The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson

[Black Breathalizer]

I recently read that RottenTomatos.com has names TTT as the best reviewed film of 2002. I think it's interesting how the film version is receiving a level of critical respectability that the book version never received.

Film critics have gushed over Peter Jackson's telling of Tolkien's tale while many of the so-called respected literary critics in the 50s and 60s did not give the author the same treatment. In fact, Tolkien's work was ridiculed in many academic circles. It wasn't until after his death that some in the academic community grudgingly began giving Tolkien his due. But even now, some critics like to make fun of his writing style. More than anything, it was the devotion of its fans -- not the literary elite -- that made LOTR the "book of the century."

It may well be that the high quality of the films will actually help literary critics to better understand and appreciate the books. Who woulda thunk THAT back in 2001?

What do you think?

[Millane]

hehehehehe Thunk!!!
meh facts speak better than critics (who can trust people that thunk hehehe that highly of titanic) and it is only behind the bible as most read book of 20th century (in australia it beat the bible)

ohhh Thunk thats nice

[sun-star]

It may well be that the high quality of the films will actually help literary critics to better understand and appreciate the books.

Depends what the critics' objections to Tolkien are. As far as I can see, they dislike what one might call its mythical nature, the language in particular. It is also very popular and therefore, in their eyes, unworthy of serious literary analysis. Thirdly, the stereotypical fan puts them off - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about ;). So since the film doesn't really change any of those things, I doubt it will change their attitudes. If anything, LOTR becoming more popular among the general reading public will make it less popular among critics. It's certainly a pity, but who cares if critics like LOTR anyway? The high quality of the films has helped ordinary people (like me) understand and appreciate the books more, and that's more important, IMO :).

[Lizra]

I don't get that! (first post) I don't read reviews, (being "full of myself" and not caring what others think! ;) ) I would think a BIG part of the reason the movie is getting good reviews, is because the story is so fantastic. I'd bet many of the film critics haven't read the books! The books might not have recieved good reviews years ago because the "style" wasn't popular at that time. All this stuff (published reviews and opinons) is very "manufactured "and "trendy". The film was very well done, and should get good reviews.....but the books are the shining star, and basis for all good things. (In my opinion! :) )

[Wayfarer]

That simply shows how untrustworthy critics are.

[Black Breathalizer]

I think literary critics got hung up on technical aspects of Tolkien's writing and, as a result, focused on individual faults instead of appreciating the beauty of the whole piece.

Come to think about it, you could say the same thing about Jackson's critics.

[#1GaMGeeGuRL]

I read somewhere that back then it was a big 'cult' thing. In Tolkien's time period the fact that it was highly accepty by cults gave the works a certain stigma.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I am a huge fan of both the books and the movies. I think the movies have definately enhanced the story itself. Yes, there are changes, and some of them major and debatable. But I think they have just made the books even better.

I am relatively well educated regarding Tolkien's works. I have studied them a good deal. Still, for me, the movies have enhanced my vision of Middle Earth greatly. They introduced small details that the reader fails to envision during the reading process. I am re-reading LOTR right now, and it has not diminished the movies in my eyes at all...quite the opposite, actually.

[Black Breathalizer]

Balrog_of_Morgoth is my new hero! Well said.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

A Balrog, a Hero? :confused: Ah, the world these days... :(

I firmly consider the books to be better than the movies, and I don't think I will ever stop considering them to be better. Of course, I love the movies, but I don't think they're better than the books.

P.S. BB, I've noticed that recently you've been coming off as much nicer (at least to me), and I want to thank you for it. :)

[Huan]

Critical reception of the movies will not change critical reception of the book, because as far as critics are concerned, these are aples and oranges. Sure, the film critics liked it, will say the book critics, because film is an inherently inferior medium, and LOTR stands out among the subhuman sludge that is film. But LOTR is a book, and it is a fantasy and therefore unworthy of any critical consideration whatsoever. Trust me, I'm in grad school, and I've actually heard these sentiments expressed in class. And furthermore, nothing can change critical reception, because literary critics find the official opinion and stick to it like friggin' velcro.
(I'm a little disaffected with academics and literary critics at the moment, can you tell? :) )

[Entlover]

Phooey.
Those who can, write.
Those who can't, criticize.

[Coney]

IMO the only critic that really counts is Christopher Tolkien himself........but he has been oddly quiet...

The "commercial" critics (i.e. those who sell their opinions) are just another part of the huge Hollywood self-promotion/debasing machine......I've even read a couple of pieces that start with "Although I haven't read LotR...":rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I firmly consider the books to be better than the movies, and I don't think I will ever stop considering them to be better. Of course, I love the movies, but I don't think they're better than the books.The issue isn't which is better...the issue is that the films have received universal critical acclaim as they've come out while the books did not. I think the reason is that while Tolkien's imagination was beyond compare, Jackson brought more technical skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his. As I mentioned above, literary critics never seemed to be able to overlook some of his writing mistakes. But that was to be expected because, unlike Jackson, LOTR was a writing "hobby" to Tolkien.

[FrodoFriend]

I generally don't read criticisms either... Who wants to listen to people who make their living poking holes in other people's accomplishments?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But that was to be expected because, unlike Jackson, LOTR was a writing "hobby" to Tolkien.

Hobby? He was a philologist. It certainly wasn't a hobby; his whole world came to being through the evolution of language.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Writing mistakes?

give me some examples of "Writing mistakes" in the book. Would that be continuity errors like ringwraiths who grow new robes after being burned? Or would that be a dialogue error like "they have turned northeast, they are taking the hobbits to Isengard" let's have some examples please.

[Huan]

BB, first off Tolkien employed a great degree of literary technique, and for the most part he knew exactly what he was doing. He was an Oxford professor; he knew his literature. The reason, as I stated, that literary critics pan Tolkien is merely from an instant knee-jerk reaction that if it's fantasy it's not worth even considering. Plus, a lot of them are professors themselves, and can't stand anyone actually making money or achieving popular appeal.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Writing mistakes?

give me some examples of "Writing mistakes" in the book. Would that be continuity errors like ringwraiths who grow new robes after being burned? Or would that be a dialogue error like "they have turned northeast, they are taking the hobbits to Isengard" let's have some examples please. First off, don't blame the messenger. I am NOT a Tolkien basher any more than I'm a Jackson basher. But I had a horribly smug English professor in college who delighted in making fun of Tolkien the way some of you gleefully attack Peter Jackson's movies. I don't recall all the ones he pointed out to me when I attempted to defend Tolkien's writing in his class. But the one I will always remember is found in "A Long Expected Party." The jerk read the following passage out loud in class to embarrass me and the other Tolkien defenders in the room. It is Tolkien's description of the dragon fireworks at the party:Out flew a red-golden dragon - not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, may fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion.In a fantasy about a pre-industrial society, describing a dragon with the term, like an express train is a mistake of "Peter Jacksonian" magnitude. ;) :)

[Black Breathalizer]

double post.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Pfffft. That's just silly. Where there any others he mentioned? Or anyone else you know of?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

A modern simile is not a "mistake":rolleyes: even if your prof thought it was. Many period works of fiction contain modern similes, afterall, similes are for readers to make comparisons and anyone reading the book would know what an express train was. Is that all you mean by mistakes? I am interested in your comments that "Jackson brought more technical skill to his craft than Tolkien" and your implication that Tolkien made structural or literary "mistakes" in his work that have somehow been improved by this screenplay.

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm not interested in poking holes at Tolkien. I simply shared what one member of the so-called "academic elite" told me.

Tolkien was a Oxford Don who wrote the Hobbit and LOTR in his spare time. He was not a professional writer in the same way Stephen King or Robert Jordan are. Peter Jackson is a professional screenwriter and director. He makes movies fulltime. Both men are brilliant. I was simply making the point that Tolkien went up to his attic and wrote AFTER putting in full days as a college professor. Frankly, I don't know how in the world the man did it.

I've commented that Jackson has improved SMALL PARTS of Tolkien's work. Most parts of Tolkien were wonderful as they were written and Jackson was wise to keep as close to the original story as the art of film-making allowed. However, I do find it very interesting that people who never hesitate to bash Jackson for perceived "errors" in the films are quick to dismiss any error (like the OBVIOUS one identified above) that Tolkien made.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In a fantasy about a pre-industrial society, describing a dragon with the term, like an express train is a mistake of "Peter Jacksonian" magnitude.


You've started some really interesting threads lately BB! :) This is an interesting quote, and I actually think that this happens to many great and classic writers.

Case in point, Shakespeare mentions cannons in MacBeth, even though he set it before cannons were invented. When this was pointed out to me by my grade 12 English teacher, she didn't think less of Shakespeare for making this mistake. The cannons made a great poetic device, it just didn't quite fit. This is hightly comparable to Tolkien's 'express train'.

And I don't think you're a Tolkien basher, you defended him against your snooty English prof.

edit: Having trouble spelling "Shakespeare"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB: According to many Letters he wrote, it seems that the Lord of the Rings was Tolkien's main priority during a good deal of the time he was writing it. Also, he wrote it over a space of 11-12 years, I think. Just FYI concerning how in the world the man did it. ;)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Breathalizer you are wrong again.

"he began to feel a shriek coming up inside and very soon it burst out like the whistle of an engine coming out of a tunnel"

The Hobbit.

That one I did from memory. Your quote is definitely NOT an "obvious" mistake, (and you, to be frank, are being stupid when you call Jackson's burning ringwraiths, or the clear geography blunders in Rohan, "perceived" mistakes, as though that is something I, and others, are reading into the scenes). There are quite a few metaphores and similes of this sort throughout Tolkien's books and despite you and your professor's assertion they are not "mistakes". Maybe you don't like them and maybe you feel they are out of place, but they are intentional. As I said before, if you read period fiction, you will find this frequently.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Um, squinty, he said that he defended Tolkien.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

He still seems to be of the opinion that his prof was right, and that the quote is an "obvious" mistake.

[Wayfarer]

Tolkien has already spoken on these kind of 'obvious mistakes', and he makes his opinion clear:"I first tried to write a story when I was about seven. It was about a dragon. I remember nothing about it except a philological fact. My mother said nothing about the dragon, but pointed out that one could not say 'a green great dragon', but had to say 'a great green dragon'. I wondered why, and still do."I wonder as well. Tolkien, especially in the hobbit and the first chapter of lord of the rings, wrote that way intentionally, because it conveyed what he wanted to convey.

[Black Breathalizer]

I was just using the quote I mentioned as a nit-picky example of why the Academic Elite tend to "look down their noses" at Tolkien's work.

I love Tolkien. I defended him against my English Professor--and I did it with the same zeal I've defended Jackson against his detractors on this board. :D

[Huan]

But to get back to the original question, BB, that's just it: look how academics treat Tolkien without a second thought. Well, they hate the entire medium of film as inferior to the written page. The movies can't change their mind. LOTR the movie could be better than Citizen Kane and academic critics wouldn't acknowledge that.

[Black Breathalizer]

The issue of film versus book criticism is a whole different deal. My point was just that film critics are actually treating the LOTR films with A LOT MORE RESPECT than book critics ever gave Tolkien, at least until after his death.

I think a new film critics' list of the "classic films of all time" would likely include Jackson's LOTR trilogy right up there with The Godfather and Citizen Cane. But a literary critics' list of the classic books of all time would likely not include Tolkien's masterpiece.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, that just shows how much literature critics know. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, that just shows how much literature critics know. Omigod...Gwaimir and I actually AGREE on something!!! :eek: :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

See? We aren't COMPLETELY opposite. :D We both are huge fans of Tolkien. ;)

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Case in point, Shakespeare mentions cannons in MacBeth, even though he set it before cannons were invented.
:D and there's a reference to a clock striking the hour in Julius Caesar.

The criticisms of JRRT seem to fall into two camps: those who abhor fantasy fiction in general, and deem it unworthy as a genre; and those who take technical issue with things like the pomposity and constipation of his language, flatness of the characterisation and some of the dodgy stuff about racial purity and squinty-eyed southerners.

(The first lot are just a bit up themselves and self-important; the second need to get a life)

However, the point is that the fantasy genre is firmly established, and even respected, within the film industry, so Jackson's version already has an advantage in terms of how the critics view it: they can't dismiss it out of hand.

Obviously, in a film, the technical de/merits are different from a book (!). Frankly, IMO, the best that will happen to LOTR the movies is that they will be seen as a landmark for the deployment of special effects and the richness of design. As I've said before on other threads, I don't think the storytelling aspect is done that well in the films and because of this they won't be seen as classics.

On the other hand, I think that people who love the books will always love the films because of the richness of the design.

cheers

d.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Except BoP and Wayfarer. :p

[Evenstar1400]

i know i will still love the books no matter what pj does to the movies!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
the point is that the fantasy genre is firmly established, and even respected, within the film industry, so Jackson's version already has an advantage in terms of how the critics view it: they can't dismiss it out of hand.Whoa there partner...I must disagree with you. I think it was the exact opposite--PJ had an incredible disadvantage with critics. Without a doubt, fantasy is THE LEAST respected genre in the film industry. On top of that, name ANY "sword & sorcery" film that has enjoyed widespread critical acclaim before FOTR. Conan? The Beastmaster? Red Sonya? Deathstalker? Legend? Willow? The closest I can think of was Excalibur and although it was good, it isn't in FOTR's league.

[Entlover]

I just fell off my chair. . .
Just curious as to how anyone can compare a hack writer like Stephen King with Tolkien?

[Nurvingiel]

Stephen isn't a hack..... and you can compare anyone to Tolkien, they just might come off worse. :D

Considering the critics treatment of Jackson and Tolkien, they both deserve respect as great (or amazing, as the case may be) artists in their fields. Jackson gets the respect, but Tolkien didn't at the time his books were under review.

There are some variables at work, like the time period they were being reviewed in, and the media type.

I think book reviewers tend to be harsher than movie reviewers. (Exception: that guy who reviews movies for CBC Radio. I almost fell off my chair when he had something nice to say about a movie. ;) )

I love Tolkien. I defended him against my English Professor--and I did it with the same zeal I've defended Jackson against his detractors on this board.

BB, your English prof needs to rethink his position in the academic hierarchy. On the one hand, you have an Oxford professor who wrote a literary classic, and there is now a course at Oxford devoted to studying his works. On the other hand, you have a regular English prof. Hm. I hope you have other Tolkien supporters in your class! I knew you'd defend Tolkien zealously! :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There's an Oxford course on Tolkien's works? :eek:

[Nurvingiel]

Yes, I believe it's called "Tolkien Studies".

Why am I in science???

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

thats soooooooooooo cool.. want to get in

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Mussst...go...to...Oxsssford....

[Black Breathalizer]

I find it a little ironic that we can all agree that literary critics treated Tolkien horribly, "writers who write do, those that can't become critics", blah, blah, blah.

Yet some of the same people who hate the way the literary elite have "turned down their noses" at Tolkien over the years feel no qualms whatsoever in doing the exact same thing to Peter Jackson. You'd think true Tolkienites would know better.

I've been branded as a Jackson lover here. I am one. His films are not perfect, but they are incredibly well done and I feel blessed to know I will have these DVDs to play whenever I feel the urge to step into Middle-Earth for a few hours.

I am a Tolkien lover too. I've read the books every year since I was 14. I don't understand why people who call themselves a Tolkien fan would want to criticize films that pays homage to their favorite author's great work. The two works are not in competition with each other. Some things Jackson didn't get quite right and other things actually improved the story. The bottom line is that the two works compliment each other beautifully. The films give the books more vivid imagery and faces while the books give the films more depth.

[Nurvingiel]

I think we've all got ourselves stuck in a debate where we're not in the position where we'd really like to be. This is nobody's fault, but this debate has basically turned into BB versus everybody else.

To elaborate, BB says he doesn't feel that Jackson's movies are perfect. But I also think he feels stuck defending the movies zealously, and without comprimise, because the rest of us are harshly dumping on it. (And BB, I'm not picking on you, you just happen to be the only person on that side of the debate.)

Bringing us to the other camp, I'll use myself for an example. I think there's a lot of things done right in PJ's movies, and I also think they're great. But inexplicably, I feel the need to point out flaws in the movies, and focus solely on them. This is partly due to the opposite position BB is drawn into, to zealously defend the movies.

But I think the real reason is human nature, to focus on the negative, that has made both our positions stuck in a rut.

That being said, we can easily break out of this mold and have a proper debate. I'm going to say things that I thought was well done in the movie, and BB, you're going to tell us what you felt could have been done better. (As I said earlier, this will not invalidate your position defending PJ, it will strengthen it.)

Things that were well done in TTT:

1) Detailed armour and weapons. A great deal of effort went into crafting thousands of actual pieces of armour. I never thought two soldiers in the back ground were going at it with pool noodles or anything like that.

2) Sam. No need to elaborate, Sam rules all in the movie!

3) Galadriel. See above.

4) Eomer and Eowyn, also cool.

5) Special effects. The computer battles were awesome, using a technology that allowed computer generated soldiers to make decisions - leading to realistic and well done battles. Also things blowing up and the Balrog were awesome possum.

I think many movie critics were especially impressed with points 1, 3, and 5. One thing movie critics don't often do is criticise it's book to movie transition. (Roger Ebert is an exception, and he pooped on TTT from high heights.)

What most Mooters are looking for is the important elements of the book reflected in the movie.

There! Now that that's out of the way, I can state my real position without any previous connotations or strings attached.

For the most part, the spirit of the book was maintained in Jackson's great adaptation, however, some elements which I feel were very important in the book, were lost in the transition from the book to the movie.

Further, because Middle-earth was Tolkien's idea, and he wrote the books before the movie was even thought of, Tolkien is perfect. It's PJ's job to try to match that perfection in the movies, which he obviously can't do 100%. I acknowledge that the movies won't be perfect, but if PJ tries his darndest, then I will complain about silly bits, but I will also be happy and enjoy his movies.

Cheers, N

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Tolkien is perfect.

How true. ;) Sorry, that jumped out at me, and I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I think I'll join in on this too! :)

Things I liked about PJ's movies as Movies about a Book (not necessarily related to the actual book):

1. Samwise: I thought he was very well portrayed, he seemed just about the exact same in the movies as he did in the books.
2. As N said before, detailed weapons and armor, but I would also add costumes and props to that list. All of that stuff was very well-done, in my opinion; the Elvish helms may have been a bit out there, but of course, we don't know what kind of helms Elves wore. I can't wait to see the Crown; will it be Egyptian style, as Tolkien said in one of his letters?
3. The CGI and everything fell in no wise short of awesome. The troll, the Balrog, Gollum; everything looked like it was actually there. (At least) Virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the movie.
4. Christopher Lee cast as Saruman. He is virtually perfect for that role.
5. The musical score was spectacular. Very fitting for the mood, IMO.

Things I like about PJ's movies as just plain movies:

Practically everything! :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
That being said, we can easily break out of this mold and have a proper debate. I'm going to say things that I thought was well done in the movie, and BB, you're going to tell us what you felt could have been done better. Okay, Nurvingiel. Things about the FOTR & TTT films I did not like...in no particular order:

1) Gandalf's escape from Isengard being show as a flashback memory instead of a flashback recounting to Frodo of his escape. It felt awkward for Frodo to be left hanging as to why Gandalf didn't meet him in Bree. Saying "I was delayed" didn't do it for me. Frodo deserved more from Gandalf.

2) The extended Hobbiton introduction in the extended DVD. The hobbits were treated as more "dufus"-type characters and the innocence and zest for life that we saw from Frodo in the original version was missing. Biggest issue with it: It wasn't an extension of the original--it was a NEW version. Personally, I think it's wonderful to have new and extended scenes but I don't care to see "alternative" versions.

3) Lothlorien. It just didn't seem to have the same magic and "real" feeling that the other locations did. I don't know if it was an over-use of matte paintings or what, but I didn't find it as "magical" as the Rivendell or as dramatic as Helm's deep.

4) Wargs. I pictured the wargs as enormous wolves. The wolf-hyena hybred we were given just didn't feel right. I still liked having them in the films and thought the action was great. Most of the time in these films I've thought, "how did Peter Jackson capture my vision of Tolkien so perfectly?!?!?!? With the wargs, I thought, "nope, not quite right."

5) I agree with PJ--To hell with the extra five minutes it would have added to the film, the Galadriel gift-giving scene in the extended DVD of FOTR DESERVED to be in the theatrical release.

6) The ending of TTT felt a little rushed. I understand and support the reasons for Frodo & Sam being taken to Osgiliath. But their ultimate release seemed a tad too quick considering how long Faramir had held him.

7) I know this is my own problem but I always envisioned Shadowfax being this absolutely magnificent white horse. The film Shadowfax was impressive--but not as awe-inspiring as I would have liked to have seen. (But then, the horse I'm imagining probably doesn't exist.)

[Nurvingiel]

Hey you really put a lot of effort into that, thanks. You should be a movie critic! ;)

I especially agree with 4, 5, and 7. For 7, I thought Shadowfax was introduced too much like a Marlboro ad, and I hate cigarettes! But he was a beautiful horse!

Well, if the rest of you guys were movie critics, what you put for things well done and flaws? So far you've heard from me, BB, and Windgem!

[LuthienTinuviel]

any small brained monkey can go see a movie, but it takes a special person to read and understand and love these books.

[Elvellyn]

What other books were published the same year as FotR first came out?

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Well, if the rest of you guys were movie critics, what you put for things well done and flaws? So far you've heard from me, BB, and Windgem!

I think the books are awesome, but I enjoy the movies because they bring them to life, not perfectly, but certainly better than I could do!

Things I like:
Sam (nuff said),
and Frodo - I think Elijah's done an excellent job portraying a very subjective character. I'm tired of people calling his expression constipated! How else would you portray the growing weight and evil of the ring?
Gollum.
Gandalf and Legolas (especially Legolas' fighting ability - and no I'm not a fangirl.:)
Theoden's grief, recital of the poem as he's armored, and his final leadership of the sortie from the fortress.
Helms' Deep and Edoras.
Eowyn, who did a lovely job of showing her wistful appreciation for Aragorn.

Things I dislike:
any and all battles between wizards. Wizards, even evil ones, are dignified; they don't fling people about. So I dislike the first battle in Isengard, and the possession and rescue of Theoden. I don't think it's in character for Theoden to have been so demented.
the mangling of the Entmoot. And Merry & Pippin's success at duping Treebeard - totally out of character for the Ent, he's much wiser than they are.
Aragorn falling off a cliff like an idiot. The swim was all right and the rest of the scene, but he could have got there less absurdly.

All that said, i think these movies will be among the all time cinema greats.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
What other books were published the same year as FotR first came out?

I did a search for books at chapters.ca for books published in 1954 (FotR and TTT) and I found Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss. Could they really be that old!?

I also found Henry & Ribsy by Beverly Cleary! I love Beverly Cleary! I can't believe she was still around when I was a kid in the 80's!

A 1955 search turns up... more Dr. Seuss, On Beyond Zebra.

Moses & Monotheism , by Sigmund Freud. Woah.

And last but not least... Borrowers Afield, by Mary Norton. One of my mom's favourite books!

[Coney]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
any small brained monkey can go see a movie, but it takes a special person to read and understand and love these books.

*thoughtfully chews on a piece of banana*

V.true.

I wonder why so many newspapers, magazines etc have publised movie reviews from people who have never read the books?

[Elvellyn]

I did a search for books at chapters.ca for books published in 1954 (FotR and TTT) and I found Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss. Could they really be that old!?

Oh,gee, I can imagine the critics in 1954...
Lets see, whats new this year
Hmmm. Horton hears a Who! A book about an elephant who tries to save a bunch of pepole on a peice of dust.
Interesting...Sounds good
*writing a good reveiw*
Fellowship of the Ring...a book about good people trying to destroy evil..Why thats rediculous! Who would want to read that!
*writing a bad review*

[mithrand1r]

I will just list without going into any real detail why.

Good:

»New Zealand as Middle Earth

»Music in LOTR

»Attention to many small details that help immerse the viewer into M-E (armor, weapons, clothing, structures, extras(people), etc.)

»Well portrayed Characters -- Gandalf, Gollum, Frodo, Sam, Sauruman, Eowyn, Galadriel, Bilbo, Ring Wraiths, Wormtongue (although I wished he did not look as despicable as he did), Balrog, Sauron(both forms)

»Battle with Balrog v. Gandalf

»visuals of Ents (could have been much worse)

»Orthnac(sp?), Rivendell, Moria, Helms Deep, Golden Hall, Baradur
and the Shire

»The Black Gate

»Storming of Isengard

»Gandalf does not touch the ring (at least I do not remember him touching the ring in the movie)

»Bilbo's party

»Anduin River & Argonoths

»Special effects that do not distract you from the story (i.e. they do not stand out as a sore thumb)

»The search for Merry&Pippin

Not so good:

»Severe compression of time

»Merry and Pippen too silly/commical in FOTR, though better in TTT

»Overuse of Gimli as comic relief, IMHO, in TTT.

»Dwarf jokes (they were not that bad, but I did not think they
were appropriate in LOTR)

»Aragorn, Gimli, Elrond and Boromir (actors very good, but char. could have been portrayed better IMHO) Aragorn is better in second half of TTT

»ford scene

»Weather Top

»Bree too short

»Council of Elrond

»Faromir

»Awren (no prob. w/actress, just how she was used in film)

»Lothlorian (nice, but I was expecting more. Gift giving scene for example)

»Frodo&Sam's Cloaks of Invisibility @ Black Gate

»Inconsistancy of the Ents

»Gandalf charge down the steep incline with the other horses then avoid all the orcs pikes

»Aragorn apparent death

»the wargs

»occassional mistakes with geography and other general internal inconsistancies (legolas eye color, orcs going northeast instead of northwest, etc.)

»"The movie's dialogue has the problem of assuming you already know the story, and so just skips ahead to the next interesting bit without bothering to add all the information and characterization that glue the story together and give it life and coherence. As a result, the movie starts running like a record of "Tolkien's Greatest Hits": all the neat bits of the story, but none of the framework that helps the neat bits make any kind of sense." While the movie is not that bad there are points in the film when that happens (Bree and Elronds Council come to mind)

»The battle scenes were very intense and sometimes difficult (for me) to follow all of the action.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[isthatbad!]

la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la
did u lik my song:confused: :eek: :D :p :( :) :mad: :cool: ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

We interrupt 'la la land' for an actual post...

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Not so good:
»Gandalf charge down the steep incline with the other horses then avoid all the orcs pikesWhat?!?!?! I can't believe anyone could find fault with THAT scene!!! That was one of the best pieces of film-making I've ever watched in my life!

The combination of the army charging down the steep hill, the incredible music--especially the voice of Ben Del Maestro, and that breathtaking moment when the sun comes up over the horizon, is one of the most truly awe-inspiring (to the point of having an almost biblical feel) moments in cinema history.

Regarding the orc spikes, just before the army comes charging into them, the sun temporarily blinds the orcs. While these orcs have been bred to withstand the daylight, it is logical to believe their eyes would have trouble adjusting to intense daylight. And ANYONE who has ever driven a car directly into the light when the sun is coming up knows how difficult that is.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I had a little bit of trouble with the that seen as well. After second and third viewings, I agree the sun played a big part. To me, it seems that Gandalf lets his power shine forth as they close in on the front line of pikes and the Orcs mostly lower their pikes and shield their eyes in dismay.

It may have been better to illustrate that point more clearly to the viewers. I'm sure we are not the only ones who entertained these thoughts.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, yes, we agree on one point BB: Gandalf probably utilised the advantage of the sun completely blinding them. HOWEVER, there is no way in heck that horses can tackle an incline that steep without breaking their fetlocks or something.

[mithrand1r]

BB,

What?!?!?! I can't believe anyone could find fault with THAT scene!!! That was one of the best pieces of film-making I've ever watched in my life!

I agree that the music was very good and the charge did provide a good visual image.

I had problem with the steepness of the slope and the relative ineffectiveness of the orc pikes.

I thought the slope to be too steep. Maybe not impossible for "master horse riders", but it did stretch my own sense of believability.

A friend of mine also mentioned the bit about the bright sunlight. While this may have a certain element of validity, I think it would have been better if the orcs did not have any pike at all. This would have avoided any questions on my part.

Overall, PJ&Co. did many things well, but there are still several areas where they could have been better. As a movie, very good. As an adaptation of LOTR, it could have (and should have) been much better.

Sincerely,
:cool:

[Black Breathalizer]

The Charge of Gandalf and Eomer's troops was P E R F E C T.

If some of you wanna analyze it to death, go right ahead. But classic film moments need no justification or defense. On all levels you just "know" it's dead-on perfect. This one was as good as it gets: beautiful, poetic, moving, magical, and visually stunning.

[BeardofPants]

Or would this be because you have no justification or defence? :rolleyes:

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome to the Moot isthatbad! even though you might not want to spam threads on your sixth post... or ever.

Anyway, in terms of Gandalf and Eomer's charge.

You can charge down a hill that steep (as long as you're a Rohirrim quality rider on a Rohirrim quality horse), so that part is fine, and extremely cool looking. It can even be described as a classic film moment, because it was awesome to watch.

But I have to ixne of the erfectpe again, becuase Erkenbrand wasn't there, nor was he mentioned. My memory of who was where at the (Book) battle of Helm's Deep is slightly fuzzy, but I'm pretty darn sure someone else was supposed to be there.

However, this scene is awesome, and very well done, and I'm sure there's a battle technical explanation as to how most of the company avoided impalement on the orcs spears. Maybe orcs just really suck at fighting. So much for Saruman's special genetic program.

Anyway, if you really want to pick at something in Helm's Deep, why not Legolas skateboarding down the stairs on a shield while shooting? Whether or not he can pull this off is irrelevant, the whole idea lacks elven dignity.


Edit: I would add, that it may appear that we are off topic, but we are all critics of the movies and the books because we love them and have something to say about them. Even though, we might want to move this part of the debate to the "What do you think about The Two Towers **Spoilers** thread instead. What do you guys think?

[Wayfarer]

would this be because you have no justification or defence? Yes. Not that he'll ever admit it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Having just returned from seeing the movie for the eleventh time...:)...I will admit that I am absolutely right!!! :D

I watched the Gandalf & Eomer charge carefully and this is what I saw:

The moment the sun rose over the horizon, the orcs shield their eyes and many lower their spears as brilliant sunlight shines down on them only an instant before Gandalf and Company reach them.

My defenses held. :p

[durin's bane]

The movies are O.K., but the books are always better.

[cassiopeia]

But many of the Urak-hai are still pointing thier spears at the riders. Even if some of the Urak-hai have lowered their spears, I think there is a great chance, since they are riding through hundreds of them, that most (if not all) of the horses will be stabbed eventually, and probably the riders as well. Also, wouldn't the Urak-hai be only temporarily blinded and quickly try to stab the riders as they pass through? I still think it doesn't make sense.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Having just returned from seeing the movie for the eleventh time...:)...I will admit that I am absolutely right!!! :D

I watched the Gandalf & Eomer charge carefully and this is what I saw:

The moment the sun rose over the horizon, the orcs shield their eyes and many lower their spears as brilliant sunlight shines down on them only an instant before Gandalf and Company reach them.

My defenses held. :p

Wow. You've seen the movie more than I've even read the book! And you thought I was a fan-atic! ;)

I can only conclude that:
1) Orcs are poorly trained, and
2) Some of the riders were killed, despite the fact that orcs are dumb, and we just didn't see that as the charge swept through.

You can't admit you're right :rolleyes: I know you're just joking.

I am going to have to reluctantly agree with you on this one. Even though I never disagreed with you on this scene, sometimes the way you phrase things makes it hard to agree with you.

[Wayfarer]

I personally like the theory that saruman's Uruk-Hai were a genetic crossing of Orcs, Men, Pod Alien, and The French. ;)

Part of the stupid thing in that scene was giving the orcs polearms and then pretending that while the realized what kind of weapon you use against horsemen, the weren't smart enough to use them.

In reality, the reason the riders would have been so devastating is that the traditional footsoldiers weapons are nearly useless against a mounted rider with a spear. Giving the orcs teh equipment to negate that advantage is ridiculous.

[Black Breathalizer]

Regarding the charge:

1) No doubt many of the horsemen were killed. The film just didn't stop to focus on it.

2) Orcs aren't the best soldiers on Middle-Earth.

3) The blinding sunlight did have an impact on the battle.

But I feel like I'm using the wrong side of my brain in defending this brilliant scene from the movie. While it can be defended logically, the greatness of this scene is in the blending of music, cinematography, and CGI to create film poetry and magic. This is one of those places where where you just have to "stop and smell the roses."

[Rána Eressëa]

There were three things wrong with the White Rider & Eorlingas scene:

1.) That was way too steep an incline for those horses to not go tumbling down head first like rollie-pollies.
2.) CGI Gandalf bouncing in a obviously skippy manner was too fake for my liking.
3.) Not one horse got pierced by the one thousand spears that were still pointed directly at them even though the sun was out.

The movie was absolutely awesome, but let's face it -- it's still got flaws.

[straight_face]

If you've seen the movies and read the books, the critics' opinions shouldn't effect you when you already have a realization of the literature in your own opinion. It sounds like the critics had not read the books; otherwise they might have had greater respect. Truly, seeing the movies increased my respect, also, for the books including the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and the Histories of Middle-earth. Critics these days are horrible, anyway. I don't think their opinion matters. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by straight_face
Critics these days are horrible, anyway. I don't think their opinion matters. :) One of the difficulties with most critics (in the media and here on the board) is that they don't view the films or the books with an open mind.

[mithrand1r]

Black Breathalizer,

I do not know how badly LOTR the book was panned by critics back in the 50s? From what I gather here & other places is that there were few critics with positive words then.

I do know that many critics today like the film and have many positive words of praise for PJ&Co's treatment of JRRT's novel.

Whether a piece of work receives acclaim or disdain does little to affect how I feel about the piece of work (it may affect how soon I will see/read said work, but that's it).

As I have stated in other threads on this board, in general I like the film and think it is very good (especially when the film is not compared to the books). When compared to the books, there are several decisions that I question about the PJ&Co.'s movie adaptation of LOTR. Some can be explained as streamlining of plot for reasonable movie time. Some leave me wondering (ie Awren @ ford, fickleness & implusiveness Ent thought/decision process, Council of Babel (.. I mean Elrond ;)) etc.)

One change that I thought was nice, was that Gandalf did not touch the ring. (I know not a big point, but it was a nice touch, though I did not like the idea of leaving the ring on the floor :()

I may disagree with you about how great a particular scene (or movie) is, but that is the great thing about this board. (people being able to disagree in a friendly manner [usually ;)]

I still think it is problamatic giving pikes to Orcs for the Helms deep battle. Why bother using pikes in the film. The pikes presence does not enhance the film, nor is it vital to the telling of the tale. The pikes only serve to bring possible tactic/logic problems (ie why horses not impaled on pikes). The bright sunlight does not explain this problem completely to me.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Nurvingiel]

Nice post mithrand1r, it's awesome when people put a lot of effort into expressing their views.

Sometimes BB, you come off as closed minded yourself, because you don't seem to like being disagreed with. As mithrand1r said, that's the fun of this board. I know you've been harshly flamed a few times, and that sucks, but don't let your acceptance of others' views be affected by that.

Anyway, we all have every right to be critics of the books and the movies.

One aspect I like about the books and movies is all the times where it's just the four hobbits. The Scouring of the Shire is my favourite part of LotR. In the FotR movie, I really enjoyed Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam's first scenes together. (And they mentioned Farmer Maggot.)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Sometimes BB, you come off as closed minded yourself, because you don't seem to like being disagreed with.I am a highly trained, professional Purist Rehabilitation Counselor so it is not surprising to me that prospective clients who are still in the denial stage of their condition often disagree with my expert LOTR analysis and commentary. Though I may not always succeed, I try hard to treat these lost souls with kindness, compassion, and understanding.

:)

[Nurvingiel]

:D That was the best sidestep ever! You exhibit purist symptoms yourself doctor! Funny funny.

:)

Edit: Hey wait a second... I (mostly) agreed with you this time. :confused:

[Cirdan]

The Orcs at the battle of the Fords of Isen specifically included pikemen (per Tolkien in Unfinished Tales). It would, however, be odd for fresh troops to be milling around behind the line, weapons in hand, coincidentally in perfect position to counter the surprise flank attack (and fail to execute). Light in the eyes is no excuse for a pikeman (just plant it and hold).

The movie Orcs were much to disciplined in movement to have lost with such an overwhelming numerical superiority, but that may be due to a limitation of the software used to generate the many of the battle scenes.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Orcs at the battle of the Fords of Isen specifically included pikemen (per Tolkien in Unfinished Tales). It would, however, be odd for fresh troops to be milling around behind the line, weapons in hand, coincidentally in perfect position to counter the surprise flank attack (and fail to execute).Excellent observation, Cirdan. You stumbled upon the answer when you said it would be odd for FRESH troops to be milling around in the back. That's because they wouldn't have been fresh. They were either dead-tired orc soldiers who were getting out of the line of fire for a breather after fighting all night or they were orc slackers who never really wanted to fight in the first place. In either case, these weren't the orcs Saruman would have wanted on the front lines trying to counter a surprise flank attack.

Everybody wants to pick on the orcs' failure to stop Gandalf's Charge but anybody who has paid attention to Tolkien's portrayal of orcs knows that they were typically stupid, back-stapping, not particularly brave, and certainly not the best fighters in the world--even Saruman's "fighting uruk-hai." The orcs' inability to stop the surprise attack given the circumstances is very logical and I would suspect that Tolkien himself would have approved.

[Cirdan]

...except they all are fully geared and still holding weapons (what I meant by fresh). It's not a huge flaw but Tolkien fans are used to minimal exageration and maximum plausibility. I'm impressed every time I read it thinking maybe he missed some things. Of course, magic is a bit of a crutch, but he kept it to a minimum. In the film, that particular moment did not allow me to maintain my suspension of disbelief, but then I'm a cynic.;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...but then I'm a cynic.;) What a shocker!!! :)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What a shocker!!! :)

Yes, I can't watch "Armegeddon" without pointing out that space shuttles can't take that kind of abuse. And who would lauch two rockets side-by-side? One goes and takes the other with it? And how could the cows fly in "Twister" but not the cars? Sure the cars are better at catching air. And how many times can somebody fire a machine gun without hitting anything? and...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Excellent observation, Cirdan. You stumbled upon the answer when you said it would be odd for FRESH troops to be milling around in the back. That's because they wouldn't have been fresh. They were either dead-tired orc soldiers who were getting out of the line of fire for a breather after fighting all night or they were orc slackers who never really wanted to fight in the first place. In either case, these weren't the orcs Saruman would have wanted on the front lines trying to counter a surprise flank attack.


Some observations:

I don't know if they were necessarily tired. There were 10'000 orcs so only a small fraction would have been able to see action at any given time, due to the layout of the valley and the fortress.

I always thought orcs always want to fight? Eat man-flesh and all that. Even though, I can go for some of them being slackers.

[Cirdan]

Saruman: "You do not feel pain, you do not know fear, but you may get shagged out after seiging a while, or maybe want a nap after a bit."

[Black Breathalizer]

Okay, guys, I'm making my assumptions ... [drum roll please] ...based on THE BOOKS!!! :)

Tolkien's orcs always struck me as being major-league slackers and complainers.

[Cirdan]

Well, then Erkenbrand came on foot with swordsmen, an effective counter to pikemen. They were thousands strong and the Orcs were already panicked by the Huorns.

Orcs, in the book, are definitely panicky. Orcs in the movie, at least Saruman's Uruk-hai, Berzerkers! I would have like to have seen a few more rohirrim join in the sortie from the Deep. It was glossed over just how all the Orcs were killed. Maybe it will be picked up in a flashback in RotK.

[Nurvingiel]

This is true Cirdan. Yea! Reinforcements are here! 10'000 orcs die magically within minutes, off camera. Except once the reinforcements arrive, everyone knows, whether they've read the books or not, that the orcs are toast.

[gives BB a drum roll] Originally posted by me:
I always thought orcs always want to fight? Eat man-flesh and all that. Even though, I can go for some of them being slackers.

To add to that, the orcs had also been fighting all night. The reinforcements weren't exactly fresh either, but they were fresher, braver and had more fighting spirit.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
It was glossed over just how all the Orcs were killed. It depends on how you mean that. It was emphasized a number of times in the "set up" scenes that Helm's Deep had never been taken throughout its long history and that even if the deepening wall was broken, it would take thousands of orcs to successfully storm the hornburg.

This implies to me that even with a huge numbers advantage, Saruman wasn't expecting a cake walk. Major casualties were expected. Did we see piles of bodies? no. But it was understood that the orcs would have suffered huge losses by the time the sun rose in the east.

[Cirdan]

With such a small force defending, especially with many being children and old men, it would be very unlikely that they could have withstood the seige of so many fully equipped with seige engines. reducing the defense from 1000 to 300 was bad enough, but then the huorns are out, and Eomer's force is stated at 100. Walls are not very useful if not manned. The Uruks are steroidal bohemoths to boot. Even a phalanx of elven archers leaves the odds long, and impossible w/o them (which is why they were added).

They just show the charges and the next scene, flip back to FRodo, then back again, a somebody is screaming victory, then to Isengard, then back to Gandalf and company riding out. Whaaa??? It just seems they weren't comfortable with wrapping the scene w/o cutting away several times as a distraction.

And since when does the sun rise in the west?:)

[Nurvingiel]

I'm not really part of this debate, because no one responds to my posts (glares at BB), but I will still throw in my 2 cents.

Maybe Helm's deep is actually at the south end of the valley... nah, that's pretty weak.

I think the numbers were changed to increase drama, which it did.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not to mention implausibility. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I'm not really part of this debate, because no one responds to my posts (glares at BB)Guess I'm damned when I do and damned if I don't. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Shouldn't it be either 'damned if I do and damned if I don't' or 'damned when I do and damned when I don't?' :confused:

NOTE: This isn't sarcasm. I honestly am not sure.

[mithrand1r]

Gwaimir Windgem,

I think the phrase is

'damned if I do and damned if I don't'

I still do not like the charge into the Orcs with pikes (even if orcs should have pikes according to Tolkien's Letters) and I do not like the odds of the battle (a few hundred @ Helms Deep + (2,000 max {Although on screen it appears that Eomer had about 200-300 horses max} Horseman with Gandalf & Eomer vs. 10,000 Orcs)

The actually fight scene was interesting to me though.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Nurvingiel]

;) I love debating with you BB!

I actually think Eomer had more like 2000 horsemen. Looking up at them from the bottom of a valley, we wouldn't be able to see many at once.

[Black Breathalizer]

Nurvingiel is right. The movie made mention of the fact that Eomer had 2000 soldiers.

By the time Gandalf and Eomer's troops charged down the hill, the number of orcs still alive was probably in the 2000-3000 range. The orcs had to have taken a heavy death toll in their efforts to storm the wall and scale the hornburg.

The arrival of Gandalf and Eomer's troops made the fight nearly equal in numbers. But considering the character of the orcs versus the riders of the Mark, this amounted to a DRASTIC change in fortunes.

In other words, the rout was on. :)

[Entlover]

Exactly.
In the website's Inside the Effects, where it discusses the Battles of ME, one of the special effects people makes a point of the cowardice of the orcs. (That stuff is really interesting, where they show how they created the armies) Even if the odds were much more skewed for the orcs, they would have turned tail.

She also discusses the different fighting styles of the elves and orcs, which I hadn't noticed (only seen it twice so far.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that they killed 7000-8000 in one night.

[Nurvingiel]

I think that Eomer's men had a lot more orcs to kill than that, but it's entirely possible. Lets say that Helm's Deep, being a fortess built to withstand a long seige, has stacks and stacks of arrows. Elven archers are awesome, and can fire off tons of arrows in a night. Also, the Rohirrim aren't bad archers by any means.

Let's say the defenders averaged out at killing 15 orcs each. (You'll have some people like Legolas and Gimli who took out 41 and 42 respectively, and others like Hama's son who might not kill as many.)

300 people would kill 4500 orcs. That leaves about 5500 for Eomers 2000 to take care of. Tough odds, but Eomer has four advantages.
1) Fresher troops
2) Higher ground
3) Braver and more skilled troops
4) Surprise

As was pointed out before, orcs aren't really the sort to bravely stand their ground when the tide of battle has turned against them.

[Black Breathalizer]

To add a point to Nurvingiel's dead-on commentary:

Not only did Eomer's troops have the element of surprise, they also had the advantage of the rising sun.

Even though Saruman's orcs were bred to travel by daylight, it isn't hard to imagine that they still loathed the sun and had eyes that would have trouble adjusting to intense sunlight.

So the combination of a surprise counter-attack AND the bright, rising sun shining directly in their faces from the direction of their new foes would have been too much for most of them. Whether the number of orcs was 2000 or 5000, it's easy to understand given their character and the situation why they would turn tail and run.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks BB! And now, since it scary for us to agree for an entire thread... (Just kidding!)

You mentioned the rising sun, and someone said that Gandalf said, "Look for me in the West, ere the sun rises on the fifth day," or something to that effect.

I always thought he said, "Look for me when the sun rises," which also sounds good. Because if he didn't say "West" then no problem, but if he did, then there's confusion.

[Black Breathalizer]

Gandalf's actual quote was:Look to my coming at first light on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East.

[Cirdan]

Upon the east too sheer and stony was the valley's side; upon the left, from the west, their final doom approached.

There suddenly upon a ridge appeared a rider, clad in white, shining in the rising sun.

34 times, eh?:p

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks BB, that clears it all up. Except Cirdan, you've gone ahead and confused me again. What's in the East and what's 34 times?

[Cirdan]

Gandalf's quote means he will arrive at sunrise. What was meant was look to the east for the sunrise, for that is [i[when[/i] he will arrive. The charge by Erkenbrand, Gandalf & Co. comes from the west. The east wall of the coomb is impassable.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Cirdan! That totally makes sense now! I never did have the best sense of direction.

Now everything is happy jolly.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Gandalf's quote means he will arrive at sunrise. What was meant was look to the east for the sunrise, for that is when he will arrive. The charge by Erkenbrand, Gandalf & Co. comes from the west. The east wall of the coomb is impassable. Cirdan has pointed out yet another improvement Jackson made in adapting the story for the movie. Having Gandalf and company charge down the steep eastern slope rather than come in from the west was a stroke of genius.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

:rolleyes:

Impassable.

Impossible to pass, cross, or overcome

Incapable of being passed; not admitting a passage

Impossible to pass

All three definitions from dictionary.com. My emphasis added, of course. :)

[mithrand1r]

Gwaimir Windgem,

Very Funny. ;)

I am sure BB meant to say something else (like the Western slope);).

I think I am begining to understand another reason why some people had problems with the charge of Gandalf, Eomer & company. [It does not make sense with the Geography of ME and/or a Sun that rises in the East] I never thought much about the rising sun at all.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Cirdan has pointed out yet another improvement Jackson made in adapting the story for the movie. Having Gandalf and company charge down the steep eastern slope rather than come in from the west was a stroke of genius. Not that this is a flaw in the book, it's just a misinterpretation from some readers (including myself, until it was explained.) Now I'm even more confused. But I liked the scene.