to pop them in the DVD player and let them run in the background while I am puttering around the home and doing chores and stuff.  I think that given what Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a remarkable job and it was truly a monumental task.  That being said, there are definitely parts that I think should have been done differently.  Just my thoughts as a Tolkien die-hard.



I'll watch LoTR at any time, almost regardless of what I'm doing (or have to do). A somewhat flawed masterpiece---the heroic genre doesn't get any better. And some of the movie realizations of the themes and characters in the book _are_ really excellent... and I think JRRT himself would have loved the cinematography.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 28, 2006)

The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.


 

Yeah, I gotta agree with this completely.  I wish these had not been tampered with.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

Another thing that the film failed to show was the length of time between when Bilbo left the Shire, and Frodo & Co. began their journey.  Frodo was 33 years old when Bilbo left the Shire and Frodo inherited Bag End and the Ring.  Frodo stayed on in Bag End for 17 years.  During that time, the Ring kept him from aging, but he started out as a 33 year-old, and was 50 when he began his journey.  In the meantime, Gandalf was off doing research trying to figure things out, and would occasionally stop by, but he would be gone for years at a time.

The movie made it seem like Frodo left perhaps a few weeks after Bilbo, at most.  Gandalf made a quick trip down to Gondor and then returned and Frodo and Sam took off.  It just jumps over this vast stretch of time where life in the Shire is essentially normal for Frodo.

Merry and Pippin, and perhaps Sam as well would have only been children during Bilbo's birthday celebration.  They were quite a bit younger than Frodo tho I think Sam was a bit older than the other two, and by the time Frodo need to flee the Shire, they were just old enough to be adults and accompany him.


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Blotan Hunka said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.
> ...



I think we're all on the same page about these points. It makes me kind of wonder what Jackson was thinking in making all these unnecessary changes... there really was no need to ramp up the conflict level in the way he seems to have been doing via these modifications. There was plenty enough menace in the narrative line of the book itself. 

The case of Faramir is particularly unfortunate, IMHO, because it seems to me that JRRT was implicitly using the contrast between him and his brother Faramir to emphasize that point about how the desire for power leads to self-destruction. Boromir becomes obsessive about the Ring and dies pretty much directly as a result of his obsession; Faramir forebears from taking the Ring, passes through grave danger as a result (the suicidal effort to retake Osgiliath from the Orcs in response to his father's anger at his failure to obtain the Ring when he could have), but ultimately survives and subsequently comes into the happiest time of his life. What the movie does is make Faramir mirror Boromir's desire for the Ring (more to prove himself than because of the Ring's attraction, but that's irrelevant) until the scene with the Fell Beast, where Frodo is on the verge of putting the Ring on and betraying its presence to the Nazgul till Sam intervenes. And in the face of this clear danger sign about Frodo coming into contact with agents of Mordor and what could happen, what does Faramir do? He tells Frodo that they `now understand' each other and lets him go! I don't _get_ it... someone seems to have either misunderstood the book, or misunderstood the mixup implied in the movie script. In any case, it was I think a major gaffe in the production... maybe _the_ major gaffe.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The thing is..there was absolutely NO reason to change the character of Farimir. That was one of my biggest peeves with the film. The other being the parting of Sam and Frodo just before entering Shelobs lair. I have issues with film-makers "improving" on a masterpiece.


 
I would have to agree on this as well!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 28, 2006)

exile said:


> I think we're all on the same page about these points. It makes me kind of wonder what Jackson was thinking in making all these unnecessary changes... there really was no need to ramp up the conflict level in the way he seems to have been doing via these modifications. There was plenty enough menace in the narrative line of the book itself.
> 
> The case of Faramir is particularly unfortunate, IMHO, because it seems to me that JRRT was implicitly using the contrast between him and his brother Faramir to emphasize that point about how the desire for power leads to self-destruction. Boromir becomes obsessive about the Ring and dies pretty much directly as a result of his obsession; Faramir forebears from taking the Ring, passes through grave danger as a result (the suicidal effort to retake Osgiliath from the Orcs in response to his father's anger at his failure to obtain the Ring when he could have), but ultimately survives and subsequently comes into the happiest time of his life. What the movie does is make Faramir mirror Boromir's desire for the Ring (more to prove himself than because of the Ring's attraction, but that's irrelevant) until the scene with the Fell Beast, where Frodo is on the verge of putting the Ring on and betraying its presence to the Nazgul till Sam intervenes. And in the face of this clear danger sign about Frodo coming into contact with agents of Mordor and what could happen, what does Faramir do? He tells Frodo that they `now understand' each other and lets him go! I don't _get_ it... someone seems to have either misunderstood the book, or misunderstood the mixup implied in the movie script. In any case, it was I think a major gaffe in the production... maybe _the_ major gaffe.


 
Yes it is hard not to agree with your post and about Faramir.  What really dissapointed me with the movies was not seeing Saurman and wormtongue in the Shire at the end.  Now I know that it apparently was on the special edition set.  Unfortunately for me I bought each movie DVD as they came out and have not seen it yet.  However, it would have been great to have it actually in the movie.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes it is hard not to agree with your post and about Faramir. What really dissapointed me with the movies was not seeing Saurman and wormtongue in the Shire at the end. Now I know that it apparently was on the special edition set. Unfortunately for me I bought each movie DVD as they came out and have not seen it yet. However, it would have been great to have it actually in the movie.


 

It is not in the special edition set.  It was completely ignored in the movie.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> It is not in the special edition set. It was completely ignored in the movie.


 
That is to bad that it was not in the special edition set.  I thought someone had mentioned that it was.  That bums me out.  It really should have been in the movie.  It was a dramatic and important part of the Lord of The Rings in my opinion.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 28, 2006)

I read them first in jr. high, and every few years I just have to read them all over again.

My fave was always Boromir.  Of the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, he always seemed the most "human" to me.  

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That is to bad that it was not in the special edition set. I thought someone had mentioned that it was. That bums me out. It really should have been in the movie. It was a dramatic and important part of the Lord of The Rings in my opinion.


 

I had heard the rumor as well, but it aint so.  I also agree, it should have been in there, but I expect it would have lengthened the movie by another 20 - 40 minutes.  For those of us die-hards, that would have been great, but I think the general public's patience was already tested by the length.  For those reasons, I can understand why it was cut, but I agree, I would have liked to see it stay.

I sort of wish there would be another version released on DVD, where some of these deleted parts would be worked in.  The old forest, Bombadil, the barrow weights, the scouring of the Shire, etc.  Each movie could be another hour or so, only for the die-hards.  Each of the three movies would have been about 4 hours or more.  I can't imagine that would ever happen, tho.  What an epic, entertainment for the entire weekend!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I read them first in jr. high, and every few years I just have to read them all over again.
> 
> My fave was always Boromir. Of the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, he always seemed the most "human" to me.
> 
> Jeff


 
That's actually a really funny thing you have said.  Of all the members, only he and Aragorn were human!


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> That's actually a really funny thing you have said.  Of all the members, only he and Aragorn were human!


I realized that as soon as I posted it.  What I should have said was he seemed more realized since he was about the only flawed character at that point in the story.  And Sean Bean did a great job playing him!

Jeff


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I had heard the rumor as well, but it aint so.  I also agree, it should have been in there, but I expect it would have lengthened the movie by another 20 - 40 minutes.  For those of us die-hards, that would have been great, but I think the general public's patience was already tested by the length.  For those reasons, I can understand why it was cut, but I agree, I would have liked to see it stay.
> 
> I sort of wish there would be another version released on DVD, where some of these deleted parts would be worked in.  The old forest, Bombadil, the barrow weights, the scouring of the Shire, etc.  Each movie could be another hour or so, only for the die-hards.  Each of the three movies would have been about 4 hours or more.  I can't imagine that would ever happen, tho.  What an epic, entertainment for the entire weekend!



Hey guys---this is the story on Grima and Saruman---I have the special ultra edition, whatever. The deal is, the scene with Grima stabbing Saruman after the latter in effect pisses on him in response to his obvious desire to quit the Dark Side does take place in the special ultra whatever---_but not in the Shire!!!_ It happens at the top of Orthac, and Saruman, after getting his throat cut in a half-dozen places, pitches lazily off the top of the tower and lands on the spikes of the millwheel---a real catharsis for those of us who'e been hating him properly, but probably a touch that JRRT would have found distateful :wink1: Grima is killed by arrows, fired not from the Hobbits' bows but by Legolas'.

So there's closure there of sorts. But it definitely comes second best to the way it would have played out if they'd done the scene as per Tolkien. Only then, of course, as Michael notes, they'd have added probably close to half an hour to an already Wagnerian movie... not that I'd have minded one bit!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I realized that as soon as I posted it. What I should have said was he seemed more realized since he was about the only flawed character at that point in the story. And Sean Bean did a great job playing him!
> 
> Jeff


 

Agreed, Sean Bean was really good.  My wife and I have actually discussed this very thing.  He was excellent, a very talented actor.  I was not at all familiar with him before these movies were made.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 28, 2006)

I didn't have time to read through this whole thread, so I'm sorry if any of this is a repetition - it's huge, and just since yesterday - but I grew up on LotR - my father is an English professor, and his specialities are Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Tolkien.  Now, Shakespeare and Chaucer I can take, but LotR has always had a special place in my affection, and I reread it periodically; so much so that the original copies I bought in middle school over 25 years fell apart and had to be replaced.

My favoritie character is probably Frodo, although Sam is a close second, and might be first, depending on the day.

As far as the movies go, I expected Bombadil to be left out, for reasons already discussed.  The only change that I really objected to was the reasons why Pippin and Merry came along in the first place.  In the novel, they came because they knew that Frodo was going, and their personal loyalty required them to come along - he tried to leave without them, and they wouldn't let him.  In the movies, they are basically chance met on the road and come along because it's better than staying where they are.  This is, in my opinion, a very significant difference, and affects the interpretations of their characters throughout the movies.  Other than that, I understand why various things were left out, changed somewhat (like the gift-giving in LothLorien), etc. - but that one thing really bothers me.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Agreed, Sean Bean was really good.  My wife and I have actually discussed this very thing.  He was excellent, a very talented actor.  I was not at all familiar with him before these movies were made.


Wow, he's been in a lot of stuff!  Just google his name and bunches of different movies will come up.  He's been one of my favorite actors for years.

Jeff


----------



## stickarts (Oct 28, 2006)

exile said:


> So now I have another question... does anyone have a clue about why Jackson changed Faramir's character so fundamentally in the movie? In the novel, the episode in Ithilien is a kind of respite, a reflective time of great beauty in the context of Tolkien's narrative. In the movie it becomes a time of horrific danger for the Quest, a point where it seems almost certain to fail. Is this just Jackson's piling-up-of-peril's approach to the direction of the epic, or there something else involved that I'm missing? Any thoughts? (Like Michael, I'm very fond of Tolkien's Faramir... Faramir in the movie seems to act in a manner I don't find fully consistent, at least in the Ithilien episode).


 
I read an interview with one of the writers and they said that for the ring to be some ultimate evil thing that couldn't be resisted, it didn't make sense to then have Faramir come along and easily resist it. They wanted to emphasize how evil the ring was.

I agree that I would have liked to see Faramir remain as he was in the books.


----------



## exile (Oct 28, 2006)

stickarts said:


> I read an interview with one of the writers and they said that for the ring to be some ultimate evil thing that couldn't be resisted, it didn't make sense to then have Faramir come along and easily resist it. They wanted to emphasize how evil the ring was.
> 
> I agree that I would have liked to see Faramir remain as he was in the books.



That would also motivate eliminating the Bombadil episode. I guess it makes sense, but I'd rather the book had been followed... like everyone else!

BTW---did you guys see my post around 6:27 tonight about Grima/Saruman killing thing transposed from the Shire in the book to Orthanc in the super-ultra-megascreen version of the movie?


----------



## stickarts (Oct 28, 2006)

Bombadil always gets axed because they don't feel he is essential to the plot.
It would have been great seeing him though, even if only in the extended version!


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 28, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I read them first in jr. high, and every few years I just have to read them all over again.
> 
> My fave was always Boromir.  Of the non-hobbit members of the fellowship, he always seemed the most "human" to me.
> 
> Jeff



Boromir was cool!  I also liked Gimili's lack of fear!  He was a tough character!  Of course, the two characters that stand out the most to me were Legolas and Stryder.


----------



## HG1 (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane thanks for the answers.


Doesn't Peter Jackson have the rights to The Hobit and The Silmarillion? IMO The Silmarillion would be a difficult movie to make. That being said I still would love to see it on the big screen.


----------



## zDom (Oct 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I think that given what Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a remarkable job and it was truly a monumental task.  That being said, there are definitely parts that I think should have been done differently.  Just my thoughts as a Tolkien die-hard.



Me, too.


----------



## zDom (Oct 28, 2006)

HG1 said:


> Doesn't Peter Jackson have the rights to The Hobit and The Silmarillion? IMO The Silmarillion would be a difficult movie to make. That being said I still would love to see it on the big screen.



From what I hear, he IS doing The Hobbit.

As for the Silmarillion, I don't think you can "do" it. What IS feasible is picking a story and doing IT.

And then picking another story and doing IT. And so on - make a franchise out of it. They don't even need to be in sequence. But there are a LOT of great stories that would make great movies.

As for Jackson's work:

one ONE hand, the sceney, costumes and casting was SO damn perfect. I mean, when I first saw Gandalf arriving in the Shire on the Big Screen, tears of joy welled up in my eyes. Goosebumps ran across my body: it was EXACTLY like I had pictured it in my mind while reading it.

And not just that -- Gondor, the Mines of Moria, etc., etc. -- it was if he had snuck inside my mind and put it on the Big Screen.

on the OTHER hand: why couldn't he have just stuck to the story? I mean, I understand omitting Tom Bombadil -- it was logical, if a bit disappointing.

But put in a five minute pillow fight/love scene of the hobbits at the end *instead* of doing "the Scouring of the Shire"? Come ON, Peter! 

Or, I agree as stated above, CHANGE Faramir just to stress something PETER thought needed stressing? Really wish he hadn't.

Heck, I could fill a whole thread with things I think he did PERFECTLY and things I want to strangle him for changing. But flawed or not, I'm glad the movies were made. 

The Hobbit would be fun, but I'd love to see some of the Silmarillion stories be made into films.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 29, 2006)

Jackson would like to do "The Hobbit" but two different entities own different rights to the story and movie and haven't come to terms yet. Frustrating since eventually when they do come to terms it will still be a few years to get the project off the ground and completed!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

The Harry Potter, thread got me going on LOTR movies, so instead of hijacking that thread I decided to put this here. This Wiki has some great beefs with Jacksons manipulation of Tolkiens characters.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Movie_vs._Book:Major_Differences#Faramir

I posted the link to Farimir because it was his character change that upset me the most. In the book he was a pure character that had no desire to power or the ring. In the movie he was twisted because (IMO) writers/directors have to show the "human weakness" of characters. They cant stomach "heros" as they were in the original work so they re-write them. I also think that there is a (liberal?) slant against "soldiers". Faramir, being a soldier had to be painted as a ruffian, as was shown in the Rangers rough treatment/torture of Gollum in the movie, that didnt happen in the book either. 

Sam leaving Frodo on the stairs was a useless change.

The whole Arwen/amulet/life tied to the ring thing was crap too.


----------



## JBrainard (Oct 30, 2007)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;651051 said:
			
		

> hi , any lord of te rings fans on the forum? and if you are whos your fave character?


 
Huge fan of the books and movies (except that I HATED the love story inserted into the movies). Allways like Gandalf the best, ever since I first read the Hobbit way back when.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 30, 2007)

One thing that bugs the crap out of me every time I watch LotR:  the scene where Frodo and Aragorn are stranded on the broken stairs and Aragorn tells Frodo to lean forward.  Right.  Because you can direct a bajillion-ton slab of teetering rock by standing in the right place.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 30, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> One thing that bugs the crap out of me every time I watch LotR: the scene where Frodo and Aragorn are stranded on the broken stairs and Aragorn tells Frodo to lean forward. Right. Because you can direct a bajillion-ton slab of teetering rock by standing in the right place.


 
Of course you can... I do it all the time. Hobbit tossing, you should try it. 

But wait that means you have no problem with falling for miles fighting a balrog and coming back as a better stronger Wizard..... or for that matter Wizards.... :uhyeah:


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 30, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Of course you can... I do it all the time. Hobbit tossing, you should try it.
> 
> But wait that means you have no problem with falling for miles fighting a balrog and coming back as a better stronger Wizard..... or for that matter Wizards.... :uhyeah:


 
Someone, I think it was Stephen King or Orson Scott Card, wrote an essay which said that most people will accept any premise for a story as long as the writer plays fair with the rules he has established.  If Jackson wanted to have Gandalf move the stone with magic, that would have been okay.  But to use bad physics is unforgivable.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 30, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Someone, I think it was Stephen King or Orson Scott Card, wrote an essay which said that most people will accept any premise for a story as long as the writer plays fair with the rules he has established. If Jackson wanted to have Gandalf move the stone with magic, that would have been okay. But to use bad physics is unforgivable.


I believe the premise was that most of the support for the stairs had broken away, and the slightest movement would cause it to tip.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 30, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Someone, I think it was Stephen King or Orson Scott Card, wrote an essay which said that most people will accept any premise for a story as long as the writer plays fair with the rules he has established. If Jackson wanted to have Gandalf move the stone with magic, that would have been okay. But to use bad physics is unforgivable.


 
"I canna change the laws of physics, Captain &#8212; but I can find ye a loophole." 

That's it, it was just a loophole... or possibly quantum physics... yeah that&#8217;s it quantum physics... or hobbit physics we all know how bad hobbit are with physics and orcs and trolls don't follow laws so I imagine the balrog doesn't either so the Laws of physics don't......... awww forget it... your right... it wouldn't work..... But the movie would have ended right there is Frodo fell to his death so they had to do something&#8230; but I have to admit the possibilities there are making me chuckle


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

Don't get me started on the films.  I like them a lot but there are so many things that bug me and they all stem from the writing of the screenplay and the writers seeming to just not get it at times.



JBrainard said:


> Huge fan of the books and movies (except that I HATED the love story inserted into the movies). Allways like Gandalf the best, ever since I first read the Hobbit way back when.


 
There are hints at the realtionship between Aragorn and Arwen in the books but they are very subtle (some scenes in Rivendell and one in Lothlorien).




CoryKS said:


> One thing that bugs the crap out of me every time I watch LotR: the scene where Frodo and Aragorn are stranded on the broken stairs and Aragorn tells Frodo to lean forward. Right. Because you can direct a bajillion-ton slab of teetering rock by standing in the right place.


 
The easiest way to have avoided the situation on ther broken stairs would have been to actually follow the book and not have it.  That being said and it being in the film, the biggest problem I have with the scene is that it presupposes that dwarves would build a stair that is very narrow and climbs out into nothingness rather than having it go down one of the walls of the chasm.

The Bridge of Kazad-dum was a necessary evil to cross an impediment, but the stairs were added just to add a little excitement which the writers of the screenplay could not find when reading the books.  Once again I think that they missed the point.  Moria is supposed to be forbidding and oppressive punctuated with episodes of stark terror.  It is not supposed to be a theme park adventure ride.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 30, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> The easiest way to have avoided the situation on ther broken stairs would have been to actually follow the book and not have it. That being said and it being in the film, the biggest problem I have with the scene is that it presupposes that dwarves would build a stair that is very narrow and climbs out into nothingness rather than having it go down one of the walls of the chasm.
> 
> The Bridge of Kazad-dum was a necessary evil to cross an impediment, but the stairs were added just to add a little excitement which the writers of the screenplay could not find when reading the books. Once again I think that they missed the point. Moria is supposed to be forbidding and oppressive punctuated with episodes of stark terror. It is not supposed to be a theme park adventure ride.


 
Yeah, my wife and I made a lot of jokes about the Dwarves needing an OSHA department.  At least carve a railing into the thing!  Oh, and thanks to a snarky website that I used to visit, I can no longer watch the Ents march off to war without thinking, "Run, Forest!  Run!"


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 30, 2007)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;651498 said:
			
		

> a random thought - have any of you heard of alatar and polando (sp?) the blue , they were sent to the men of rhun and khand in the south , but were never seen again i read this on a few website , they all said the same thing , not much info on them on google


 
I recently discovered a short book, entitled "The Further Adventures of Beowulf, Champion of Middle Earth"

The premise is that the Beowulf poem only encompasses two major episodes in the life of Beowulf: the battle with Grendel and Grendel's mother, when Beowulf was a young warrior, and the battle with the Dragon, ending in Beowulf's death, after a long life as king of his people.  The question is raised: what happens in the rest of Beowulf's life?  Surely such a heroic character had many more adventures in his life, but these were never captured in the poem.

So this book is a collection of short stories written by modern authors, sort of filling in the blanks.  Telling the tale of Beowulf's adventures between Grendel and the Dragon. 

I've only begun reading the book so I cannot yet say if I think it is any good.  But I certainly like the idea.

Maybe some modern authors could help fill in the blanks with the Blue Wizards, and even with Radagast, in the same way that they are doing with Beowulf.  If the right authors took a hand at it, I think it might be good.  Sort of a collective mythology, built upon Tolkien's work.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Yeah, my wife and I made a lot of jokes about the Dwarves needing an OSHA department. At least carve a railing into the thing! Oh, and thanks to a snarky website that I used to visit, I can no longer watch the Ents march off to war without thinking, "Run, Forest! Run!"


 
Its an interesting thing to think about.  The bridge is described as being quite narrow with no railings all for defence.  That's all well and good, but it is also the major entrance to Moria on the eastern side.  I don't think JRR thought too well about how the dwarves moved stuff through this entrance, even though he did mention that they traded with others.


To me LOTR is two stories that are runnning concurrently.  There is the major plotline, the destruction of the ring, but there is also the story of the return of the king.  There is a third very minor plot that I find very interesting.  It is the fall of the Witch-King.  This character we are introduced to early in the story and we are told how deadly and dangerous he is.  An important element in his demise is also introduced early in the story.  But because that element is so closely associated with Tom Bombadil it is often overlooked, and in the films excised.

Now that I think about things a bit more critically, there is one event that changed significantly from book to movie.  It is Frodo and Sam encountering Faramir.  In the film this is presented as yet another encounter with a Man who is overcome by the power of the Ring (in a much lesser sense than, say, with Boromir).  In the book this encounter is a respite from the trials and tribulations of days of wilderness travel in a land controlled by the Dark Lord.  In order to achieve this the character of Faramir had to be undermined and made less than it was supposed to be.

This encounter also throws into light a strange little quibble of mine.  Distance.  The rangers' hideout is supposed to be about a hobbit's days walk from the crossroads which, in turn, is about a Man's days walk from Osgiliath.  When Faramir takes the hobbits to Osgiliath they get there seemingly within a day with time for a fight and escape to somewhere deep in the woods all before nightfall.

Distances are very interesting in LOTR.  JRR once said that The Shire was about where Oxford is in England and that Minas Tirith is about where Venice is.  The Mouths of the Anduin being about where Troy is in Turkey.  That actually gives a very good idea of the scope of the LOTR, geographically, but it doesn't tally with the classic map all that well.  That is because the map was drawn by Christopher from descriptions given to him by his father and something was lost between mouth and paper.  

It is also the reason that the road on the map does not make the described swing to the south around the marshes to the east of Bree.  If you look at the map and compare it to the actions of the characters you wonder why they would go into the marsh to shorten their journey.  More recent maps have corrected these little flaws.

Well I have been rambling on quite a bit.  I get like that with LOTR.  There is just so much stuff in there that you can always find something new and interesting to think about and discuss.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 30, 2007)

Interesting idea there, *FC*.  

Like most here, I love the films and they are marvellous attempts at getting onto the screen what was long thought untellable but they do run fast and loose with certain things that get between the teeth of long time LOTR readers.  I try not to let it bother me in just the same manner as I choose not to see tanks from the wrong era's in war films et al .

*Xue* I'm not sure that I properly understand your comment above about Gandalf coming back 'from the dead' after his fall in Moria.  Do you mean that to accept that and not accept that a teetering column of rock can be steered by where you stand is to indulge in dual standards of imagination?  

After all, Gandalf being sent back to replace Saruman and complete the 'mission' of the Istari is a fairly central thread to the story, rather than an invention of the films.

EDIT: Oh and as to favourite characters, I've always said that I aspire to be Aragorn but am actually Boromir.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Maybe some modern authors could help fill in the blanks with the Blue Wizards, and even with Radagast, in the same way that they are doing with Beowulf. If the right authors took a hand at it, I think it might be good. Sort of a collective mythology, built upon Tolkien's work.


 
In his later life JRR started to completely reorganise the mythos and history of Middle-earth. He discussed some of these changes in notes and letters. Included was some information about the blue wizards who went into the east. Here is a little something culled mercilessly from the Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp

One of the five Wizards who came to the northwest of Middle-earth in the Third Age; he journeyed into the east with Pallando, and never returned to the western lands.
Alatar was one of the original three2 Wizards selected by the Valar for the journey from Valinor to Middle-earth (the other two being Curumo and Olórin - Saruman and Gandalf).
Alatar and Pallando arrived in Middle-earth dressed in sea-blue. For this reason, they were together given the name _Ithryn Luin_, the Blue Wizards. With Saruman, they journeyed into the far east of Middle-earth, but while Saruman returned to the west, Alatar and Pallando did not. Of their fate, we know almost nothing3.


_*Notes*_* 1The name Alatar can be interpreted (somewhat awkwardly) as 'after-comer'. If this is correct, it must be a reference to his being selected as the second Wizard, after Curumo (Saruman). It might equally have been given to him after his arrival in Middle-earth (he arrived after Saruman), but Tolkien specifically states that neither Alatar nor Pallando had a name in the known regions of Middle-earth - in this case, Alatar must be viewed not so much as a name, but rather as a simple description.*
*A curious, and probably spurious, alternative meaning is álat ar, 'noble giant'.*

*2The Valar originally intended to send just three Maiar as emissaries to Middle-earth. Aiwendil (Radagast) was added to this number by Yavanna, and Pallando was taken by Alatar 'as a friend'.*

*3Tolkien tells us 'What success they [Alatar and Pallando] had I do not know; but I fear they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were the founders or beginners of secret cults and 'magic' traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.' (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No. 211).*


Later on JRR suggested that their mission was similar to Gandalf's and that they may have achieved similar success. But this also involved name changes and such things.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

I also have an issue with the treatment of Denethor. He was changed from a wise man, who was burdened, flawed and deluded by Sauron, but still more of a pathetic (as in you had a bit of understanding and sympathy for him) character than despised. The move turned him into a pure villain.

And Gandalfs almost defeat to the witch king, the breaking staff, the panicked look...where did that come from?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2007)

Y'know...

They were movies.  I thought that they were pretty well done, all things considered.  (Though I, for one, wanted to see Tom Bombadil!)

But there was no way they were going to live up to the MiddleEarth of my imagination, reading, and dreams.  'Cause Peter Jackson, Ian McKellan, et al just ain't in my head!  What they saw when they read them wasn't the same as what I saw.

But the trilogy was a reasonable interpretation, acceptably faithful to the books.  (The DVD extended versions are more faithful.  I don't see how they could trim so much of the stay in Lothlorien from the theatrical release...)

I never expect a movie to hew directly to the book, with notable exceptions like *The Princess Bride* or *2001: A Space Oddysey* where the screenwriter and the novelist are one and the same.  And even then -- there were differences!  Heinlein's books have been butchered everytime someone turned them into films.  I can't recall who said it -- but I recall one novelist making a comment to the effect that having a book made into a movie was akin to watching a child be murdered in front of you.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

Oh yeah, thats all granted. Just a little venting is all.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I also have an issue with the treatment of Denethor. He was changed from a wise man, who was burdened, flawed and deluded by Sauron, but still more of a pathetic (as in you had a bit of understanding and sympathy for him) character than despised. The move turned him into a pure villain.
> 
> And Gandalfs almost defeat to the witch king, the breaking staff, the panicked look...where did that come from?


 
Yeah, I was disappointed with the portrayal of Denethor too.  The situation with Gandalf and the Witch King.  I don't know.  Maybe they were trying to present the whole siege situation as essentially hopeless.  To the point that even Gandalf was overwhelmed.  The thing is , earlier in the same film they had established a wizard's staff breaking as a symbol of the breaking of his power (Saruman at Orthanc).  Continuity problems again.





jks9199 said:


> But the trilogy was a reasonable interpretation, acceptably faithful to the books. (The DVD extended versions are more faithful. I don't see how they could trim so much of the stay in Lothlorien from the theatrical release...)


 
I can accept the trimming of certain scenes and the axeing of other all together.  What I found a little annoying was the fact that early on everyone seemed to know everything about every thing (like the Ring and Aragorn) even though these events took place over the course of 3000 years.  But in the second and third movies people seem unaware of who Aragorn is (perhaps Boromir was just special).

Then there is the time scale throughout the course of the book and the film.  The quest to destroy the Ring took about a year, with significant stops at Rivendell and Lothlorien.  These are implied in the films but so much of what went on is not even hinted at, especially in Lothlorien.




Blotan Hunka said:


> Oh yeah, thats all granted. Just a little venting is all.


 
Most assuredly just venting.  I have enjoyed the films many times now, but sometimes you just have to shout and gnash your teeth.  And speaking of venting - Elves at Helms Deep!!!!! Aargh!!!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 31, 2007)

I do have to admit that of all the things that were 'changed' for the movies the thing that breaks the suspension of disbelief the most is that confrontation between the Witch King of Angmar and Gandalf within the walls of the White City.

Even if you don't know anything about who Gandalf really is, I would imagine that scene would make no sense to you, given that you've already seen some of the extent of his power - kicking a Balrog's butt is no mean feat .

If you *do* know anything about the backstory of LOTR then seeing the Witchking breaking Gandalfs staff gives rise to a severe case of  "Yeah, right!".

However, I am mightily irked also by the twisting of Faramir and Denthor into being such lesser men than they are in the story 'proper'.  

I know that some of the dialogue hints at what has happened to Denethor but you'd really have to be a well read LOTR 'fan' to catch it - a single short scene showing him using a Palantir would've been enough to show the viewer that he wasn't just a malicious lunatic.

As for Faramir, the man widely regarded as being second only to Aragorn in the nobility of his Numenorian blood and the purity of his spirit ...

I have to confess that I find it hard to moan about the elaboration of the role of Arwen in the films tho', I know it's shallow of me but Liv Tyler as an Elf makes me weak at the knees :lol:.  Still, I would've loved to have seen the Ford scene as it appears in my imagination, with Glorfindel standing on the shore holding back the Nazgul by his sheer prescence and their rememberance of just how powerful he was.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I can accept the trimming of certain scenes and the axeing of other all together. What I found a little annoying was the fact that early on everyone seemed to know everything about every thing (like the Ring and Aragorn) even though these events took place over the course of 3000 years. But in the second and third movies people seem unaware of who Aragorn is (perhaps Boromir was just special).


 
I also have no problems with cutting scenes to reach time constraints and that can require a little tinkering with the story to make it all fit. I understand that. What I take issue with is the changing of characters "character"...Sam and Frodo being broken up by Gollum, Sam leaving Frodo, Faramirs charcater tampering, Denethor, Aragorn (the whole battle with the wolf riders/falling off the cliff/being saved by his horse crap...why leave out the Barrow downs and add in that non-existant crap?), Gandalf etc. The only reason to alter the basic character of these personas can only be hubris on the part of the writers or they were trying to make some sort of personal statement about human character. Save me your take on human behavior when you are making a movie based on a book. Stick to the authors concept, theres a reason people loved the book "as is".


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 31, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to confess that I find it hard to moan about the elaboration of the role of Arwen in the films tho', I know it's shallow of me but Liv Tyler as an Elf makes me weak at the knees :lol:. Still, I would've loved to have seen the Ford scene as it appears in my imagination, with Glorfindel standing on the shore holding back the Nazgul by his sheer prescence and their rememberance of just how powerful he was.


 
Yeah, Arwen wasnt as huge of a problem as I expected her to be. The change from mighty elf warrior to wilting elf-maid having daddy issues was needless IMO. And that whole amulet..Arwens fate is tied to the ring bit. That was needless and confusing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> In his later life JRR started to completely reorganise the mythos and history of Middle-earth. He discussed some of these changes in notes and letters. Included was some information about the blue wizards who went into the east. Here is a little something culled mercilessly from the Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp
> 
> One of the five Wizards who came to the northwest of Middle-earth in the Third Age; he journeyed into the east with Pallando, and never returned to the western lands.
> Alatar was one of the original three2 Wizards selected by the Valar for the journey from Valinor to Middle-earth (the other two being Curumo and Olórin - Saruman and Gandalf).
> ...


 
Yes, some of this is familiar, as I've waded about halfway thru the later volumes published by Christopher Tolkien.

Perhaps, if some modern authors could get access to all notes in existance about these characters, including any that might not have been published yet by Christopher, it would give them enough of a rough background and a base to work from, and maybe they could do justice to them.  It's probably never going to happen, but it's a thought.

On another note, JRR actually began writing a sequel to TLOR, but didn't get very far, maybe 30 pages or so.  I think it was set in the late years of Aragorn's rule, I believe as he was ageing.  The rough draft of this work is contained in one of the later volumes published by Christopher, I think the title of the volume is "Peoples of Middle-Earth," or something like that.  It's probably volume 12 or so.  I haven't read it yet, but it's interesting to know that there is more out there...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, some of this is familiar, as I've waded about halfway thru the later volumes published by Christopher Tolkien.
> 
> Perhaps, if some modern authors could get access to all notes in existance about these characters, including any that might not have been published yet by Christopher, it would give them enough of a rough background and a base to work from, and maybe they could do justice to them. It's probably never going to happen, but it's a thought.
> 
> On another note, JRR actually began writing a sequel to TLOR, but didn't get very far, maybe 30 pages or so. I think it was set in the late years of Aragorn's rule, I believe as he was ageing. The rough draft of this work is contained in one of the later volumes published by Christopher, I think the title of the volume is "Peoples of Middle-Earth," or something like that. It's probably volume 12 or so. I haven't read it yet, but it's interesting to know that there is more out there...


 
You can find bits of it in the appendix of some issues of LOTR. Talks about Aragorns death and Arwen leaving for the abandoned realm of Lothlorien to await death. Which, even though she would age and die, was supposed to have been at a far slower pace than a norman human. Although elves were stated to be able to die of grief so maybe thats what he implied.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> You can find bits of it in the appendix of some issues of LOTR. Talks about Aragorns death and Arwen leaving for the abandoned realm of Lothlorien to await death. Which, even though she would age and die, was supposed to have been at a far slower pace than a norman human. Although elves were stated to be able to die of grief so maybe thats what he implied.


 
Yes, I recall what you are referring to, but this is not what the new story was.  I think the Appendix was written at the same time the LOR was written, and was simply meant to sort of round out the end of the story and tell a little more of what happens later.  

The new story I am referring to was written in the style of a brand new novel, with new characters and new villians and whatnot.  It was written quite a bit later than the LOR.  I think there is a reference to one character, he was the young child who befriends Pippin at Minas Tirith, while Pippin was stationed there in service to Denethor.  This child was the son of one of the city soldiers, but I don't remember their names.  At any rate, I believe in the new story, this child is an old man.  It had dialog and everything, it just didn't go very far before JRR stopped working on it.

Too bad he never finished it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, I recall what you are referring to, but this is not what the new story was. I think the Appendix was written at the same time the LOR was written, and was simply meant to sort of round out the end of the story and tell a little more of what happens later.
> 
> The new story I am referring to was written in the style of a brand new novel, with new characters and new villians and whatnot. It was written quite a bit later than the LOR. I think there is a reference to one character, he was the young child who befriends Pippin at Minas Tirith, while Pippin was stationed there in service to Denethor. This child was the son of one of the city soldiers, but I don't remember their names. At any rate, I believe in the new story, this child is an old man. It had dialog and everything, it just didn't go very far before JRR stopped working on it.
> 
> Too bad he never finished it.


 
Would have been nice. I dont think anybody but JRRT could pick it up now and do it justice though.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Would have been nice. I dont think anybody but JRRT could pick it up now and do it justice though.


 
oh, most definitely.  It was very much in it's beginning stages.  I don't know what it's like to write something like this, but it seems to me that even if he had a fully fleshed outline set up, it would be tough for any other author to pick it up and get even close to what JRR had in mind.  I think it's pretty difficult to re-create another author's creative intentions and stuff.  Keep in mind, it took some 15-20 years or so for him to write the LOR.  He just worked very slowly, took a long time to figure out what the story was even about, who the characters would be, etc.  His publisher kept telling him that his fans wanted a sequel to The Hobbit, so he started working on it, thinking it would be quite short, but it just kept growing and it took a long long time.  Compare that to modern authors who often bang out a new novel every few months or so.  It's just a very different approach.  Tolkien would write a bunch, then change his mind and re-write it, and then do that several more times.  Very slow process.  I suspect it would have been the same with the new work, so who knows what he even had in mind?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> On another note, JRR actually began writing a sequel to TLOR, but didn't get very far, maybe 30 pages or so. I think it was set in the late years of Aragorn's rule, I believe as he was ageing. The rough draft of this work is contained in one of the later volumes published by Christopher, I think the title of the volume is "Peoples of Middle-Earth," or something like that. It's probably volume 12 or so. I haven't read it yet, but it's interesting to know that there is more out there...


 
I believe he was considering the rise of some new dark threat during the reign of Eldarion.  From what I understand it was rather like what had already come and that is why he abandoned it.  Of course, he might have gone back to the idea with something new, but the problem was he was a perfectionist of the first order and couldn't help tinkering and refining everything.

By the way "Peoples of Middle-earth"  (volume 12) is a very good read with lots of interestinginformation on the different races of Middle-earth.


----------



## zDom (Oct 31, 2007)

I always wanted to do a book on the Blue Wizards but... well, that's a lot of work only to be shot down by the JRRT Estate, not to mention the criticism I'm sure I would face by OTHER JRRT fans.

(How many JRRT wanna-be's does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A million: 1 to install the lightbulb and 999,999 to say they could have done it better...)

But at least I would stick to "the facts" as we know them instead of taking HUGE liberties with the story as Jackson did. 

I agree that Jackson made all sorts of changes that simply weren't needed and definately were NOT improvement's on JRRT's story.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I believe he was considering the rise of some new dark threat during the reign of Eldarion. From what I understand it was rather like what had already come and that is why he abandoned it. Of course, he might have gone back to the idea with something new, but the problem was he was a perfectionist of the first order and couldn't help tinkering and refining everything.


 
I think you've hit it on the mark.



> By the way "Peoples of Middle-earth" (volume 12) is a very good read with lots of interestinginformation on the different races of Middle-earth.


 
I can't believe I actually got the title and volume number correct.

I've been slowly getting thru the volumes, but I stalled out a few years ago, around volume 8 or something.  Much if it is pretty tedious to slog thru.  Maybe I'll skip ahead to volume 12, if its more interesting reading...


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 2, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Huge fan of the books and movies (except that I HATED the love story inserted into the movies). Allways like Gandalf the best, ever since I first read the Hobbit way back when.



I agree!  I thought the love story was a waste of time.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 2, 2007)

Hollywood being what is it, I'm surprised the studio didn't demand an affair between Arwen and Legolas. You know, to provide more drama...


----------



## Aikikitty (Nov 2, 2007)

Ack! How did I not see this thread until now?!?

I LOVE Lord of the Rings--the books and the movies. From both the books and the movies, my favorite characters have always been Frodo, Sam, and Legolas. But basically I like all the good guys/girls. 

Robyn


----------

