The thing that really irked me was the army of the dead at Minas Tirith. They had the dead glowing green and everyone knows they glow blue until after the 1st of May at mid-night, when they do indeed turn green. If the production company had just done a little research they would have known what a faux pah it is to glow green before Labor Day.

Jeez. ;)

Too bad the Witch-King did use the mace competently in the book. Merry's intervention also happened a lot sooner there.

Its took me a minute Patrick..... :p

On the topic of possessing super natural abilities look how incredibly strong sauron is as with one stroke of his iron mace he sends dozens of warriors flying 50 feet in the air. And if you look at saurons mace up close, the flanges are sharp and angular and at the center of each of the flanges are a sharp spike. Each of the sharp blades looked to thin to strike against plate armor as the blades would have been either bent or broken. Sauron's mace to me almost looks like a six-sided (bladed) battle axe rather than a heavy mace weapon.

Since I never had the chance to read any of the books, did they portray saurons armor and weapon accurately or was it just made up to look menacing and cool for the movie? :\

There is never any description given of Sauron's weapons or armour. He is described as being or human form but larger than man sized, yet not gigantic and being terrible to behold. He was never a big flaming eye. That was a metaphor for the projection of his will that others would feel if he was concentrating on them. We can assume from this then that as he would have had an incarnate form, in battle he would have donned armour. All references to armour in Tolkiens writing refer to mail, with only a singular reference to a steel vambrace. From this it may be a fair deduction that like the rest of the plate armour exhibited in the movie this was a fabrication of the movie makers with no source facts taken form Tolkiens work itself.

Movie Sauron was based, I suspect, off of the Silmarillion's description of Morgoth in his fight against Fingolfin. His mace didn't scatter armies, but it probably would have been able to. Every stroke left a deep crater in the ground.

I can't say anything to their realism, but I thoroughly enjoyed the movies. I can forgive over the top combat scenes (Legolas snowboarding, etc), but the parts I hated were the Frodo, Sam facial close-ups. Honestly, by the time they were halfway across Mordor I was rooting for Gollum. Sometimes directors go too far in trying to make you care about the characters to the point you become sick of them. Frodo and Sam were an example of this. Another example was in the new TV series Battlestar Gallactica. Not to get off-topic, but I loved that series. The downfall was Starbuck's character. The directors put so much effort into trying to make us care about her that I began to pray each episode she'd be killed off for good. :lol:

As for the swordplay in the LoTR series, I don't know enough about real swordfights to know if they were realistic or not. I do remember being very impressed with Viggo Mortensen's dedication in that regard though. In one of the "making of" documentaries that accompanies the series, they described that he basically walked, ate, and slept with that sword. He evidently was a madman at putting in long training hours to use it on his own time. His dedication showed. He handled the sword very comfortably in the movies in my opinion, not like your typical actor who is given a prop.

I've read a couple posts in this thread and others about the lack of realism of certain moves or techniques in movie swordplay. I'm sure there are true experts here at swordsmanship and martial arts, so I don't mean to step out of my lane. But that said, it reminded me of what one of my defensive tactics instructors once said; "It's called a "fight" for a reason". When the training becomes to much about "technique" where every move has a counter, sooner or later you're going to come up against someone who plays by different rules. In regards to defensive tactics, I've always tried to stay away from styles that have complex moves or involve fine motor skills for exactly that reason. In a high-stress situation, where the loser doesn't go home, anything goes. I've never used an edged weapon against someone and the Good Lord willing, I'll never have to. I have, on the other hand, used blunt force weapons against people in non-training situations on multiple occassions. When push came to shove I was just happy to land effectively placed blows and still keep my wits about me. :lol: For this reason I don't become overly critical of how someone wields a sword in movies. After all, they call it a fight for a reason. ;)

not only that, one person here comented that there was a comparative lack of thrusting,
correct me if im wrong but.. while thrusts are still a vital part of sword use, arnt a good majority of strikes, well, strikes? especially for a weapon like the longsword, a demonstration of techniques by the real gladiatores on youtube showed that, like inkenjutsu, a good majority of techniques solely used slashes cuts and slices, that said LOTR might use thrusts les than normal.
in sword and shield combat, ive come to learn that thrusting isnt as good technique to use with a sword, because it doesnt easily make someone open themselves up,strikes can better curl around guards

more interstingly, as pointed out by D.S smith aragorn also showed a decent few melee combat moves, i.e smacking the forehead of an uruk hai into a stone wall, punching people in the face, etc,

one quite good looking use of the 2 handed swords was, of all movies, braveheart. he used a hanging upper block to recieve a thrust and push it away from him, he used thrusts , chops and other moves not just swinging it like it was some sort of flail, he actually used it like a SWORD and as something that needs finesse to use properly. gibson demonstrates this fairly well. then again wallace in braveheart (and in history as well if i recall) was supposed to be decently educated and trained.

the introduction to fighting by godfrey to balian in KOH is also excellent, telling him that there are actually diffferent guards for different purposes, and that the blade isnt the only thing you can hit with.

It seems to me, although it's been quite a while since I watched the movie, that in the movie the arms and armor are designed along with other artifacts with the intent of illustrating a stage of cultural development or civilization and thus realism in the design of the weapons takes second or third place.

The Rohirrim are horse Vikings or horse Saxons and their armor and architecture is a combination of Anglo Saxon, Viking and Vendal styles. The Gondorians are somewhere in the middle ages, wear plate armor and are the closest to the concept of knighthood. The elves are art deco. I have to admit I never thought I'd see art deco armor but life has proven me wrong yet again! The elven two handed sabers are unlike anything I've ever seen, they have some slight relationship to some two handed Swiss sabers but not very much. I almost forgot the dwarves, the dwarvish armor and weaponry is arts and craft style with a light seasoning of Viking. The hobbits, being hobbits, had no weaponry of their own design other than perhaps bows, slings, and cudgels, but were capable of using weaponry when they needed to.

Given the importance styling was given, it is, I think, remarkable, that some of the weaponry actually seems workable

Am I insane, or the Witchking's sword is just a dark looking XViiie? Diamond cross section, awl like tip, long ricasso, long handle, upward curved guard, pear shaped pommel (with spikes though). Look at its proportions when compared to the Dane and you'll see what I mean!

---

 Attachment: 21.45 KB
[ Download ]