Hey I have a question about the RotK movie...

When you see the Witch-King being readied for battle, helmet being placed on his "head" etc....then the camera goes back to Pippin and Gandalf talking on a balcony in Minas Tirith. They look towards Minas Morgul, and a Huge green "beam" thingy shoots upwards... You also see it upclose when Sam, Frodo and Gollum have just started climbing the Endless Stairs etc...

My question is....what the heck is this big green thing!?

Dave

i just figured it was a signal to the baddies that the war is about to begin like "Get Ready Men!" ..kinda thing

Ok,

In the Two Towers, the chapter "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol," and in my copy, page 355 describes what happend.

What the movie didn't show, was that a red spike of fire had first shot up from Mordor, and then Minas Morgul answered with it's own signal. Basically Mordor was giving the go ahead to release the Morgul forces, onto the Plennor, and the tower signaled back with an 'Okie Dokey.'

...what he said :blink:

Basically, a flashier way of 'lighting the beacon', Mordor style.

(Though I heard Sauron was considering doing a Starbucks promo with the Beacon of Minas Morgul, you know the whole flashing 'Starbucks sign in the sky' sort of deal, but it fell through on acount of the Orcs killing the deals negotiators at the luncheon meetings. Those Orcs and their crazy ass appetite! Always eating God-knows what...maybe McDonalds should have the Orcs for promos, since the Orcs don't seem to care what it is they eat in regards to health and such <_<...)

Ooooh I see, thanks heaps people.

I suppose it is another example of the non-existent magic? ^_^ just kidding...I suppose it's got something to do with the Witch-King's Ring of Power?

No, if I remeber correctly, the nine surendered their rings back to Sauron, after they fell.

And as for 'non-exsistant magic,' I always took it that there wasn't magic in Middle-Earth like we think of it, which is something from absolutly nothing.

The skill of the elves was so refined, that it did appear to be 'magical' when it was only really practice. Practice that took thousands of years..

When it comes to that green thing, though, I dunno. Maybe they were just firing off alot of bottle-rockets out of one really large 7-up bottle.

When you look at the land of Middle Earth, as we see it in the LotR and The Hobbit think of everyone in them that does magic. Of course there's Gandalf, Saruman, some of the baddies, theoretically Radagast, Galadriel, Elrond, (though their magic can be seen as just being extraordinarily wise), and you may make a case for Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. What do all of these have in common? They are members of extraordinarily rare races/peoples, who are, for the most part, in possession of special items.

Besides that, the magic that is used by all of these is substantially different and more subtle than the gaming magic that people are used to. Does Gandalf throw fireballs and death spells? Even the Witch King of Angmar uses force rather than magic to kill. The magic of Middle Earth seems to rest much more in the items that are made than in the hands of "magicians". In effect, the true magicians are those very rare crafters who can create items such as the Rings, Grond, Anduril (though whether it is magical is up to debate), the wizard's staves, etc.

That would be my take on the magic in ME, and why mages and the like, as we perceive them in the gaming world wouldn't exist in any significant numbers.

Mmm..good post

I think you could also say that the Witch-Kings "Magic" is his/its power to strike absolute primeval fear into it's enemies..?

Disclaimer: what follows is my understanding of things only.

These items in Middle-Earth are what I would call artifacts - not necessarily magical in our sense, but legendary and powerful. Anduril for example is Narsil reforged. It is the sword that wounded Sauron and thus it is what he fears. Same would be the case of Frodo and the witch-king's blade. The rings also basically contain the essence of the Maia Sauron - his will and power, and also the 'magic' of Celebrimbor.

That's how I understand the magic of Middle-Earth. Open to opinions.

I agree with SimVig about Anduril, but Kethruch is right: all magic is on the "artifacts" themselves. Apart from the Istari and Sauron, I doubt there are people in Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age who could perform magic. And the magic of Elrond and Galadriel is maybe gifted to them through their rings.

But what is beyond doubt is that there is no magic characters D&D-style in Middle-Earth, which, to my reckoning, makes the world invented by Tolkien a low-fantasy fantastic world, a more realistic one, and it's easier for the readers to be involved in it.

Quite right.


I tell you, what really got on my nerves after seeing ROTK with my non-Tolkien friends was their disappointment with Gandalf not shooting fireballs at people. One even went as far as saying all he did was "shine a flashlight at the nazgul." True enough, I suppose, but as I told them that wasn't really Gandalf's power. Afterall, if he was an all powerful wizard with level 36 casting ability, he coulda just walked up to the Balroq, sicked his Beholder on him, and then used magical water to send him into the Abyss. What kinda movie would thata been..?

DeadTree, not to digress, but you actually LIKED D&D the Movie?
Or did you just post the poster cause it looks cool?

he said if gandalf was all powerfull the story would suck...what kinda move would that have been? and then he posted a pic of the D&D movie...get it? its a diss to the D&D movie...unless i missed the point too lol

...it was a joke.


I was making the point that had the wizards been all poweful, the movies would have been more like the Dungeons 'n Dragons movie, which rather blew.

Shesh, tough crowd.

Oh, right. For a second there you scared me...


*shakes head and shudders,

such a bad bad BAD movie, the actors...horrible...<_<

Yeah, poor Jeremy Irons.

Must have really hit the bottle hard after that one.

Of course, then he goes and doesn't learn his lesson by playing another evil being at the end of that awful Time Machine movie, too.

Interesting side trivia, and don't think me a pervert because I know this (think my roommate one because he told me) but the only movie Liv Tyler is naked in is with Jeremy Irons. Ew, huh?

Sure the D&D world is not that bad...

I don't know what they did with the movie to get it that bad... I saw the movie last week on the Spanish public television (I'd heard it was too bad to spend any eurocent in the cinema for it), and I hardly was awake at the end of it... It was quite boring...

But then a doubt assaulted me: will it happen the same with the LotR movies? Will the people say they're just crap, and say they get asleep with them?

What do you think people in general (with no previous Tolkien knowledge, just say) think of the movies?

i never read or saw LOTR's before the movies...i love the movies...probably seen them 10 times each...(not ROTK only once) my 2 best friends College football playing jocks who are on scholarship in the states..i made them watch it..even though they didn't think they'd like it...and they loved it...and they showed it to their teamates who all went to see the TT soon after in theaters. and my ex g/f who is a ditzy blonde hair dresser loved them too. so as far as i know everybody loves them. i still have a bunch of friends who says "whats the big deal anyway?" but they still haven't seen them so they can't talk

Yes indeed, they have little right to criticize. The movies of course, operate on a visual-cinematic level very well. Yet, there can be no substitute for the literary experience! None. I've read The Hobbit (Red Book of Westmarch), the Lord of The Rings, and the Silmarillion (not to mention Unfinished Tales volumes) seven times through.

Each and every time these works engage my imagination in strange and wonderful way!

In 'Unfinished Tales' My favs are Aldaron and Erendis, and Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin. The first because it opens up on Numenor and the lifestyle there, the second because it was such an awsome story and I was hoping it would continue past Tuor coming upon Gondolin and passing the Seventh Gate of Steel, but it stopped (just when it was getting good, drat it all... <_<)

Right! I felt the same when reading this section. The Turin Turambar tradgedy happens to remain my favorite Especially since it introduces the sinister nature of Dragons.

I didn't like the Turin Tragedy so much, because it was just that. A tragedy, to fullest sense of the word. I mean, it was cool and all how he slew Glaurung, but then when he found out that his sister was his wife...or whatever...that was a little weird.

Also, I like how in Tuor's story, he and Voronwe come across Turin; yet Turin cannot see them, it's a nice touch how both of their path's cross eachother, and yet both go off to their own appointed dooms (or fate) without knowlledge of what it will be.

just another thought about the films.. does anyone know why in the **** they decided to change faramir so much in the "the two towers"?? It dosen't makes any sense at all except for Sams "I think we all learned something today" speech in the end (which sucks compltetely and he could have said that on the top of the stairs of cirith ungol [or whatever the name is] which they would had time to include if they had skipped the ossgiliath bit) that was what pissed me of so totally that I was ready to actually leave the cinema immiedatly (though, I calmed down when I realised that I have popcorn left ) 'cause I thought that Faramir's difference from Boromir was one of the really interesting things in the end of TTT, book 4.

To my understanding, certain character/plot liberties were taken to accomodate obvious time constraints and to appeal in the conventional vein to a mainstream audience. At first, my responses to the film were rather critical as well. However, listening to the director's commentary feature on the disc helped greatly to clarify my misgivings.

After all, please consider how much time it takes to actually read these volumes, versus viewing this substitute.

Yeah, I personally thought they cast the actors wrong as far as Boromir and Faramir go. Sean Bean (played Boromir) was such a stronger actor than the one who played Faramir, and Faramir's character was different than the one in the books. He wasn't a tall dark haired Numenorean looking fellow, he was almost a bad guy and had no real sense of honor until the end in the EE of the Two Towers, which made up for his 'taking Frodo to Osgiliath and then releasing him after Sam gives his "Well-There's A Valuable Lesson For All of Us Here" speech'. Which I thought was sort of cheap, but oh well...

Cheap, perhaps, but a necessary summarization for an otherwise clueless audience. There are countless deviations from the novels, needless to say. I would have loved to view the Houses of Healing segment, not to mention the Scouring of the Shire and Saruman's/Wormtongue's subsequent demise.

(Crossing fingers that these will appear on the next EE)

Anyone remember Glorfindel? Elrond's sons? Arwen's banner?

Yup, and all are missing or unaccounted for...

Yes. A sad paring down, not to mention Bombadil, Goldberry, and the entire ACTUAL acquisition of weapons by the Hobbits shortly thereafter-as opposed to Aragorn's sudden and inexplicable presentation of these in the film's Weathertop sequence.

But take heart, for we true lifelong devotees of Tolkien's work, (and I DO think lifelong is appropriate as these books have left an indelible mark upon us) our story will never be fully realized by a popcorn crunching mass. The books remain as the foremost link to this extraordinary tale!

they gave faramer a bigger part because i guess in the book he find frodo and says be on your way ...dunno never read them...and they gave faramer this huge part because they didn't think it made sence to just let him give up the ring that his kingdom has sought fro so easily...so they had him try and give it to his pops...and then he realised...blah blah blah you get the idea...it was just to show again how much the ring can mess with peoples minds...especially mens.

I think you just have to remember that films are made to appeal to a wider audience than just we simple few. The changes were made not just due to time constraints but also for refinement of the story. The fact is (as Jackson says in the interviews) Tom Bombadil and goldberry are not essential characters to the core story and where the hobbits get their weapons is completely irrelevent considering that no mention is made of their background apart from at the time and a couple of minute, unimportant references. Aragorn providing them is inexplicable only in that he had 4 blades instead of the 2 that he may have been expecting to require as Gandalf could only have told him of Frodo and Sam.
I think there's a lot of stuff still to go into the extended edition of RotK, we're guaranteed more Saruman time and I'd put money on the houses of healing because they need to explain Faramir and Eowyn at the end. I think they replaced the banner bit of iconography with their delaying of the forging of Anduril which I was actually quite happy with.
People such as Glorfindel were simply removed from the film because there is no point in introducing a hero from another story.
In fact I think there were few changes that pissed me off beyond mere annoyance at discrepancies with the book. That is except what they did to Faramir which borders on villainy in my book. Faramir's part in the book may be slightly shorter in duration but he is far deeper in exposition. In the book Faramir is wise and well loved and they totally destroyed that in the film. That's the only thing I truly disliked about their alteration of the story. Osgiliath was annoying but I kind of understand that Frodo and Sam trudging through rock and crack for three hours would have made for rather dull watching- all they did was pad out the story... but that poo with the Nazgul annoying... what was my point again??? erm... KEITH RICHARDS RULES!!! yeah... that was it... probably...

I've heard on the international grapevine of rumours that the Houses of Healing were definitely filmed and are in the EE, but the Scouring of the Shire isn't (NOOO!!!) because it would require a reworking of the film as a whole. Come to think of it though, if we are getting more cinema time with Saruman, then they ould have to alter almost all of the entrance to Isengard scene to get it working. Eh, guess we'll have to wait and see then.

I'd like to bring up this point again.

I hadn't even heard, much less read, the LOTR books until the first film was released. After the initial "everyone has to read this book" craze that everyone went through, i stuck to my idiot ideas and didn't read the books, saying that i would judge the films on their merit as films rather than as interpretations of the book. And i did this, up until the ROTK, when i stupidly started reading it three days before the film was released.

The point i'm trying so hard to make is this; Tolkien could provoke such responses as these: as the black ships came up the Andurin in the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, i actually felt myself get excited as i realised what was happening. In no other book have i ever had such an... emotional response to a book, which shows just how good Tolkien was as a writer.

Sorry for the terrible writing, i am loosing the will to live as i read back what i've just typed :stupid: . What i'm trying to say is that Peter Jackson had the hardest task in the world, trying to convert a story that was more powerful than any film could be, and also had to endear it to its base audience, ie you guys. He may have made some conversion errors, but in my opinion he had an impossible job but still managed to do it incredibly well.

I agree completely dude. I think Tolkien fans set Jackson and Weta an impossible task to capture exactly what each and every one of them had in mind for what every character, location and prop should look like. I did it myself at first until I saw Fellowship and liked what Jackson did with it. Luckily I'm also a film student so I could kind of appreciate what Weta had managed to achieve.

By the way I can't be bothered reading all the rest of the posts but the lightning shooting up from Minas Morgul is in the book.

yeah i would have liked to see the old forest in the FotR
i always thought that was an important part, the hobbits getting their swords, and tom clearing out the barrows

if i remember correctly.....in the books didnt merry's injuring of the witchking have something to do with his sword being one of the blades of the westernesse and the bane of sauron?

but i understand that they couldnt make the movies 5 hours long......man that would kill sitting that long

Yes. You're memory is correct.

same here i'll get up and walk around fore 5 minutes then put in the next disk. man i wouldnt mind sitting through a longer movie if they would have included more things from the book but there are a lot of people who wouldnt......i quess its all about getting the most people to see it and buy it


......thats when i take out my tolkien and read for a while

I think that Jackson and Co. did enourmously well for the task at hand. My main complaint in the third movie would be the way Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas arrive at Pellenor Field. I remember being very moved in the books when Eomer stood in defiance at the approaching ships, and then his joy at seeing the white tree banner. The movie made them appear like Pirates of the Carribean

I'm holding out to buy a boxed set of all three extended edition DVDs, so I think I'll need a fridge full of coke when I sit down to watch it all

I remember last December, the weekend just before the thirth movie when my friends and me went to my institute to ask for the digital projector and then we went to my home i'm building (Then it had only the walls, perfect screens for a digital projector ) and we were there all the night to see the first and second part extended edtitions ^^.

It was great, but more than 7 hours sitting in the floor was tiring .

I think they are great movies, I don't want to compare with the books more than a "it is in the book/it isn't in the book" or a "I like how they made it/I don't like how they made it".

Just an opinion.

[QUOTE]I haven't seen any of the extended edition's yet, so i think it'll be a nice surprise to see what they included, and how it alters the film.


what???? the extended eddition add a much better experience to watching the movies. u should really see them when u get a chance


and i agree with u seregmegil the movies shouldnt be judged against the book
Peter jackson did an awesome job on them

I think you're right, but we Tolkien fanatics cannot help it.

I almost let out a scream when Frodo orders Sam to leave him and go home on the third movie. That was a huge mistake from my point of view, because it brings down the most important characteristic of the characters of Frodo and Sam which is the loyalty to each other.

But, apart from things like this one and the leaving out of Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest adventure, sure the movies are ok. At least we can say there are other well-done stuff...

I agree, Jesugandalf. While I think that the movies are quite good, I must admit that I was a bit disappointed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my interpretation of different places or scenaries, but rather all the things that havs been included in the films which has nothing to do with the original books! I understand it is done to please the mainstream audience, but nonetheless it annoys the hell out of me! And while Jackson did a good job, I seriously don't understand all those who think he has done a job impossible to match - that films weren't that great after all.
My view on this only of course..

pharzon..

Yes, I almost had a seizure when Frodo told Sam to 'bugger off'. I went a little crazy and tipped over some popcorn bags as a result of that...that part really pissed me off to no end... I mean cutting out Saruman's death was one thing, but having Frodo abandon SAM!?!

Bah, preposterous and all in bad taste I say...

Exactly! It is one thing to add some scenes for dramatic purposes, but to alter the friendship of Sam and Frodo is blasphemous!



pharzon..

They should have given them just 10 oscars because of that...

No way, 11's better. Notice the 11 at the end of Feanor, I guess I have the gift of foresight.

Seriously, I think that the trilogy as a whole deserved 11, but not just RotK. The FotR seemed to me the best movie of the three. It didn't wander much from the storyline and everything seemed polished nicely. The other two seemed slightly rushed in the making, but they still did an decent job.

Agreed, FotR was my favorite out of the three (my favorite in terms of canonicalness. RotK kicked ass, however with some un-canonical exceptions).

Though, I must nit-pick. I do wish that when Sauron was defeated, that they showed it the correct way. Which was Gil-Galad fighting him first, wounding him and dying; afterwards Elendil takes him on and actually defeats Sauron, but dies himself in the process. As Sauron is lying on the ground with his last moments, Isildur comes up, seizes the hilt shard and lops off Sauron's Ring.

Personally, this seems more dramatic than the way it was handled in the movie. Sauron still could have blown up once Isildur cut the Ring from his finger, IMHO it would have rocked. In the Art of The Fellowship of the Ring (book) there is a picture of the proposed engraving at Imladris of Isildur cutting the Ring off of Sauron's hand, it was an actual (to the best of their abilities) canonical representation but was removed when the fight scene was changed for 'Dramatic Purposes'.

On the whole scope of the project, I have to applaud Jackson and crew. However, I truly yearned to see the Mouth of Sauron portrayed in ROTK! I have heard this footage may well be included in the extended edition...

The lack of footage in the screen release for the Houses of Healing also failed my highest of hopes. Any of us could wax on and on. Saruman's and Grima's demise following the Scouring of the Shire, etc.

Yet my imagination, and my heart, still cling fondly to Tolkien's original awe-inspiring masterpiece!

I beg to differ.

I believe the movies were amazing. They were so well done, deserved every award they received, plus more. But they are the movie interpretation. They have been "written" so that they work in a movie format.

Whereas, the books, Which I also believe are the best trilogy of books ever written, (let alone the other ME books/universe!) are books. They are the book interpretation.

I believe that it would not be possible for the Movie version to be exactly like the books (proper version), or vice versa.

dave

With whom do you differ, Iluventi? I, too, believe it was a monumental task in even proposing these movies for filming. P.J. seems to have done much more than previously conceivable. And to think...prior to their release I would hope Ralph Bachshi (sp?) had gotten the call...