Where will TT end? and other editing issues [Archive]

IronParrot

12-02-2001, 11:54 PM

It's already been said that TT and ROTK will be edited so that the events happen roughly sequentially.

But then when will TT end? I find that the ending in the novel is the perfect cliffhanger conclusion to that volume. However, by the time Frodo and Sam even get to Shelob, the Pelennor is already under siege, and Faramir is already there; furthermore, the Grey Company has already taken the Paths of the Dead.

Possibilities:

1) The bridging between TT and ROTK will not necessarily be done sequentially. (I mean, juggling the dates here and there... who'll notice but us...) In this case, TT would probably end just after Shelob wounds Frodo and the latter is captured, as in the book, though ROTK does not progress so far along the timeline.

2) TT will end with the conquest of Isengard, the death of Saruman on the spiked wheel and the recovery of the Palantir. On the whole, highly unlikely, since it means that TT ends before Frodo and Sam even meet Faramir, and we'd see almost nothing of the Frodo-Sam-Gollum storyline.

3) "Eh, screw the timeline!" Would work with a bit of juggling, though the amount of time it takes Faramir to get from Henneth Annun to the Pelennor will be questionable, since it's really the "bridge" between Books IV and V as far as timing goes.

Issues to consider:

- Fellowship is three hours long. This is already taking into account the cutting of most of the journey from Hobbiton to Bree, which is partially offset by the actual portrayal of a confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman. The question: can we expect TT or ROTK to be about the same length?

- The Scouring of the Shire is being cut. That's a big chunk out of ROTK, which is already pretty short. The question: will ROTK be too short? Consider that the journey of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli will probably be given much greater coverage than in the books, similar to the Gandalf-Saruman conflict in Fellowship.

Again, it's an issue of balance. It would be rather awkward if TT covered both timelines all the way to Shelob, which would mean including the Muster of Rohan and the beginning of the siege of Minas Tirith, and leave ROTK only an hour and a half in length in comparison to Fellowship's three.

potyondi

12-03-2001, 02:09 AM

Frankly, I never even noticed where TT ended since all my copies of LoTR have been all 3 books in one volume.

Rogue

12-03-2001, 11:23 AM

My guess would be that they end it with Frodo being captured after being wouded by Shelob and Sam giving chase, just like in the book.
That will end it in a cliffhanger and keep audiences salivating for ROTK. I doubt it will end with the victory at Isengard. I think Peter Jackson is going for an 'Empire Strikes Back' effect for the first two movies. (Which is funny, since Lucas borrowed heavily from Lord of the Rings, right down to the cliffhangers).

Darth Tater

12-03-2001, 12:57 PM

A number of reports I've read say that Scouring is in, just different.

Though Fellowship is the longest book, ROTK has tons of huge battles, which would play out much longer on film. TT's ending is perfect, and I can't see them throwing that away. I wouldn't be surprised if the timing is shifted a bit, but if we stick with Frodo and Sam from the time Gollum leaves them.

Captain Stern

12-03-2001, 04:36 PM

So the scouring of the Shire won't be in 'The Return of the King' at all?

Well that's just great :mad:

Comic Book Guy

12-03-2001, 05:01 PM

From what I've read, the scouring will be in but changed slightly. Ever though Bill Ferny could be responsable for the scouring? As for the ending of the Two Towers, a good ending would be Samwise leaving Frodo for dead and walking into Mordor.

IronParrot

12-04-2001, 12:09 AM

But the real question is - if TT ends with Frodo being wounded and taken, and Sam in possession of the Ring... how much of the Aragorn/Gandalf/everybody else half of the story will be shown? Will it just go up to the recovery of the Palantir, as in the end of Book III?

Kyote Fields

12-04-2001, 02:09 PM

What's the deal with Saruman dying on a spike!!! Is this just another rumor or is there more meat behind this one?:confused:

Rogue

12-04-2001, 02:24 PM

I am wondering the same thing about Saruman. Perhaps the made him perish on a spike because showing him getting his throat slit would be too graphic for a PG-13 film.
By impaling him on a spike, it is much easier to use fancy editing to imply what happened to him without having to show the gory details on the screen.

This is all speculation of mine. I don't know if they changed his manner of death for other reasons.

Play Girl

12-04-2001, 02:40 PM

It had better end with Sam relising his master is still alive and taken by the enamy.
There wont be a dry eye in the house.
Or there better not be.
Play Girl
xxx

PS I have decided that the merit of the movie TT must go on two things. I must be terrified of that spider and I must cry at the end. I nearly cried at the books for goodness sake if the movie dosen't stire me someones legs'll get broken!

arynetrek

12-11-2001, 12:43 AM

NEARLY?

(if i remembered where i posted my after-the-Shelob rant i'd link to it - somewhere in the LotR books forum)

aryne *

Pailan

12-28-2001, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by IronParrot
It's already been said that TT and ROTK will be edited so that the events happen roughly sequentially.

But then when will TT end? I find that the ending in the novel is the perfect cliffhanger conclusion to that volume. However, by the time Frodo and Sam even get to Shelob, the Pelennor is already under siege, and Faramir is already there; furthermore, the Grey Company has already taken the Paths of the Dead.

Possibilities:

1) The bridging between TT and ROTK will not necessarily be done sequentially. (I mean, juggling the dates here and there... who'll notice but us...) In this case, TT would probably end just after Shelob wounds Frodo and the latter is captured, as in the book, though ROTK does not progress so far along the timeline.

2) TT will end with the conquest of Isengard, the death of Saruman on the spiked wheel and the recovery of the Palantir. On the whole, highly unlikely, since it means that TT ends before Frodo and Sam even meet Faramir, and we'd see almost nothing of the Frodo-Sam-Gollum storyline.

3) "Eh, screw the timeline!" Would work with a bit of juggling, though the amount of time it takes Faramir to get from Henneth Annun to the Pelennor will be questionable, since it's really the "bridge" between Books IV and V as far as timing goes.

IMHO I think it is possible to overthrow Isengard and not kill Saruman until RotK. There is a return trip from the victory and perhaps he falls from Orthanc then.

While I agree with you on the books perfect ending, perhaps P.J. will use Aragon's trip via the Paths of the Dead as the connecting tissue. I suspect that maybe the Faramir angle will be down played and the efforts of the scattered Fellowship will be amplified. In particular Merry's adventure with the Riders of Rohan I suspect will be given more screen time.

So to sum up I suspect TT will probably play with the time line quite a bit . I predict the last scene we will see is Sam putting on the ring and.....

Pailan

Billadillo

12-28-2001, 05:49 PM

Okay? What's all this about Saruman falling on a spike? :confused:

Somebody pleeeease explain, for I have heard nothing of this! :confused:

I really hope they don't change it...I loved that Saruman still had enough cunning to sneak away from the Ents and cause trouble.

What are they going to do, have Wormtongue push him out a window? Oh gawd...I hope not. Is Wormtongue even going to be in the movie? Or is Arwen going to show up and beat him up?

Somebody please say it ain't so! :(

bropous

12-31-2001, 12:27 PM

Okay, I know we're all engaging in rife speculation here, but this "Saruman on a spike" kinda riles me. I surely hope that Saruman meets his end in the Shire at the hands of Grima Wormtongue.

As to how Mr. Jackson will end The Two Towers, I am with a few of my fellow hobbits here. The end of the book is a perfect natural stopping place. Sam realizes Frodo is alive, trapped in the tower of Cirith Ungol, and Gandalf riding from Isengard with the mischevous Pippin in tow. Talk about a tear-jerker, Sam crying in the dark, his master in the hands of the Orcs of the White Tower!

Miriel Stormrider

12-31-2001, 07:26 PM

WHAT IS WITH SARUMAN AND SPIKES??????????????????

Will someone please explain these disturbing rumors?
Does this supposedly happen in the Shire or does Saruman never make it to the Shire, dying at Orthanc?
I will be rather upset if they messed with the scene a lot, it is so powerful the way Saruman has that last opportunity at redemption and throws it away, immediately meeting a just, but awful, end.

bropous

01-01-2002, 01:32 PM

Miriel, excellent point. Saruman's throwing away his second chance to redeem himself, and his observaion of how Frodo has grown, standing at the door of the ruined Bag End, is really telling. However, one thing struck me about this: How did Saruman know Frodo in the first instance to rate his growth in the second? Just curious if you other folks could shed some insight on this.

Pailan

01-11-2002, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Miriel Stormrider
WHAT IS WITH SARUMAN AND SPIKES??????????????????

Will someone please explain these disturbing rumors?

(haven't been to this thread in a while)

To answer something of your question about Saruman, it seems one of the movie spy sites turned up a photograph with Saruman impaled on spiked wheel thingy. Rumors have abounded since then that Saruman would meet his fate far differently than described in the book. The actor, Christopher Lee, has said since then that he will appear in all three movies. But was silent about the fate that will befall his character.

Hope this helps some.

KGamgee

01-12-2002, 07:34 PM

My advice:
STICK WITH THE BOOK.

bropous

01-13-2002, 01:17 AM

True, KGamgee, Saruman should meet his end exactly as he did in the book. However, given the highly controversial changes to the scene at the Ford of Bruinen, we might be a tad worried that Mr. Jackson will take a bit of "artistic license" with the Scouring of the Shire and "sharkey's End" as well. Hope to the Valar that he does not.

luinilwen

01-13-2002, 03:05 AM

i guess all i can really assume is that PJ will try to end the movie with some length of closure, as well as providing a cliff hanger as he did with FOTR. i should think that PJ will probably stick somewhat to the endings in book III and IV as they adhere to my afore mentioned criteria.

as for what play girl said, i cried reading the book, even though i know the rest of the story, but i also got teary when faramir made his little speech, and i'm praying that he is portrayed accordingly in the movie.

bropous

01-13-2002, 03:10 AM

Welcome to the Moot, liunilwen!

Which speech of Faramir's are you alluding to in your post? And I don't quite think very many speeches any of the characters in the books make will get in the Jackson films, using Fellowship as a guide...

luinilwen

01-13-2002, 03:55 AM

thankyou for the kind welcome, bropous. unfortunately, living in australia tends to mean i come to chat when everyone on the other side of the world is asleep.

`For myself,' said Faramir, 'I would see the White Tree in flower again courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."

god if only the rulers of today had an OUNCE of that wisdom...

bropous

01-13-2002, 01:12 PM

"god if only the rulers of today had an OUNCE of that wisdom..."

So also had Tolkien felt about the "rulers" of his day, luinilwen!

luinilwen

01-13-2002, 09:33 PM

well no doubt considering WWI and WWII and how they affected JRRT's life and writings. sad how we can make connections between the world wars and ... *shudder* george bush's escapades. i hate that man (sorry if you're a patriotic american, btw) maybe not sad, scary, rather. :(

bropous

01-13-2002, 10:06 PM

luinilwen, in the interest of us not discussing things we know nothing about, lay off My President, and I'll not slam your Prime Minister. Deal? Otherwise, I'll be forced to launch into a full-scale fusilade in support of the man, which I am sure you are not interested in, equal to my total and unmitigated disinterest in your opinion of Bush.

Besides, this ain't a place for discussion of neither current politics NOR religion. Comprendez-vous? This is a place for the discussion of Tolkien.

Keep your opinions of Mr. Bush to yourself. They have NO place in this discussion. If you want to rant, I may suggest the undernet.org IRC channel, #politics. Deal?

Back to the friendly debates on TOLKIEN, cobber....

luinilwen

01-13-2002, 10:11 PM

sure, i'm sorry if i offended you, bropous. opinion witheld (however fire away at johnny howard, i don't like him either :p)

bropous

01-13-2002, 10:28 PM

Momentary offense permanently forgotten, luinilwen!

Gerbil

01-13-2002, 10:40 PM

EEK! Bropous bites :)

That was a bit harsh methinks, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if this isn't the place to air it!

Would Mr Bropous be american by any chance? ;)

bropous

01-14-2002, 12:22 AM

yup, biting bropous is proud red-blooded american, and I have apologized most sincerely to the intelligent and gracious liunilwen for my inapproriate snaps... and she has kindly accepted...

;)

You're right, we ALL gots a right to our opinions, me friends... *slapping self silly*

Pailan

01-25-2002, 08:59 AM

I wasn't sure if this deserves it's own thread or not but I came across this bit of news from Imladris.net:
"New Line, Tuckerman said, is planning 'at some point in time to add (additional footage at the end of Rings that) will be a lot longer than a trailer, but I don't know how much longer. We're going to give (moviegoers) a preview of (the second episode of Rings). We're going to change the last reel out and do a preview of Two at the end of the last reel. (People) are screaming for it.'''

No doubt about it I will have to go see it again and wait through the credits. Then this thread can really take off!

jerseydevil

01-25-2002, 11:25 AM

I personally think that Jackson has to end TT with the Lair of Shelob. Anything less would be completely unacceptable IMO.

Also Rogue's post on the Saruman's death, he had posted his message on 12/4/01 (before FOTR came out) - I guess we can all (after seeing FOTR) emiminate the fact that Saruman's death would be changed because of too much gore for a PG-13 movie. If in FOTR there can be arms cut off and decapitations - then I think one feeble washed-up wizard can get his throat slashed.

Evenstar

01-28-2002, 06:41 AM

If the TT ends after Frodo gets Stung and Sam thinks that he is dead...then that would be a great cliffhanger...it would certainly shock a bunch of people!!! I like where it ends in the book...I think that it would be a great way to end it...but seeing as though Boromir died in the second book and not the first...I think that they might end it differently... :(
I really hope that they have the Scouring of the Shire in the RotK!!! I know that it is probably wishful thinking but hey, do you not remember my post in the Elijah..a bit of a wierdo thread!!!:o :D
Finally...the whole preview at the Oscars (if I read that right) YEAH BABY!!!:D

Pailan

01-28-2002, 08:22 AM

I think, Evenstar, that what will be happening is that *IF* FotR recieves any Oscar nominatons, *then* New Line will add a lengthy preview of TTT to the theatrical release. So if we want to see it we will have to plunk down more cash to see the movie again. Chances are that we may be able to down load from the net this trailer or a similar version some time in the future. I hope this clears up any misconceptions from my previous post

bropous

02-01-2002, 03:05 PM

I saw a great shot of the meeting of Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn with Eomer and the Rohirrim. Spear blades look great, the Rohirrim look bloody fierce. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing that! Also, there was a small blurb which stated TTT will be bloodier, which ain't really surprising with the Battle of Helms Deep and the attack of the Rohirrim on the orcs of the White Hand and Red Eye [and Misty Mountain goblins] when Merry and Piipn get away.

Included as well was Sean Astin talking about the Dead MArshes, saying how dead bodies in the water with lights were trying to call Frodo to come and join them. At least that part will be close to the books. Apparently, though, Denethor makes an appearance, so mayhaps the film ends, aside from the Frodo/Sam angle, with the arrival of Gandalf the White and Pippin in Minas Tirith. However, this means the battle scenes fo the Pelennor and the Morannon will be rather protracted in Return of the King, I think, and while all this news is good to me, I know some folks thought Fellowship was too violent.

Any ideas when this new "reel change-out" is to occur? I will certainly go see Fellowship for time #7 to see previews.

Pailan

02-05-2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by bropous

Any ideas when this new "reel change-out" is to occur? I will certainly go see Fellowship for time #7 to see previews.

As far as I know the trailer is supposed to be added after the nominations for the Academy Awards are announced. So maybe after Feb. 24? My guess is that if FotR receives a boat load of nods and wins big, it will be re-released to more theaters as happens often to winners at the oscars. I also suspect that the trailer will be made available on the net soon after the awards. But these are guesses based on limited info.

Hapira_Brandybuck

02-05-2002, 04:40 PM

I agree with the fact that the book ening would be a good ending for the movie although, when FotR ended someone sitting near me said "That is the stupidest ending ever" I couldn't help but say "Nah, it ain't over, dude, just gotta read the books or wait til next year"

as for the sarumann shishkabob thing, I don't really care how he dies, as long as it's by the hands of Wormtongue (and it sure as all heck better not be Frod or Gandalf.... Frodo would just be wrong and Gandalf would be too predictable)

as for the preview thing, thatwould be really cool. I halfway expected there to be one but was sadly disapointed and if I saw that, it would be viewing number 4 .... the most I've ever seen a movie in theaters.

where did you see that pic, Bropous? I wanna see! and I'm sure I'm not the only one

bropous

02-06-2002, 07:51 PM

I don't quite remember where I saw that particular pic, Hapira, but check out this site which has stills from the upcoming two movies:

www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots/

Looks like Fellowship MAY be up for a couple Oscars after all....one can only hope.

Laurelyn

02-10-2002, 02:18 PM

Alright, so I have to go see FotR again after the 24 . . . :D
I'm really hoping that they stick to the books . . . End TTT with that infamous cliffhanger, and leave in the Scouring of the Shire. If not, well . . . Where's the "annoyed fan mail" box for New Line Cinema?
Actually, I think that it'll be great anyways, but I'd like it a lot if they stick to the books.

http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_ttt.cfm
That is where the Rolling Spiked Wheelie Dealie (Saruman Shishkabob) info is from.
Although, I hope that it's a false rumour.

eowyn144

02-13-2002, 02:48 PM

i think they should end ttt with sam thinking frodo is dead and then going off alone 2 mordor. they shouldn`t let on that frodo is alive just yet. that would really make every1 cry and people who hadn`t read the books (nuttas the lot of them) would be forced to read them to find out if he lives.
i`m going to cry neway though.

also, is the bit where pippin falls in battle in ttt?in the book i was in tears cos i thought he was dead. that would make evry1 cry in the film

Gerbil

02-13-2002, 03:24 PM

The Saruman impaled thing I'm 99% convinced is genuine now.
Sadly.
If it is, what it means they'll do to the scouring of the shire I don't know :(

And as for Pippin dying? Heh, I won't cry - I always thought he was annoying in the books and more so in the film!

jerseydevil

02-13-2002, 04:11 PM

Hey - Pippin was my favorite character in the book. He was just innocent and thought the world was just like the shire. It just reminds me of taking friends from outside the area to NY and seeing them stare in awe at the buidings. Of course MINUS one now!!!!!:mad:

But if Pippin were to die in the movie - it couldn't happen soon enough. I'd probably clap. Couldn't they have gotten some one younger to play Pippin and Merry - I still don't see how they have afternoon shadows when hobbits don't have facial hair. Instead of being young and innocent - I think of them as adults that act like 2 year olds and it really gets on my nerves.

I really don't think the Scouring of the Shire is going to be in there. After seeing FOTR - I know it won't be the way it is in the book (basically sympolism about the destruction of the environment by industry). I think LOTR is just going to end with the Ring being destroyed in Mt Doom, Aragorn being crowned and then the hobbits going back to the Shire and then the closing scene of the Grey Havens. It's going to be quick and sweet and probably take 15 - 20 minutes of the movie. Jackson pretty much took out the subplots from FOTR and the ones he added were standard cliched Hollywood ones, ie, Arargorn winning the battle for Arwen's hand.

Gerbil

02-13-2002, 05:08 PM

(basically sympolism about the destruction of the environment by industry).
Errr...... methinks you are reading something into LotR that isn't there. Dunno how many times Tolkien said so, but LotR is not a reference to anything - I'm sure if I'd suggested LotR basically symbolises Christianity you'd have picked me up on one :)

As for Pippin and Merry, yes in the film they are indeed a bunch of dicks :(

jerseydevil

02-13-2002, 05:22 PM

I know that he claims not to have any symbolism - a lot of authors do say that. But if you read the Scouring of the Shire about the pollution being belched out by the new mill, the sludge being dumped into the river and the trees being cut down and then think about what was going on in England or the US during that time frame - I think there is more than a coincidence.

All authors base things on life and take things from real life around them - either conciously or subconsiously. There were no "fantasy" bad guys doing anything in the Scouring of the Shire like orcs - it was pretty much about the destruction of the environment and of the implementation of a dictatorship.

A lot of times authors say their books don't contain any hidden meanings because they don't want to turn people away from reading them. But - if a person reads it - they still may think about what he/she is trying to get across.

Oh and I've always thought that the beginning of the Silmarillion was very much like the angels and the beginning of the world that Catholics believe. And that the Tol-Eressea was like Atlantis.

Gerbil

02-13-2002, 05:28 PM

Well of course the scouring of the shire is about the shire's natural beauty being destroyed by man. That's what Tolkien wrote.

But what you've done is taken it out of context and applied it to your own interpretation.

I mean, we could look at Orthanc in the same light, and like the shire it is ultimately turned back into a funky place. You can probably assume that Mordor ends up being a nicer place after a few hundred years too.

What he writes is self-evident. What it means in the larger scale of things is nothing.

EG if I write a book where hell is underground, then that's because I choose it so, probably because of Christianity being part of my subconscious although I'm not a Christian. However, then reading into my story that I'm writing about Christianity would be incorrect.

jerseydevil

02-13-2002, 05:40 PM

All I'm saying - whether Tolkien meant it or not - was that the Scouring of the Shire was the destruction of the environment, not the pillaging and enslaving of Hobbiton by rampaging orcs that Jackson had at the Mirror of Galadriel scene. Of course Galadriel in the movie says that that is what may come to pass if they should fail.

I just think the Scouring of the Shire is out. And if Jackson planned on changing it into another "club over the head" action scene - then I don't really want it in there anyway.

And just because Tolkien may have said that the books don't contain any symbolism - doesn't mean he was telling the truth. No one knows what an authur was thinking when they wrote a book. In all the English classes where I had to analyse the meaning of books - I never understood how people got half the stuff the teachers claimed things stood for. I was always asking - "How do you know? Did the author say this meant this?"

niggle

02-13-2002, 08:33 PM

Symbolism generally means that something in a book "stands for" or represents something else. String a lot of symbols together and you get an allegory (a great example of that is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell where virtually every animal stands for a character out of early soviet history and every event for an event in the development of the soviet communist state). Tolkien emphatically said that he disliked allegory and symbolism. He also said that many people confused allegory with applicability. The Scouring of the Shire is not meant to represent the state of England at the time the Lord of the Rings was being written (late 30's to late 40's) or at the time it was published (1954). It just happens that certain aspects of what was happening in England during Tolkiens lifetime were similar to what happened in the Shire under the influence of Saruman. Tolkien tried very hard to make his 'sub-created' world autonomous and consistent with itself. If the world of middle earth depended for its effect on our recognising say Mordor as Soviet Russia or Orthanc as Nazi Germany (and both of those identifications were suggested to Tolkien and denied by him) then Tolkien's creation would not be so unique and extraordinary.

jerseydevil

02-13-2002, 09:14 PM

I know - and another great allegorical book is Watership Down. Rabbits representing England, US and Soviet Union.

Since Tolkien is dead - we only have what he had said before. But I disagree that his writing was created in a vacuum. I think he did take things and experiences around him, whether he meant to or not. Possibly even taking things that he felt strongly about that were happening around him and fit them into the book. There can be an association without the reader having to know it in order to get the message.

I also don't think that enjoying any book requires you to "read between the lines". A lot of people enjoy the Wizard of Oz and that is allegorical. But I don't think that LOTR is allegorical - but I do think that Tolkien did have things in there that he personally was experiencing and felt strongly about .

LuthienTinuviel

02-13-2002, 09:54 PM

i don't like books that i have to read between the lines for..

i read for enjoyment

these books are the only things ive read in the past year

:D

niggle

02-14-2002, 01:13 AM

I think we probably agree, Jerseydevil. Books are neither written nor read in isolation. I have just read one of Tolkien's letters where he says that the Glittering Caves were inspired by the Chedder Gorge which he visited on his honeymoon. I myself, despite the recent film, still associate LOTR with the countryside in England where I grew up. However I'm not entitled to claim that Tolkien was writing about the Hertfordshire/Essex border region where I grew up, and Tolkien would have denied that he was writing "about" the Cheddar Gorge. The feelings that Tolkien had about the destruction of the English landscape undoubtedly informed the descriptions of the spoliation of the Shire - that's why I find it a powerful piece of writing.

Starr Polish

02-14-2002, 01:17 AM

Well, as a writer (well, I call myself that), I most definately am 'inspired' by what I've seen and heard. There is no possible way you can't be. I'm not saying it's impossible to pull something out of the air and describe it, or write about a character that is unlike anyone you know, but a majority of writing is inspired by what the author has experienced.

I also think that a good writer has to have SOME sort of acting abilitity or psychological knowledge to be able to get into a character's head, especially one unlike yourself. But, bah, I think everything involves acting.