Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > the realisticness of The Lord of the Rings Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next 
Author Message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Wed 24 Jan, 2007 10:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In the real World a certain period uniformity of armour like plate being dominant over maille can be explained by plate being better protection than maille and an improvement over maille !

On the other hand the uniformity of use can have a strong " fashion " element also and as a status symbol to conform to by the period Knights or higher nobles: If we could look at the advantages or disadvantages of plate versus all maille armour ( a small amount of plate reinforcements allowed but basically 1250 to 1300 maille. ) some would choose maille or plate on its own merits.

I know some here for aesthetic or period interest have chosen to wear maille rather than plate: I think Patrick Kelly has expressed his preference for maille even though I believe he has worn plate in the past.

Preferring maille: Comfort, heat dissipation, ease of putting it on with minimal or no help compared to full plate that can be very difficult to put on ALL the pieces without some help, less restricted movement with a well tailored maille hauberk ?

Off the top of my head some reasons that could be disputed about the advantages of maille over plate.

One could compare it to semi-auto pistols versus revolvers: Both are still used even if revolvers might be considered older and oldfashioned obsolete technology.

Oh, and maille never really disappeared but was replaced by plate for the high status fighters but still very much used.

With a fantasy world like LOTR, different cultures might be very conservative for one and feel no need to change to a different style of armour to conform to some universal standard of what was done or not done. Also if the armour was well adapted to a style of fighting there would be good reasons to prefer an older style of armour right next to a completely different style ( plate )

So I'm just being a " Devil's advocate here with alternate arguments I could easily make the opposite case. Wink Laughing Out Loud

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Bryce Felperin




Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posts: 552

PostPosted: Wed 24 Jan, 2007 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: the realisticness of The Lord of the Rings         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Amanda B. wrote:
Bryce Felperin wrote:

I think the Uruk-Hai swords could of been designed better, but that would be my main personal quip if there is one.


I wasn't sure what the purpose could even be on the weird projection those swords had. It wasn't a spike, as far as I remember...


Well the strange spike at the top of the machete like swords could if stout and the sword is reversed serve an armour piercing function like a " Bec de Corbin " but thinner or for hooking the edge of a shield or dragging a horseman from his horse ? The film's weapons designer might have had some of this in mind or just thought it gave a unique and savage look to the weapon.

Anyway, that is the sense I make of the spike. Big Grin

( Note: If we are talking of the same sword it has a squared off tip with a long pointy triangular projection at 90° to the rest of the blade. )


That was my problem with the weapon. If it functioned like a hook or bearded axe, to yank shields out of the way, then it should have a point for thrusting after the pull succeeds. The design of the sword made it only really good for chopping cuts in my opinion.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Actually I strongly disliked the movie interpretation of the Rohirrim armor, since the book only mentioned mail--and mail alone would have done a great deal better at presenting a "Dark Ages" feel.


I agree mail only would have been better, but I still loved the portrayl of the Rohirrim overall.

Quote:
In that way, I can say that the book is a great deal more realistic than the movie--although the movies themselves are fairly decent work if only I hadn't been so deeply steeped in the books to notice every divergence they made.


I don't know. While some of the arms and armor in the movies are okay, I think the fighting is generally horrible, like nearly all Hollywood fighting. Orcs, men, and even horses are instantly slain (and knocked over) by arrows. Men in plate armor fall to draw cuts to the chest. Hobbits kill orcs with pots and pans. Gandalf spins around with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other.

Quote:
In Fellowship it is noted that he wore it openly, as opposed to Aragorn and Boromir, who both wore their mail under a layer of clothing.


He wore it openly, unlike Frodo, who hid his shirt of mail. I don't think Aragorn and Boromir wore mail when setting out from Rivendell. Remember, Aragorn took a coat of mail from the armory in Rohan. He wouldn't have needed to do that if he'd brought his own. Boromir had a shield and a helm, but I don't remember any mention of torso armor.

Quote:
All that said, I rather like the arms and armour of Jackson's film...but cringe at the very idea of cavalry charging fixed pikes, in depth.


Well, fully armored cavalry could charge into and even through groups of pikemen, but was rarely a good idea.
View user's profile Send private message
Tim M.





Joined: 21 Jan 2007

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed 24 Jan, 2007 1:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Don't forget, when the Rohirrim were charging the Orc line of pikemen at Minas Tirith, it shows fear on the faces of the Orcs and the line starts to break. Even the head Orc's face was like "O crap".
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 5:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:
Don't forget, when the Rohirrim were charging the Orc line of pikemen at Minas Tirith, it shows fear on the faces of the Orcs and the line starts to break. Even the head Orc's face was like "O crap".


Still not quite as good as the explanation in the book, though.

BTW, I see quotes like

Quote:
I find it totally acceptable that different cultures would have different armor, especially cultures that were rarely (or never) at war with each other.
Developed Plate armor and maille certainly coexisted in our own world's history. Compare, say, 15th century European armor with that 15th century Turkey or Iran.


and

Quote:
With a fantasy world like LOTR, different cultures might be very conservative for one and feel no need to change to a different style of armour to conform to some universal standard of what was done or not done. Also if the armour was well adapted to a style of fighting there would be good reasons to prefer an older style of armour right next to a completely different style ( plate )


Which are very good points when it's taken in the context of fantasy worldbuilding in general, and may apply to the worldbuilding of the motion picture version of LotR. I doubt it has much bearing on Tolkien's original work (i.e. the book version), though, since he was quite explicit in mentioning that the armors in his world were mail rather than plate. ANd even though the movie did great worldbuilding work in terms of arms and armor, I can't help feeling that the profusion of plate ruins a great deal of Tolkien's Dark Ages romanticism--a romanticism he delivered through the almost exclusive use of mail.

And, of course, I can't find words enough to explain my total disdain of the movie Legolas.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette;

And my comments were meant as general worldbuilding and not directly defending what was done with the LOTR movies or what contradicted the books: Just finding the reasons why very different armour style might coexist at the same time and place. ( Mostly in fiction but even in real history old style armour continued being used in some backwaters. )

When writing fantasy fiction it's best to be logically consistent or have some explanations for apparent inconsistencies.

But as someone said ( Sam Barris ) if you are going to change a classic story why don't you just write your own story. Wink Laughing Out Loud

On the other hand some creative things have been done to classics like the Richard III movie version that was set in an alternate history 1930 period or some versions of Romeo and Juliet set in modern times.

( Note: I'm just clarifying the intent of what I wrote and no offence meant or taken ....... just in case. Cool Big Grin )

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Mercier




Location: Durham, NC on my way to Iraq
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Am I the only one who could not sit through any of the LOTR movies? I choked through the first one, but the others I finally shut them off and returned them. I am not a fantasy fan in the first place, but I thought I would give them a chance.
View user's profile Send private message
Michal Plezia
Industry Professional



Location: Poland
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 1:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael -aren't swords and armours a sufficient reason to watch all the movie ? Wink Just kidding.I was almost bored to death while watching 'Kingdom of heaven' Big Grin
www.elchon.com

Polish Guild of Knifemakers

The sword is a weapon for killing, the art of the sword is the art of killing. No matter what fancy words you use or what titles you put to
it that is the only truth.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tim M.





Joined: 21 Jan 2007

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 2:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't mind if a fantasy movie is a little inaccurate in terms of toughness of armor or swords or the way some battles are fought because hey it's fantasy. It doesn't need to be accurate when compared to our world because things may be different in that world. But when people, namely Hollywood, try to take something from history, make it historically inaccurate, and try to pass it off as historicall like Troy or Kingdom of Heaven, I get annoyed
View user's profile Send private message
John Cooksey




Location: NW Ark
Joined: 15 Nov 2003

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:
I don't mind if a fantasy movie is a little inaccurate in terms of toughness of armor or swords or the way some battles are fought because hey it's fantasy. It doesn't need to be accurate when compared to our world because things may be different in that world. But when people, namely Hollywood, try to take something from history, make it historically inaccurate, and try to pass it off as historicall like Troy or Kingdom of Heaven, I get annoyed


I dunno, Kingdom of Heaven wasn't *that* bad. I rather enjoyed it. Heck, I enjoyed Troy (minus every part with Paris in it).
Neither one of those pictures tortured my sensibilities in the manner that "King Arthur" did. I don't mind blue-painted Celtic warrior princesses and dark, brooding Sarmatian knights, but I do despise poorly cast and poorly depicted Sarmatians with over-developed British accents.

I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
View user's profile Send private message
Tim M.





Joined: 21 Jan 2007

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

John Cooksey wrote:
Tim M. wrote:
I don't mind if a fantasy movie is a little inaccurate in terms of toughness of armor or swords or the way some battles are fought because hey it's fantasy. It doesn't need to be accurate when compared to our world because things may be different in that world. But when people, namely Hollywood, try to take something from history, make it historically inaccurate, and try to pass it off as historicall like Troy or Kingdom of Heaven, I get annoyed


I dunno, Kingdom of Heaven wasn't *that* bad. I rather enjoyed it. Heck, I enjoyed Troy (minus every part with Paris in it).
Neither one of those pictures tortured my sensibilities in the manner that "King Arthur" did. I don't mind blue-painted Celtic warrior princesses and dark, brooding Sarmatian knights, but I do despise poorly cast and poorly depicted Sarmatians with over-developed British accents.


Even though I only got a little annoyed by most of Troy, the one part that annoyed me the most was the fight between Hector and Achilles, in which at one point, one of them proceeds to leap in the air and stab down at the other. He holds his sheild on the outside of his guard leaving him fully exposed. Anyone with common sense could have just knelt down and blocked the spear while holding his spear straight out and impaled him. Something that was good about the movie though was that instead of Achilles dying from just one arrow in the heel, they have him shot with arrows several times to really show he was going to die.

Oh Lord King Arthur. I am a large fan of the Le Morte D'Arthur stories and was upset after seeing King Arthur. I don't think they kept a single story plot in place in that movie. Here are several truths they really messed up:
1. Merlin was never against Arthur
2. Genevere(sp) wasn't a "peasant-like warrior woman"
3. Lancelot doesn't die in battle. In fact he dies of old age I believe.
4. Even though the word "knights" is used in Morte D'Arthur, knights did not even really exist in the time that the movie portrays.
View user's profile Send private message
John Cooksey




Location: NW Ark
Joined: 15 Nov 2003

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Thu 25 Jan, 2007 7:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:


Even though I only got a little annoyed by most of Troy, the one part that annoyed me the most was the fight between Hector and Achilles, in which at one point, one of them proceeds to leap in the air and stab down at the other. He holds his sheild on the outside of his guard leaving him fully exposed. Anyone with common sense could have just knelt down and blocked the spear while holding his spear straight out and impaled him. Something that was good about the movie though was that instead of Achilles dying from just one arrow in the heel, they have him shot with arrows several times to really show he was going to die.

Oh Lord King Arthur. I am a large fan of the Le Morte D'Arthur stories and was upset after seeing King Arthur. I don't think they kept a single story plot in place in that movie. Here are several truths they really messed up:
1. Merlin was never against Arthur
2. Genevere(sp) wasn't a "peasant-like warrior woman"
3. Lancelot doesn't die in battle. In fact he dies of old age I believe.
4. Even though the word "knights" is used in Morte D'Arthur, knights did not even really exist in the time that the movie portrays.


While I like the "quickness" and forcefulness of the martial arts in Troy, there some bad moves. :-)
But I don't know that common sense often plays much of a role in a battle-line or in a one-on-one fight.
Who knows????

But as for knights existing in this period, they probably did not in Europe. But I think that the basic idea already in existed in the Middle East, particularly in Iran.

I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

None given or taken either, Jean. Just making a point. Wink

BTW, Michael, I managed to sit through the movies, but if the person beside me weren't Lucy then he/she would have kicked me out of the theater for commenting every fifteen seconds or so about "ARGH! They kicked out another thing on the book!" or "ARGH! You call this Arwen?" or "Argh! Not this Legolas again!"

As it were, she had also read the books so she didn't mind my complaint. I don't know if the other viewers got annoyed by our constant discussion, though.
View user's profile Send private message
Kirk Lee Spencer




Location: Texas
Joined: 24 Oct 2003

Spotlight topics: 6
Posts: 820

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 8:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:
...Something that was good about the movie though was that instead of Achilles dying from just one arrow in the heel, they have him shot with arrows several times to really show he was going to die...




Hey Tim...

Notice also they have Achilles pull out and throw away the arrows that actually killed him, leaving the one in his heel. The assumption being that someone would come by and only see the arrow in the heel and so the legend begins...

An odd case of life imitating art: the filming was shut down for several months because Achilles hurt his Achilles tendon, of all things, while doing one of his crazy Achilles leaps.

ks

Two swords
Lit in Eden’s flame
One of iron and one of ink
To place within a bloody hand
One of God or one of man
Our souls to one of
Two eternities
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 10:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
None given or taken either, Jean. Just making a point. Wink

BTW, Michael, I managed to sit through the movies, but if the person beside me weren't Lucy then he/she would have kicked me out of the theater for commenting every fifteen seconds or so about "ARGH! They kicked out another thing on the book!" or "ARGH! You call this Arwen?" or "Argh! Not this Legolas again!"

As it were, she had also read the books so she didn't mind my complaint. I don't know if the other viewers got annoyed by our constant discussion, though.


It helps the films a lot for me that I read and enjoyed the books sometime around 1968 so a lot of the details would have been only a fond memory that I enjoyed the books but I would have only a fuzzy memory of details. Wink ( Even great big honking details Razz ) Laughing Out Loud

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Re: the realisticness of The Lord of the Rings         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:
I just wanted to see what people thought about the Lord of the Rings concerning the realisticness of weapons, armor, seige battles, etc. For example, would the elven sword be an effective weapon or would it be just clumsy and useless to use?


A lot of stuff was ok, I think I actually saw Vigo Mortensen do a couple of counters which exist in WMA (in his fight with some Uruk -Hai in the first or second movie) I actually liked the Orc weapons and armor. I thought they looked crude and brutal like Orc stuff should. I tend to agree that more mail and less plate generally would have been better though.

But there were several major problems for me, I'll list a couple in order of severity:


1) The gondor knights charging without lances... where the heck were their lances? That charge looked really sad to me. The charge of the Rohirrhim in the third movie was infinitely better, at least they had spears... maybe in the Tolkein Universe the Rohirim were the only people who knew what a spear was i don't know. I would have really really liked to have seen some lances there though.
2) The usual problems with armor, namely, people easily cutting through armor (again notably that of the Gondor knights) people fighting with armor but without helmets (I know Hollywood has their reasons to do this but it's pretty pointless, your head tends to get hit a lot proportionally to it's relatively small size on the body) The one time Armor did work, when Frodo's mythril shirt saved him from spear, it was way overdone... in the book it was a simple spear thrust from an Orc Capitan, bad enough, in the movie it was a ten ton Cave Troll ... regardless of whether the mail would have stopped the point, that Frodo would have been dead.
3) Another typical hollywood problem with films like this is where one guy fights ten or twenty opponents. I know you need to wow the audience but fighting say, four guys is pretty damn tough and quite impressive, I think even to a lay person. Wading into a crowd of twenty or thirty orcs swinging is just silly.
4) They exxagerated the odds at Helms Deep too much, the final Rohirm charge there with what, 8 guys? Against something like ten thousand Orcs was hard to swallow, even more so, when Gandalf brings the reinforcements charging into fixed pikes at the big rescue at Helms deep was silly.... the Pikes were cool but they should have armed the orcs differently if they expected us to buy the cavalry breaking through (I didn't even notice if that cavalry had lances but even with lances it wouldn't be easy to charge directly into a forest of set pikes like that)
5) a lot of what legolas did was just silly. The offhanded killing with an arrow in the hand, the skatebaord ride on the shield, flying around on the back of the elephant,.... ok ok I'm getting off track here.

Basically a lot of LOTR was very Hong Kong informed Hollywood, borrowing a lot from the Kung Fu film genre, which wasn't necessary and didn't fit to me well with the very European Tolkein theme. Just my opinion. I think the big fight at the end of the last movie was great though, especially ythe Rohirhim charge. I liked the giant Sauron kicking butt in the beginning of the first one too. And I liked a lot of the kit. Borimirs stuff looked great as did most of the Rohirihim. They took it to that higher artistic level which is so often neglected in Hollywood but is really important for "barbarians" and people of other eras, it's part of what makes them believable.

J

P.S. Why did the Elves make European type swords like Aragorn's weapon, and yet the weapons they used were all curved single edged blades, falx like or kind of katana like? Another nod to the superiority of Asian martial culture in the mythology of Hollywood...

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Bryce Felperin




Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posts: 552

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tim M. wrote:

4. Even though the word "knights" is used in Morte D'Arthur, knights did not even really exist in the time that the movie portrays.


Actually the Romans did have a social class, "Equites" (sp?) I believe, in the early Republic that did reflect men who could afford to be mounted on horses. It was both a social and military class since the soldiers in early pre-Marian Roman armies had to afford their own equipment when called up to serve.

Of course whether this was carried further in Imperial Roman times and especially the Late Empire period I really couldn't tell you. I'm sure there are some better Roman history buffs on the list who could elaborate on this more than I.
View user's profile Send private message
Bryce Felperin




Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posts: 552

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
None given or taken either, Jean. Just making a point. Wink

BTW, Michael, I managed to sit through the movies, but if the person beside me weren't Lucy then he/she would have kicked me out of the theater for commenting every fifteen seconds or so about "ARGH! They kicked out another thing on the book!" or "ARGH! You call this Arwen?" or "Argh! Not this Legolas again!"

As it were, she had also read the books so she didn't mind my complaint. I don't know if the other viewers got annoyed by our constant discussion, though.


It helps the films a lot for me that I read and enjoyed the books sometime around 1968 so a lot of the details would have been only a fond memory that I enjoyed the books but I would have only a fuzzy memory of details. Wink ( Even great big honking details Razz ) Laughing Out Loud


Same here for me. I read them all in the early seventies, so I hardly remembered all the fine details and so didn't really mind the LOTR that was Jackson's creation. In fact, I purposely refuse to re-read books that movies are based on prior to seeing the movie for this very reason! No point if you are going to be thinking about the book when you are watching a movie that can't possibly be as detailed and whole with the story as you remember it.

Movies can not possibly encompass an recreate every detail in a book. I remember reading in the book "Hollywood Animal" where the author (Joe Esterhaus I believe) found out on his first screen play assignment that one page of a screenplay equates out to one minute of screen time in a movie. So I really wonder who can stand to stay put in a chair watching 300-600 minutes of a movie in order to get every single detail from their favorite book correct?

The best you can do is compromise on it and try to make it entertaining. If you can't bear to see a favorite book "mangled" by a movie, then don't go see it. Simple as that. Otherwise I can get out my small violin and play it for you. However you'll have to pardon the fact that I don't know how to play violin and it's probably out of tune anyway. :-)
View user's profile Send private message
Joel Whitmore




Location: Simmesport, LA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 342

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 6:02 pm    Post subject: Overthinking         Reply with quote

I believe that while we can have fun analyzing the weapons and tactics in the LOTR movies, one cannot overreach in this thinking. Having been an avid fan of the books for more than 18 years before the movies appeared, I felt no indignation or scorn for the movies as a whole. Things were changed to suit the director's vision. Sometimes I enjoyed them sometimes not. As far as the evolution of arms and armors in Middle Earth I don't think there was much of either. The Elves' culture was over 20,000 years old by many accountings and they still had not evolved simple machines. And this was a culture that had not fallen into decline as easily as the Gondorians. So to think there would have been much development in those areas may be a stretch. It seems the people of Middle Earth did not like change much even though one would assume that near constant warfare would drive innovation. Tolkien mentions some details in his writings about arms, armor and warfare but not much. So the "should Elves have curved swords" is to me more open to interpretation than the "do Balrogs have wings" debate. So I am fine with what Peter Jackson did with Middle Earth. If you were unhappy with the movies' take on weapons I would encourage you to design your own and see if you can get a smith to make your vision real. It's a real buzz to have this happen.

Like many on this forum I groan more when movies like Kingdom of Heaven make Balian of Iblin the illegitimate son of an Outreamer noble. Not to mention the wincing I do when I see a sword of a crusader with a 3 pound-hilt and a pommel ripped from another part of history. but hey it's the movies and we walk away shaking our heads at what $150 million dollars could have showed us about history. But we all must realize that it's all about selling tickets and popcorn. The realism and details thereof are left to us! Big Grin

Joel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Douglas G.





Joined: 30 Mar 2004

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 6:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My quibble with LOTR was Jacksons choice of omissions. I disagree that the books had to be changed in order
to make the films, giving Elves a more dynamic role on film then they had on paper, Arwen in particular, and what
about the "Gollum as victim" parts I'm told were Jacksons girlfiends idea? That having been said, leaving out the
Barrow Wight, where Frodo first shows his courage was really the most irksome part for me. My brother never read
the books and loved the films, and while overall I liked them too it was with qualifications. "Thats what you get for
reading when you were a kid" he told me. To paraphrase him, I'd like to say to Jackson "That's what you get for
reading something into the books"

Doug G.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > the realisticness of The Lord of the Rings
Page 2 of 6 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum