From: "A. Sieberson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Moriarty and such Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:16:00 -0700 Organization: University of Washington Lines: 13 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: dante20.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 934946163 27270 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: faramir Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!dante20.u.washington.edu!faramir I confess, I went away for a week to write a paper, and when I came back, I kept running into something about Moriarty and a script review. Will someone let this devoted reader in on the secret? Also, I can't seem to find this on the FAQs: has Peter Jackson set a date to release the final casting lists? gratias vobis, annies ************************** I'm a 5th declension! ###### From: Michael Martinez Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: 17 Aug 1999 23:49:50 -0700 Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Web Lines: 40 Message-ID: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-442.newsdawg.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:16:00 -0700, in article , "A. resolved to say for all to read and review: > >I confess, I went away for a week to write a paper, and when I came back, >I kept running into something about Moriarty and a script review. Will >someone let this devoted reader in on the secret? Moriarty is the codename/screen name for someone who is close to Peter Jackson and who has been feeding information to Harry Knowles' Ain't-It-Cool-News site for at least a year. He recently put up a report on that site in which he reviewed the original script for the 2-film adaptation Peter Jackson was going to produce for Miramax. A number of Moriarty's statements caused an uproar among Tolkien fans, including (but not necessarily limited to) an armed Arwen sneaking up on Aragorn in place of Aragorn's meeting Glorfindel on the road (this is straight from the script), Frodo meeting with Galadriel in some fasion while he is still in Rivendell, and a reference to an "hatchling army" of Orcs. Many people have written to Moriarty about the review, and apparently some of these folks were quite nasty to him. He has announced he is pulling back from online discussions for the time being. >Also, I can't seem to find this on the FAQs: has Peter Jackson set a date >to release the final casting lists? I haven't heard of any final decisions on cast, yet. It may be some time before we get all the names. Of course, the LOTR/HOBBIT Movie Fact/Rumor Roundup provides links to the various web sites which try to post daily updates: http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/index.html -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ Michael@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org.......................................................... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 04:36:57 GMT Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!coop.net!ncar!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth "A. Sieberson" : > I confess, I went away for a week to write a paper, and when I came back, > I kept running into something about Moriarty and a script review. Will > someone let this devoted reader in on the secret? Moriarty is one of the regular sources of information on "Ain't It Cool News" (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/). Not long ago, he got a hold of a copy of the (two movie) script and wrote a review of it. The review was generally positive, but contained a number of disturbing pieces of information about apparent changes between the books and the films. Some of these may have been fixed in the three movie version, and some may not. You can probably find the review by searching the web site. > Also, I can't seem to find this on the FAQs: has Peter Jackson set a date > to release the final casting lists? Not that I've heard, though I seem to recall mid-September for some reason. Steuard Jensen ###### From: kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:38:34 GMT Organization: Legion of Immortals Lines: 23 Message-ID: <37ba62c1.3782999@news.cc.tut.fi> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: a34c.mtalo.ton.tut.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news1.carrier1.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote: >Quoth "A. Sieberson" : >> I confess, I went away for a week to write a paper, and when I came back, >> I kept running into something about Moriarty and a script review. Will >> someone let this devoted reader in on the secret? > >Moriarty is one of the regular sources of information on "Ain't It >Cool News" (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/). Not long ago, he got >a hold of a copy of the (two movie) script and wrote a review of it. >The review was generally positive, but contained a number of >disturbing pieces of information about apparent changes between the >books and the films. Some of these may have been fixed in the three >movie version, and some may not. You can probably find the review by >searching the web site. Apparently he got about 1900 e-mails after that review, some of them demanding that he make the script public, others wanting detailed explanations and what not. :) -- 'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO than to fade away!' | kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o ###### Message-ID: <37BB665B.8A4C7B60@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:05:15 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 935028385 24.128.99.214 (Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:06:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:06:25 EDT Organization: Road Runner Lines: 12 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!grolier!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > Of course it would make sense for her to stand in for Glorfindel in a film > version, which must consolidate. However, even so, Glorfindel's main roll > in the story at this point involves his bringing Shadowfax to Frodo. I think you mean Asfaloth there, for Glorfindel's horse. Cian ###### From: jbwhelan@dorsai.org (John Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: 18 Aug 1999 23:02:39 GMT Organization: The Dorsai Embassy Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org X-Newsreader: slrn (0.8.5) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!jbwhelan In article <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com>, Michael Martinez wrote: > A number of Moriarty's statements caused an uproar among Tolkien fans, > including (but not necessarily limited to) an armed Arwen sneaking up on > Aragorn in place of Aragorn's meeting Glorfindel on the road (this is > straight from the script), I'm curious about this part. It does not come from Moriarty's script review. As I recall, the only thing stated in the review is that Arwen is introduced at the time of the Flight to the Ford, and that her introduction was "strong" or some such. All very vague. It was not even said that she replaced Glorfindel. Where does your more specific information come from? Of course it would make sense for her to stand in for Glorfindel in a film version, which must consolidate. However, even so, Glorfindel's main roll in the story at this point involves his bringing Shadowfax to Frodo. This is surely a roll that Arwen could fulfill without bringing about cries of horror at the thought of Arwen the butch amazon warrior babe. But perhaps others know something that I do not. >Frodo meeting with Galadriel in some fasion while he is still in Rivendell, Though this will shock the purists, it would probably be an inefficient use of screen time in a mere 6-hour version to have two different stoppovers at elven paradises. One such is probably sufficient to capture the feel of the book. Perhaps Jackson has consolidated Rivendell and Lothlorien for the sake of efficiency. Excessive faithfulness to details would probably leave Jackson with enough time to do everything, but no time to do anything well. He would have no time to explore in depth any of the themes and ideas presented in the book, no time for dramatic pauses, effective mood scenes, or for the slow buildup of tension. -- John Whelan ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 07:27:59 GMT Lines: 39 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!uchinews2!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth jbwhelan@dorsai.org (John Whelan): > However, even so, Glorfindel's main roll in the story at this point > involves his bringing Shadowfax to Frodo. Already pointed out by someone else, but Glorfindel rode Asfaloth, not Shadowfax. > Though this will shock the purists, it would probably be an inefficient > use of screen time in a mere 6-hour version to have two different > stoppovers at elven paradises. Ok, I've been trying to restrain the purist in myself to give the films the best chance to impress me that they can have, but this is a bit much. What _wouldn't_ be removable for the sake of brevity from this standpoint? Is it inefficient to have two major enemies (particularly as both of their names begin with "S")? Combining Sauron and Saruman would certainly save a lot of time, and as long as there are enemies on both sides, who'd know the difference? Perhaps it is inefficient to have two "good guy" kingdoms down South... Rohan could have a governor rather than a King, and be just the western province where Gondor keeps its horses. And given that Rohan and Gondor are being combined, why not Merry and Pippin, too? The only time they really split up is when one swears allegiance to one leader and one to the other. For that matter, Faramir, while not an Elf, is just another sheltered paradise along the way; let's put him in Rivendell, too, and have the Brunien cascade in a waterfall in front of the Council chamber. Ok, so all that was silly, but from my perspective, combining Rivendell and Lorien is going Too Far (TM), even with my valiant attempts to allow Jackson fairly free rein. I do not believe that he will make that choice, not with six hours to fit things in. Yes, some things will be altered, yes, some things will be changed, but I expect them to be things that I actually _can_ stomach. :) (Very few of the concerns I voiced in my comments on Moriarty's review were truly unacceptable to me to the exxtent that dropping Lorien would be.) Steuard Jensen ###### From: jbwhelan@amanda (John Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: 19 Aug 1999 10:24:35 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 83 Message-ID: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!jbwhelan Steuard Jensen (sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote: : Quoth jbwhelan@dorsai.org (John Whelan): : > However, even so, Glorfindel's main roll in the story at this point : > involves his bringing Shadowfax to Frodo. : Already pointed out by someone else, but Glorfindel rode Asfaloth, not : Shadowfax. I stand corrected. : > Though this will shock the purists, it would probably be an inefficient : > use of screen time in a mere 6-hour version to have two different : > stoppovers at elven paradises. : Ok, I've been trying to restrain the purist in myself to give the : films the best chance to impress me that they can have, but this is a : bit much. What _wouldn't_ be removable for the sake of brevity from : this standpoint? Look at it this way. The book takes 50 hours to read, and the film version will take 6 hours to watch. That implies that Jackson must cut out 7/8ths of the book, and leave in 1/8th. Perhaps I am not taking into account the fact that pictures can portray information far more efficiently than words. I am not sure this has much effect, though, since words and pictures do not tend to convey the *same* sort of information. : Is it inefficient to have two major enemies (particularly as both of : their names begin with "S")? Combining Sauron and Saruman would : certainly save a lot of time, and as long as there are enemies on both : sides, who'd know the difference? I think you are missing the point. Sure, Jackson *could* do that. For instance, if he was desperate to incorporate both Rivendell and Lorien, and wanted long sequences that would do justice to their majesty and beauty, then he might well end up FORCED to do something just like that. If I were in Jackson's place, I would be more likely to leave out Lorien so that I could do justice to Saruman and Sauron. I too would like Jackson to leave in Lorien, provided only that he has time to do it justice, and still have time to do justice to a whole bunch of other things. : Perhaps it is inefficient to have : two "good guy" kingdoms down South... Rohan could have a governor : rather than a King, and be just the western province where Gondor : keeps its horses. And given that Rohan and Gondor are being combined, : why not Merry and Pippin, too? The only time they really split up is : when one swears allegiance to one leader and one to the other. For : that matter, Faramir, while not an Elf, is just another sheltered : paradise along the way; let's put him in Rivendell, too, and have the : Brunien cascade in a waterfall in front of the Council chamber. : Ok, so all that was silly, but from my perspective, combining : Rivendell and Lorien is going Too Far (TM), even with my valiant : attempts to allow Jackson fairly free rein. Perhaps. I do not myself have a clear idea of what could be reasonable accomodated in a 6-hour film. But it is inevitable that much material will have to be cut out. Leaving out Lorien will give Jackson more room to do justice to the parts he leaves in. Would that be worth it? I suspect it probably might. Even within the context of the book, the second elven paradise seemed a little slow, dull, and redundant. I'm not complaining at all, or course. A 1500-page novel can easily afford such indulgences, and they only add to the richness of the expercience. I'm not so sure about a film. : I do not believe that he : will make that choice, not with six hours to fit things in. Yes, some : things will be altered, yes, some things will be changed, but I expect : them to be things that I actually _can_ stomach. :) (Very few of the : concerns I voiced in my comments on Moriarty's review were truly : unacceptable to me to the exxtent that dropping Lorien would be.) It's all about choices. No two persons will make the same choices. Preferably there will be few direct contradictions of the book, but I'm not sure even this is possible due to the need to consolidate. Why don't you look at the film as a movie based on a true story. Are such movies 100% accurate? Never. The true story is always too complicated to be portrayed accurately on film. -- John Whelan ###### From: gordon@127.0.0.1 (Gordon Walker) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:52:34 GMT Organization: N/A Message-ID: <37bbe04d.5358024@192.168.0.43> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lerhost.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lerhost.demon.co.uk:158.152.117.201 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 935059831 nnrp-08:1230 NO-IDENT lerhost.demon.co.uk:158.152.117.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lerhost.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail On 18 Aug 1999 23:02:39 GMT, jbwhelan@dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote: >In article <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com>, Michael Martinez wrote: > >> A number of Moriarty's statements caused an uproar among Tolkien fans, >> including (but not necessarily limited to) an armed Arwen sneaking up on >> Aragorn in place of Aragorn's meeting Glorfindel on the road (this is >> straight from the script), > >I'm curious about this part. It does not come from Moriarty's script >review. As I recall, the only thing stated in the review is that Arwen is >introduced at the time of the Flight to the Ford, and that her >introduction was "strong" or some such. All very vague. It was not even >said that she replaced Glorfindel. Where does your more specific >information come from? The scipt snippet was posted to the message board of one of the web sites - either AICN itself or one of the movie rumour sites. -- Gordon Walker ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 19 Aug 1999 12:58:32 GMT References: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!isdnet!oleane!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail ---I think you are missing the point. Sure, Jackson *could* do that. For instance, if he was desperate to incorporate both Rivendell and Lorien, and wanted long sequences that would do justice to their majesty and beauty, then he might well end up FORCED to do something just like that. If I were in Jackson's place, I would be more likely to leave out Lorien so that I could do justice to Saruman and Sauron.--- This point is basically "pointless", so to speak, for a couple of resaons. One is that Jackson has stated that "most of the key characters and events" can be included in the 3-film script as opposed to the 2-film version, and Moriarty himself has stated on another message board that "Lothlorien has been restored in all its glory" in the 3-film script. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: gordon@127.0.0.1 (Gordon Walker) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:12:29 GMT Organization: N/A Message-ID: <37bc26e7.6804223@192.168.0.43> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lerhost.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: lerhost.demon.co.uk:158.152.117.201 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 935079024 nnrp-02:17051 NO-IDENT lerhost.demon.co.uk:158.152.117.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 38 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lerhost.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail On 19 Aug 1999 10:24:35 GMT, jbwhelan@amanda (John Whelan) wrote: >Look at it this way. The book takes 50 hours to read, and the film >version will take 6 hours to watch. That implies that Jackson must cut >out 7/8ths of the book, and leave in 1/8th. Perhaps I am not taking into >account the fact that pictures can portray information far more >efficiently than words. I am not sure this has much effect, though, since >words and pictures do not tend to convey the *same* sort of information. I do think you underestimate the efficiency of pictures in conveying some of the written information. Consider some of the descriptions of the desolation of the plains of Gorgoroth, something that can be taken in with a pan of the camera. Don't forget the power of the soundtrack as well, music and good directional may be able to convey the horror of the Dead Marshes in a much more immediate (if different) way to that used in textual descriptions. However, there remains no doubt that not all of the material can be covered. The cuts will not need to amount to 7/8ths of the material though, nor anything like it. >It's all about choices. No two persons will make the same choices. >Preferably there will be few direct contradictions of the book, but I'm >not sure even this is possible due to the need to consolidate. I was interested by something Jackson said in one of the AICN interviews about Tom Bombadil. He said the events concerning Tom would not be covered in the movie but that there would be nothing that would indicate that it did not happen. This fits in nicely with his stated intent of making an 'historical' film. In all historical films the subject material is selected to mean the story-telling requirements. But despite my generally positive attitude about this I don't like conflating Lorien and Rivendell. It's not just selective use of the sources, it's a modification of them. The scenes of Lorien are qualitatively different if they happen before, Caradhras and Moria. -- Gordon Walker ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: The University of Chicago X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:09:12 GMT Lines: 12 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.174.5.49!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth "Öjevind Lång" : > Glorfindel had fought Morgoth in the First Age and slain the > Chief Balrog. Quite a warrior. Actually, Glorfindel just killed _a_ Balrog, defending the refugees from Gondolin. Ecthelion killed Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs (and was himself slain, or drowned, or something in the act). However, considering Tolkien's later leanings toward _very_ few Balrogs of any sort, killing even one was quite an accomplishment. Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 28 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:19:05 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.57.33 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 935076185 130.244.57.33 (Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:23:05 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:23:05 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail John Whelan hath written: > >Perhaps. I do not myself have a clear idea of what could be reasonable >accomodated in a 6-hour film. But it is inevitable that much material >will have to be cut out. Leaving out Lorien will give Jackson more room >to do justice to the parts he leaves in. Would that be worth it? I >suspect it probably might. > >Even within the context of the book, the second elven paradise seemed a >little slow, dull, and redundant. I'm not complaining at all, or course. >A 1500-page novel can easily afford such indulgences, and they only add to >the richness of the expercience. I'm not so sure about a film. Tastes vary. There are some (I am one of them) who regard the chapters about Lórien as very lovely. Actually, Lórien is much more vividly described than Rivendell, which is really only being used as a vehicle for two things: the introduction of Bilbo (with amounts of feasting on poetry that can be rationed according to need - or cut out completely) and the council of Erond. No doubt the film will also include a third motif here: introducing Arwen. To pack Galadriel and her mirror into Rivendell as well might actually make the film top-heavy: too much in one spot. That is perhaps also worth considering, in the holy name of script efficiency. Öjevind Lång ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 21 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:25:58 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.57.33 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 935076598 130.244.57.33 (Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:29:58 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:29:58 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.tli.de!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail John Whelan hath written: > > >Of course it would make sense for her to stand in for Glorfindel in a film >version, which must consolidate. However, even so, Glorfindel's main roll >in the story at this point involves his bringing Shadowfax to Frodo. This >is surely a roll that Arwen could fulfill without bringing about cries of >horror at the thought of Arwen the butch amazon warrior babe. But perhaps >others know something that I do not. There are some readers who have gained the impression that Glorfindel's main role in the book was not to bring a horse to Frodo, but to scare the steeds of the Nazgûl into the River, thus eliminating the Nazgûl for the time being. He revealed himself "as he's upon the other side: one of he mighty of the Firstborn". Glorfindel had fought Morgoth in the First Age and slain the Chief Balrog. Quite a warrior. Öjevind ###### From: ephebe22@aol.com (ryan k) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 19 Aug 1999 17:40:55 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <19990819134055.28255.00000686@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!204.59.152.222!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Ojevind: >There are some (I am one of them) who >regard the chapters about Lórien as very >lovely. Actually, Lórien is much more >vividly described than Rivendell, which is >really only being used as a vehicle for two >things: the introduction of Bilbo (with >amounts of feasting on poetry that can be >rationed according to need - or cut out >completely) and the council of >Erond. I agree about Lorien, but in terms of the film, I think it should be abbreviated or conflated *if* it is a question of taking time away from Rivendell. The beginning of the series will be crucial for establishing tone. The Flight conveys the peril, and the Council conveys the scale of the peril. If this portion of the novel is given short shrift in the film, then the film(s) will just sort of meander until the battles toward the end of the series. ###### Message-ID: <37BC4730.2A4ECD00@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 34 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:04:33 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 935085944 24.128.99.214 (Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:05:44 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:05:44 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Steuard Jensen wrote: > Quoth "Öjevind Lång" : > > Glorfindel had fought Morgoth in the First Age and slain the > > Chief Balrog. Quite a warrior. > > Actually, Glorfindel just killed _a_ Balrog, defending the refugees > from Gondolin. Ecthelion killed Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs (and was > himself slain, or drowned, or something in the act). However, > considering Tolkien's later leanings toward _very_ few Balrogs of any > sort, killing even one was quite an accomplishment. Oh c'mon Steuard, you -know- Glorfindel could have done in Gothmog too! After all, the dirty demon only got the chief of the Golden Flower by pulling his hair! 'Then Glorfindel's left hand sought a dirk, and this he thrust up that it pierced the Balrog's belly nigh his own face (for that demon was double his stature); and it shrieked, and fell backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss.' Well, I just think we need more BOLT quotes around here. ;) Cheers, Cian P.S. Hey, Legolas and Galdor were there! ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:31:46 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 25 Message-ID: <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-4-16.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.tli.de!news-fra.pop.de!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > Look at it this way. The book takes 50 hours to read, and the film > version will take 6 hours to watch. That implies that Jackson must > cut > out 7/8ths of the book, and leave in 1/8th. Perhaps I am not taking > into > account the fact that pictures can portray information far more > efficiently than words. I am not sure this has much effect, though, > since > words and pictures do not tend to convey the *same* sort of > information. As another poster said, I believe you under-rate the efficiency of pictures. In addition, much of the interminable speech making that takes place in TT and RotK can be cut as well. I believe that 6 hours (probably more, since each film could easily be stretched by 15 minutes) is plenty of time to do things in. Consider the Bakshi version: IIRC, many of the basics of the book made it in, and it had to deal with books 1 - 3 and part of 4. Moreover, the Bakshi movie wasted a good deal of time showing mood shots of the shire at the outset. 6 hours should be more than enough to do the books justice. LGR ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:51:22 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 19 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > ---I think you are missing the point. Sure, Jackson *could* do that. For > instance, if he was desperate to incorporate both Rivendell and Lorien, > and wanted long sequences that would do justice to their majesty and > beauty, then he might well end up FORCED to do something just like that. > If I were in Jackson's place, I would be more likely to leave out Lorien > so that I could do justice to Saruman and Sauron.--- > This point is basically "pointless", so to speak, for a couple of > resaons. One is that Jackson has stated that "most of the key characters > and events" can be included in the 3-film script as opposed to the > 2-film version, The only problem with this is that we will have to see the film to find out what is meant by a "key" character. Note, too, that he does not say ALL key characters or events. > and Moriarty himself has stated on another message board > that "Lothlorien has been restored in all its glory" in the 3-film > script. Now that's a more meaninful point! It also answers the riddle. Clearly, then, Lothlorien was cut out of the two-film script, for obvious and understandable reasons, (so my point is not completely pointless then, is it?) Moriarty's script review was of the two-film version, so Frodo's encounter with Galadriel takes place at Rivendell. Since Lothlorien has been restored in the three-film version, one may safely assume that Galadriel has been moved back to the proper place in the story, and purists need no longer worry about this particular discrepancy. As I have said, I will be glad if Jackson is able to leave Lorien in, and still do justice to the other parts of the book. Evidently, he feels he will be able to do this in a 3-film version, and, (as I have not tried to write a script treatment myself and thus have no precise idea of how constricting the time limits are) I have no reason to doubt his judgement one way or the other. Evidently, it was a pretty close call, as it was the addition of a mere 30 pages to the script (according to Moriarty) that enabled the reintroduction of Lothlorien. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:51:41 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Reply-To: John Whelan NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, =D6jevind L=E5ng wrote: > John Whelan hath written: > > > There are some readers who have gained the impression that Glorfindel's m= ain > role in the book was not to bring a horse to Frodo, but to scare the stee= ds > of the Nazg=FBl into the River, thus eliminating the Nazg=FBl for the tim= e > being.=20 Some people might think that, but if they do, they are just plain wrong.=20 Book I is hardly about Glorfindel at all. He may be a powerful person, but he is still an extremely minor character -- a cameo appearance by the hero of another story. Neither is Book I primarily concerned with the elimination of the Nazgul. It is certainly a significant point that all the Nazgul were (temporarily) eliminated, but this is by no means of primary importance. It's significance does not come into play until much later, when the company leaves Rivendell and is able to do so in relative safety.=20 What Book I is primarily concerned with is whether Frodo and the Ring will make to Rivendell without him being killed, or captured by Nazgul, or becoming a wraith. In achieving this, Asfaloth assumes PRIMARY importance at the stage where Glorfindel shows up, because Asfaloth is the one who actually gets Frodo accross the Ford. Of SECONDARY importance is the flood arranged by Elrond, which prevents the Nazgul from pursuing (and, incidentally, drowns a three of them on its own even without Glorfindel's help). These events alone are sufficent to ensure that Frodo makes it safely to Rivendell.=20 Glorfindel's use of his vast powers to temporarily eliminate the remaining Nazgul assumes a distant third in importance.=20 > He revealed himself "as he's upon the other side: one of he mighty of > the Firstborn". Glorfindel had fought Morgoth in the First Age and slain > the Chief Balrog. Quite a warrior.=20 Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:25:14 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: > As another poster said, I believe you under-rate the efficiency of > pictures. In addition, much of the interminable speech making that > takes place in TT and RotK can be cut as well. I believe that 6 hours > (probably more, since each film could easily be stretched by 15 minutes) > is plenty of time to do things in. Consider the Bakshi version: IIRC, > many of the basics of the book made it in, and it had to deal with books > 1 - 3 and part of 4. Bakshi's version (which ran a good 2 hours and 13 minutes) perfectly illustrates my point. It managed to be faithful, but it did not manage to be good. It did not, even remotely, convey the power of Tolkien's story. The "basic" skeleton may have been there, but the soul was almost completely eliminated. I can scarecely remember a thing about that film, not a single scene was memorable. > Moreover, the Bakshi movie wasted a good deal of > time showing mood shots of the shire at the outset. I find it interesting that you consider mood shots a waste of time. I would think they would be essential for this sort of work. (BTW -- I just rewatched The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- Great mood shots). > 6 hours should be more than enough to do the books justice. More than enough??? One could easily make a 2-hour film out of Book I alone. I doubt even Jackson agrees with you on that one. -- John Whelan ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:28:46 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 57 Message-ID: <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-5-1.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: I believe that 6 hours > > (probably more, since each film could easily be stretched by 15 > minutes) > > is plenty of time to do things in. Consider the Bakshi version: > IIRC, > > many of the basics of the book made it in, and it had to deal with > books > > 1 - 3 and part of 4. > > Bakshi's version (which ran a good 2 hours and 13 minutes) perfectly > illustrates my point. It managed to be faithful, but it did not > manage to > be good. It did not, even remotely, convey the power of Tolkien's > story. > The "basic" skeleton may have been there, but the soul was almost > completely eliminated. I can scarecely remember a thing about that > film, > not a single scene was memorable. Actually, I can remeber one scene, and I HATED it. That was the victory at Helm's Deep. I mean, here is Bakshi doing an ANIMATED version and how does he portray this epic battle? Why he fills the screen with a cast of dozens! I mean, come on. How low budget can you get? Couldn't they afford to draw a few more characters? And I guess I am not a purist. Yes, I think that 6 hours should be sufficient to get the main story line (which is a quest story) in. I've dreamed about doing LotR live action ever since the Bakshi fiasco. And one of the first cuts I could think of was the Bombadil/Barrow Downs scenes. They do not advance the story and they are not critical. There is plenty more that could be cut as well. For instance, you don't have to show every visit Gandalf makes to the shire after the party. Just segue into the meeting 17 years later. Nor do you lose anything by dropping the scenes with Sam in the Pub discussing the Party, or what he thinks of elves and trees walking in the north farthing. Etc. So overall, I think there are cuttable parts, especially in book I, such that a movie of aproximately 2 hours could do each volume justice. In fact, I think to tighten up the intensity, some cutting is going to *have* to take place. (Ditch the Lay of Tinuviel for sure. Maybe even forget about the Trolls.) On the other hand, I think there are some things that, while cuttable, should not be because they add to the realism of Tolkien's tale. For instance, the scene after they enter Hollin and something dark flies overhead and they never learn what it is. Or the scene in Moria where after Pippin drop that rock in that well, they suddenly here this tapping noise. I can remember going: Wow, what was that? When are we going to find out what it was? And WE NEVER DO. This stuff is great! It adds to the tension of the book, yet as in real life, not everything is explained. So I would hope that PJ can leave in some of these nice little touches that should take up no more than a few seconds of screen time. LGR ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:34:01 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 18 Message-ID: <37BCDAB9.3A617C0F@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-5-1.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still > serves > a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. > Glorfindel's > primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could > plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. > > -- John Whelan Huh? How would Glorfindel know about Frodo needing a Horse? And what about the crossing of the Last Bridge? They couldn't have done it without Glorfindel showing up. (It wasn't like Asfaloth was going to drive the Nazgul away from that bridge.) LGR ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:07:12 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.05.cb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 20 Aug 1999 05:02:59 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks John Whelan wrote: > Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves > a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's > primary role is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could > plausibly been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. For all that, Asfaloth isn't really of _primary_ importance. PJ could simply time things so that Frodo makes it across the Bruinen on foot, leaving the others on the other side (though I suppose you lose some of the Excitement Of The Chase that way). Asfaloth could be of secondary _structural_ performance, as opposed to the "color" (as important as structure, after all) that someone like Glorfindel provides. (ISTM, in light of "The Silmarillion," that JRRT simply had this character he liked and decided to put him in here as an excuse to use him. JRRT once said something about names inspiring stories--I guess they inspire characters, too.) What's of _primary_ importance is that Frodo gets across the Bruinen and that the Nazgul can't follow him. OTOH, Rivendell is supposed to be surrounded by _thousands_ of square miles of wilderness, which need to be scouted out quickly--_and_ there are _Nazgul_ about. Certainly a justification for a high-level personage of _some_ sort. There probably needs to be a reason the Travellers haven't seen any of the Nazgul for a while, and Glorfindel (or someone JRRT or PJ presents as being capable and available) provides one, so I wouldn't call it a _distant_ third. But in any event, if you're going to put Arwen in there, _don't_ turn her into an Amazon. -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:46:12 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <37BCDAB9.3A617C0F@virginia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37BCDAB9.3A617C0F@virginia.edu> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still > > serves a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. > > Glorfindel's primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something > > that could plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. > Huh? How would Glorfindel know about Frodo needing a Horse? Since when is there a rule that a character must have advance knowledge of his primary story function? > And what about the crossing of the Last Bridge? They couldn't have done > it without Glorfindel showing up. (It wasn't like Asfaloth was going to > drive the Nazgul away from that bridge.) This is not a problem for a film adaptation, which will probably cut out the last bridge in any event. These events were not even portrayed in the book, just mentioned after the fact. They will not be of any importance whatsoever for inclusion in the movie. The crossing of the last bridge can be cut completely from a film, and there will be no need whatsoever to explain how it was crossed. Or the crossing can be included, and there will still be no need for an explanation (In the book we did not get one, or even know we needed one, until after the fact -- we did not know it was guarded, so did not need to know how it became unguarded). If an audience member wishes, he will no doubt be perfectly free to imagine this little peace of backstory in which various powerful elves drive Nazgul away from portions of our heroes' possible approach routes. In a film, we will be free to imagine that Glorfindel chased Nazgul from the bridge. But within the main storyline (which actually IS directly portrayed and experienced by our heroes) Glorfindel's main function is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo. To fulfill this function, his vast powers are not very relevant, and any lowly elf-maid could fill this function just as well (and we are still free to imagine that Glorfindel drove Nazgul from the bridge). -- John Whelan ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pipl4$24k_020@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 21 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:38:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.132 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935128215 209.181.118.132 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:50:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:50:15 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!cyclone.i1.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards wrote: >As another poster said, I believe you under-rate the efficiency of >pictures. In addition, much of the interminable speech making that >takes place in TT and RotK can be cut as well. I believe that 6 hours >(probably more, since each film could easily be stretched by 15 minutes) >is plenty of time to do things in. Consider the Bakshi version: IIRC, >many of the basics of the book made it in, and it had to deal with books >1 - 3 and part of 4. Moreover, the Bakshi movie wasted a good deal of >time showing mood shots of the shire at the outset. 6 hours should be >more than enough to do the books justice. We really shouldn't go into the Bakshi debacle in detail. I mean, Legolas took the place of Glorfindel, and it pretty much went downhill for me from there. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pipos$24k_022@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 22 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:40:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.132 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935128336 209.181.118.132 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:52:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:52:16 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!207.114.4.11!nntp.abs.net!remarQ-easT!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards wrote: >Actually, I can remeber one scene, and I HATED it. That was the victory >at Helm's Deep. I mean, here is Bakshi doing an ANIMATED version and >how does he portray this epic battle? Why he fills the screen with a >cast of dozens! I mean, come on. How low budget can you get? Couldn't >they afford to draw a few more characters? There was very little in Bakshi's film that was actually faithful to the book, but I remember more than dozens of Orcs. However, you have to remember that they filmed the movie with live actors and then drew the animation over them. One of the scenes I couldn't understand was Saruman addressing the Orcs at Isengard. Not only was that not in the book, it didn't need to be in the movie. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7piqkv$24k_030@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 26 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:55:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.132 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935129234 209.181.118.132 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:07:14 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:07:14 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.itconsult.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) wrote: >John Whelan wrote: > >> Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves >> a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's >> primary role is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could >> plausibly been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. > >For all that, Asfaloth isn't really of _primary_ importance. PJ could >simply time things so that Frodo makes it across the Bruinen on foot, >leaving the others on the other side (though I suppose you lose some of >the Excitement Of The Chase that way). Frodo is supposed to be nearly in the Wraith-world at this point, incapable of resisting the Nazgul physically or of fleeing them. If Jackson were to have Frodo escape the Nazgul unaided, then he would be betraying a very important factor in the book. I don't think he will do that, even if it's Arwen who saves the day and not Glorfindel. Jackson can give her an Elven horse just as easily as Glorfindel got one from Tolkien. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:12:25 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> <7pj5gh$do1$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pj5gh$do1$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Aris Katsaris wrote: > John Whelan wrote in message > news:Pine.SUN.3.96.990819182735.19971A-100000@ > > Evidently, it was a pretty close call, as it was the addition of a mere 30 > > pages to the script (according to Moriarty) that enabled the > > reintroduction of Lothlorien. > > ? > 30 script pages equal two hours? > > Is this true? It is true that only about 30 pages were added to the two-film version of the script. Thirty pages does not equal two hours, though. The original two-film script was over 300 pages long. This was way too much to fit into a pair of 2-hour films. Jackson would either have had to make additional cuts, or both of the films would have approached 3 hours in length. Since the plan is to keep the 3-film version down to about 2 hours each, this does not leave much room for the addition of alot of extra material. Moriarty has stated that the script for each film will run about 120 pages. This sounds like it might run OVER 2 hours apiece, unless the scripts are verbose in the way of description and other non-dialogue related details. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:22:25 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: > Actually, I can remeber one scene, and I HATED it. That was the victory > at Helm's Deep. I mean, here is Bakshi doing an ANIMATED version and > how does he portray this epic battle? Why he fills the screen with a > cast of dozens! I mean, come on. How low budget can you get? Couldn't > they afford to draw a few more characters? Nowadays, they have computer graphics and computer technology to help simulate crowd scenes in animated films. Using traditional animation techniques, it is very difficult to do this. Watch any old cartoon, and you will see that there are typically only a very limited number of figures who are actually moving at a given time. A vast battle scene, where a whole host of figures are moving separately and out of sinc with eachother, would be an enormous challenge for a traditional animator, and just not practical. Bakshi used a new technique involving the "rotoscoping" of live actors to deal with the battle scenes in LOTR. It did not work very well. -- John Whelan ###### From: KBarton Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Message-ID: <1415c574.0cacfc2c@usw-ex0106-041.remarq.com> Lines: 10 Bytes: 437 X-Originating-Host: 209.38.98.18 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> X-Wren-Trace: eCkMJCU8ezF6Yi4jDGAmND4oKjtiLmYybHd2c25uaCd/dyd5fw== Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:01:26 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.41 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon3 935161409 10.0.2.41 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:03:29 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:03:29 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!remarQ69!WReNclone!WReNphoon3.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail >I can scarecely remember a thing about that film, not a >single scene was memorable. I have to disagree with you there. Some scenes were far to memorable for my taste. Shock therapy couldn't help me forget that dreadful piece of tripe. (not that I've tried it yet mind you) * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:55:12 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 44 Message-ID: <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <37BCDAB9.3A617C0F@virginia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-3-15.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: > > And what about the crossing of the Last Bridge? They couldn't have > done > > it without Glorfindel showing up. (It wasn't like Asfaloth was > going to > > drive the Nazgul away from that bridge.) > > This is not a problem for a film adaptation, which will probably cut > out > the last bridge in any event. These events were not even portrayed in > the > book, just mentioned after the fact. They will not be of any > importance > whatsoever for inclusion in the movie. The crossing of the last > bridge > can be cut completely from a film, and there will be no need > whatsoever to > explain how it was crossed. Or the crossing can be included, and > there > will still be no need for an explanation (In the book we did not get > one, > or even know we needed one, until after the fact -- we did not know it > > was guarded, so did not need to know how it became unguarded). > I grant you, they could leave it out. Further, I wouldn't want to see Glorfindel chasing the Nazgul away. I thought the way Tolkien wrote it helped build much more tension. It is one of the little details (finding the jewel in the middle of the bridge and not know where the riders were) that helped add mystery to the book (though of course, in this case, we eventually do get an explanation of what happened). But I still disagree that the horse function is Glorfindel's main function. It would seem to me that his main function is to explain to the audience (and the hobbits) what will happen if the riders try to cross the Bruinen. The horsey thing seems secondary to that. Though of course, an elf maid could fulfill this funciton just as well. LGR ###### Message-ID: <37BD1B9B.144BB4CB@yahoo.com> From: Creole X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 35 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:10:51 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.115.22.24 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 935136570 192.115.22.24 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:09:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:09:30 GMT Organization: Verio Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!dfw-artgen.news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Öjevind Lång wrote: > > > John Whelan hath written: > > > > > There are some readers who have gained the impression that Glorfindel's main > > role in the book was not to bring a horse to Frodo, but to scare the steeds > > of the Nazgûl into the River, thus eliminating the Nazgûl for the time > > being. > > Some people might think that, but if they do, they are just plain wrong. > Book I is hardly about Glorfindel at all. He may be a powerful person, > but he is still an extremely minor character -- a cameo appearance by the > hero of another story. > . > > Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves > a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's > primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could > plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. While I agree that Glorfindel's primary role was enabling Strider and the hobbits to safely reach Rivendell, I think there's another important point here: Sam's doubts of Aragorn finally being laid to rest. In terms of morale, having an elf as guide -- one who clearly trusted and respected Strider -- probably did almost as much to get them to safety as Asfaloth. In that respect, Arwen could adequately take Glorfindel's place; giving up her horse, and clearly being on *very* good terms with Aragorn, :) would reassure Frodo and Co. immensely. Creole ###### From: eaa@hopper.unh.edu (Erich A Adler) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: 20 Aug 1999 11:43:47 GMT Organization: University_of New Hampshire Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <37BC5BA1.90972A4E@virginia.edu> <37BCD97E.AF2D95D1@virginia.edu> <7pipos$24k_022@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: hopper.unh.edu X-Trace: tabloid.unh.edu 935149427 21383 132.177.137.8 (20 Aug 1999 11:43:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@tabloid.unh.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 11:43:47 GMT User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!nntp-cust.primenet.com!news.unh.edu!eaa In article <7pipos$24k_022@Org.xenite.org>, Michael Martinez wrote: >There was very little in Bakshi's film that was actually faithful to the >book, but I remember more than dozens of Orcs. However, you have to >remember that they filmed the movie with live actors and then drew the >animation over them. > >One of the scenes I couldn't understand was Saruman addressing the Orcs at >Isengard. Not only was that not in the book, it didn't need to be in the >movie. I understand where you're coming from Micheal, but that's 'Classic' Bakshi quest material. The same scene is in his 'Wizards', except it isn't Saruman. Not to mention all the Battle scenes are remarkably familiar. Erich -- Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer Simpson |---------------| | Erich Adler | |---------------| ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:57:33 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 15 Message-ID: <7pj5gh$do1$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-f108.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 935139665 14081 195.167.116.108 (20 Aug 1999 09:01:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 09:01:05 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!bignews.mediaways.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote in message news:Pine.SUN.3.96.990819182735.19971A-100000@ > Evidently, it was a pretty close call, as it was the addition of a mere 30 > pages to the script (according to Moriarty) that enabled the > reintroduction of Lothlorien. ? 30 script pages equal two hours? Is this true? Aris Katsaris ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 15:05:34 GMT References: <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!205.231.82.12!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards writes: >> > And what about the crossing of the Last Bridge? They couldn't have >> done >> > it without Glorfindel showing up. (It wasn't like Asfaloth was >> going to >> > drive the Nazgul away from that bridge.) >> >> This is not a problem for a film adaptation, which will probably cut >> out >> the last bridge in any event. These events were not even portrayed in >> the >> book, just mentioned after the fact. They will not be of any >> importance >> whatsoever for inclusion in the movie. The crossing of the last >> bridge >> can be cut completely from a film, and there will be no need >> whatsoever to >> explain how it was crossed. Or the crossing can be included, and >> there >> will still be no need for an explanation (In the book we did not get >> one, >> or even know we needed one, until after the fact -- we did not know it >> >> was guarded, so did not need to know how it became unguarded). >> > >I grant you, they could leave it out. Further, I wouldn't want to see >Glorfindel chasing the Nazgul away. I thought the way Tolkien wrote it >helped build much more tension. It is one of the little details >(finding the jewel in the middle of the bridge and not know where the >riders were) that helped add mystery to the book (though of course, in >this case, we eventually do get an explanation of what happened). > No way. I will be greatly upset is the opportunity is lost for the utterance of my favorite line: ...an elf lord revealed in his wrath" Russ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pjv51$140_016@Org.xenite.org> References: <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu> <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 21 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:18:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935166628 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:30:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:30:28 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.new-york.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) wrote: >>I grant you, they could leave it out. Further, I wouldn't want to see >>Glorfindel chasing the Nazgul away. I thought the way Tolkien wrote it >>helped build much more tension. It is one of the little details >>(finding the jewel in the middle of the bridge and not know where the >>riders were) that helped add mystery to the book (though of course, in >>this case, we eventually do get an explanation of what happened). >> > >No way. I will be greatly upset is the opportunity is lost for the utterance >of my favorite line: ...an elf lord revealed in his wrath" Surely you're not hoping for every line of dialogue from the book to be included in the movie? -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pjvb0$140_018@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pgm13$1t7a@enews3.newsguy.com> <19990819085832.01265.00001428@ng-cd1.aol.com> <7pj5gh$do1$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 38 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:21:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935166818 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:33:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:33:38 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , John Whelan wrote: >On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Aris Katsaris wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote in message >> news:Pine.SUN.3.96.990819182735.19971A-100000@ >> > Evidently, it was a pretty close call, as it was the addition of a mere 30 >> > pages to the script (according to Moriarty) that enabled the >> > reintroduction of Lothlorien. >> >> ? >> 30 script pages equal two hours? >> >> Is this true? > >It is true that only about 30 pages were added to the two-film version of >the script. Thirty pages does not equal two hours, though. > >The original two-film script was over 300 pages long. This was way too >much to fit into a pair of 2-hour films. Jackson would either have had to >make additional cuts, or both of the films would have approached 3 hours >in length. The rule of thumb (as I understand it -- I do not write screenplays) is each page is expected to represent about a minute of film time. In practice the equivalency varies. Steven Sears, former Co-Executive Producer for XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS, has often made a point of how his scripts for various episodes have fewer pages than normal and often result in more film time than required (thus resulting in the cutting of scenes). Thus, 120 pages for a two-hour film is a normal estimate, but I think it's considered to be ONLY an estimate. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:26:49 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Reply-To: John Whelan NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Jeff Blanks wrote: > There probably needs to be a reason the Travellers haven't > seen any of the Nazgul for a while, and Glorfindel (or someone JRRT or PJ > presents as being capable and available) provides one, so I wouldn't call > it a _distant_ third. When I discuss importance, I am discussing whether an issue requires screen time. This clearly does not. Even in LOTR it occurs entirely off-screen and is only revealed after the fact. You can leave it out of the film entirely without leaving a plot hole. If you do not know that Nazgul were guarding the bridge, you do not need an explanation as to how they were driven away. Audience-members who have read the book are still free to imagine that it all occurred. Thus, it can fairly be given an importance of near zero within a script. Glorfindel's important on-screen function is to bring the horse to Frodo. > But in any event, if you're going to put Arwen in there, _don't_ turn > her into an Amazon. So far I have seen nothing that implies that Arwen will be turned into the equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess, all the sarcastic comments notwithstanding. Jackson apparently has her merely carrying a sword, not slashing away with it like Conan the Barbarian. It does appear that some are horribly shocked by the idea that she might carry a weapon at all, even in extreme circumstances. I cannot sympathize with such attitudes. They are not only retro, they are unrealistic. Only upper-class women of large civilized nations (like Victorian England) have ever been so totally pigeonholed. Poorer women have never been able to afford such restrictively specialized definitions of femininity, nor have the women of smaller tribes and populations. It is certainly hard to imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or hunting. It is, of course, true that no population has ever used women as soldiers. It is impractical due to women's lesser strength, as well as a terrible idea from the POV of demographical survival (in which the males are far more explendable). However the idea of a women who is strong enough and brave enough to directly defend her family and loved ones is my no means new or radical. My understanding is that, within ancient Scandinavian culture, it was not unheard of for women to be trained in the use of weapons prior to marriage. This was, apparently, Tolkien's inspiration for the character of Eowyn, who refers to herself as a shield-maiden, a direct translation from an Old-Norse term. What was unusual about Eowyn within Rohirrim culture was not that she could fight, but rather that she rode away to battle rather than staying to defend the homestead. Still, Tolkien, influenced as he is by Victorian culture, seems very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as hero (indeed, he seems uncomfortable dealing with women at all). He allows her to slay the Nazgul, but denies her any real glory. Instead of being praised as a hero for her deed (as she clearly should have been), she is subjected to condescending lectures and an humiliating dissection of her motives by various patronizing males. Lets hope that Eowyn makes out a little better in the film. Galadriel makes out much better than Eowyn in terms of holding her dignity. She comes across as much smarter and wiser than her husband, and gets away with it completely. You get the impression that, at Lothlorien, it is really she who is in charge. Then again, her powers and function are far more traditionally feminine. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:52:49 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu> <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 20 Aug 1999, McREsq wrote: > No way. I will be greatly upset is the opportunity is lost for the > utterance of my favorite line: ...an elf lord revealed in his wrath" Sheesh! Just think of how he'll react when he discovers they've cut out Bombadill. -- John Whelan ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:20:26 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 32 Message-ID: <37BDD4AA.B1717511@virginia.edu> References: <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu> <19990820110534.16940.00001533@ngol02.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-3-2.acc.virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail McREsq wrote: > In article <37BD6C4F.DC4D6AA0@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards > writes: > > >I grant you, they could leave it out. Further, I wouldn't want to > see > >Glorfindel chasing the Nazgul away. I thought the way Tolkien wrote > it > >helped build much more tension. It is one of the little details > >(finding the jewel in the middle of the bridge and not know where the > > >riders were) that helped add mystery to the book (though of course, > in > >this case, we eventually do get an explanation of what happened). > > > > No way. I will be greatly upset is the opportunity is lost for the > utterance > of my favorite line: ...an elf lord revealed in his wrath" > > Russ I knew I hadn't written that clearly enough. What I meant was: I don't want to see Glorfindel driving the Riders away from the BRIDGE. I like the way Aragorn and Sam just find the bridge empty and a green gem stuck plop down in the middle of it. At that point, the reader has no idea what happened and neither do the hobbits. It adds mystery to the scene. LGR ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 19:15:32 GMT References: <7pjv51$140_016@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820151532.05899.00001359@ngol03.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pjv51$140_016@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >>No way. I will be greatly upset is the opportunity is lost for the >utterance >>of my favorite line: ...an elf lord revealed in his wrath" > >Surely you're not hoping for every line of dialogue from the book to be >included in the movie? > No, but I really like that one line. Hey, I'm something to behold revealed in my wrath, I can't wait to see an elf lord revealed in his! Russ ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 73 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:48:29 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.54.141 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 935189554 130.244.54.141 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:52:34 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:52:34 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail John Whelan hath written: On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Öjevind Lång wrote: > John Whelan hath written: > > >> There are some readers who have gained the impression that Glorfindel's main >> role in the book was not to bring a horse to Frodo, but to scare the steeds >> of the Nazgûl into the River, thus eliminating the Nazgûl for the time >> being. Some people might think that, but if they do, they are just plain >wrong. Book I is hardly about Glorfindel at all. Neither is Book I about getting a horse to Frodo. He may be a powerful person, >but he is still an extremely minor character -- a cameo appearance by the >hero of another story. That really is not the point when discussing the main role of Glorfindel in the Bruinen episode; that simply has a bearing on how good he is in that role. He is a mighty Elf warrior who is needed in this particular incident. >Neither is Book I primarily concerned with the elimination of the Nazgul. >What Book I is primarily concerned with is whether Frodo and the Ring will >make to Rivendell without him being killed, or captured by Nazgul, or becoming a wraith. In achieving this, Asfaloth assumes >PRIMARY importance at the stage where Glorfindel shows up, because Asfaloth is the >one who actually gets Frodo accross the Ford. Asfaloth (I'm glad you no longer think we are taking about Shadowfax) brings Frodo across the ford. After that, Frodo falls off the horse and faints. Do you think this is very important? Considering that you are quite wlling to dispense with the very important Lórien episode (other posts have explained all about the first revelations about Boromir's greed, the acquisition of Elvish cloaks and boats, and so on), I'm amazed. >Of SECONDARY importance is the flood arranged by Elrond, which prevents the Nazgul from >pursuing (and, incidentally, drowns a three of them on its own even without >Glorfindel's help). These events alone are sufficent to ensure that Frodo >makes it safely to Rivendell. Well - a flood without the sight of Glorfindel revealing himself in all his power as a Lord of the Other Side would be less effective. >Glorfindel's use of his vast powers to temporarily eliminate the remaining >Nazgul assumes a distant third in importance. Not in dramatic effect. It really is much more impressive than seeing Frodo ride across the ford and fall off his horse in a swoon. >> He revealed himself "as he's upon the other side: one of he mighty of >> the Firstborn". Glorfindel had fought Morgoth in the First Age and slain >> the Chief Balrog. Quite a warrior. >Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves >a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's >primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. That horse apparently looms very large in your mind. Actually Frodo could very well have been carried across the ford by Bill the pony if Glorfindel hadn't turned up. Öjevind ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 91 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:09:43 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.54.141 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 935190829 130.244.54.141 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:13:49 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:13:49 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail John Whelan hath written: >On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Jeff Blanks wrote: > > >> But in any event, if you're going to put Arwen in there, _don't_ turn >> her into an Amazon. > >So far I have seen nothing that implies that Arwen will be turned into the >equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess, all the sarcastic comments >notwithstanding. Jackson apparently has her merely carrying a sword, not >slashing away with it like Conan the Barbarian. In the book, she is not any kind of warrior princess. Changing her into one is rewriting the story, something Jackson claimed in that famous interview that he wouldn't do. >It does appear that some are horribly shocked by the idea that she might >carry a weapon at all, even in extreme circumstances. I cannot sympathize >with such attitudes. They are not only retro, they are unrealistic. Only >upper-class women of large civilized nations (like Victorian England) have >ever been so totally pigeonholed. Poorer women have never been able to >afford such restrictively specialized definitions of femininity, nor have >the women of smaller tribes and populations. Women in "smaller tribes and poulations" did not fight in wars. Not that it really has any relevance for a fantasy movie purporting to be founded on a fantasy book. It is certainly hard to >imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside >in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that >they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or >hunting. Really? They were creatures of magic, and of Tolkien, who did not go in for economic realism. Anyway, primitive peoples in real life regarded hunting as a job for men. The women gathered food, cooked food, took care of the children, weaved mats, manufactured pots and had a great number of other things to do around the house. >It is, of course, true that no population has ever used women as soldiers. >It is impractical due to women's lesser strength, as well as a terrible >idea from the POV of demographical survival (in which the males are far >more explendable). However the idea of a women who is strong enough >and brave enough to directly defend her family and loved ones is my no >means new or radical. Actually, it is; with the exception of the mythical Amazons, the female warrior regiment of the King of the Dahomey in the 19th Century and a very few other (real or mythical) cases. >My understanding is that, within ancient Scandinavian culture, it was not >unheard of for women to be trained in the use of weapons prior to >marriage. It would interest me to know where you got that information from. If you are thinking of the shield-maidens (the Valkyries), they were mythical - the God Odin's messengers, appearing above the battlefield to decide who were to fall and then bring their souls to Valhalla. This was, apparently, Tolkien's inspiration for the character of >Eowyn, who refers to herself as a shield-maiden, a direct translation from >an Old-Norse term. What was unusual about Eowyn within Rohirrim culture >was not that she could fight, but rather that she rode away to battle >rather than staying to defend the homestead. In the book, Éowyn does not share your opinion. She complains bitterly of the fate of women - to stay at home until the men have died their glorious deaths, and then be killed or enslaved by the victors because they are no longer needed to admire the heroes. There is not a word about female warriors as something normal in Rohirrim culture. >Still, Tolkien, influenced as he is by Victorian culture, seems very >uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as hero (indeed, he seems >uncomfortable dealing with women at all). He allows her to slay the >Nazgul, but denies her any real glory. Instead of being praised as a hero >for her deed (as she clearly should have been), she is subjected to >condescending lectures and an humiliating dissection of her motives by >various patronizing males. Lets hope that Eowyn makes out a little better >in the film. These are the politically correct arguments for turning Arwen into a warrior Princess. Admitting that agenda openly is more honest than claiming that it is necessary for reasons of script economy. Öjevind ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 21 Aug 1999 02:04:48 GMT References: <37BDD4AA.B1717511@virginia.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820220448.15206.00001129@ngol07.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37BDD4AA.B1717511@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards writes: > I knew I hadn't written that clearly enough. What I meant was: I >don't want to see Glorfindel driving the Riders away from the BRIDGE. I >like the way Aragorn and Sam just find the bridge empty and a green gem >stuck plop down in the middle of it. At that point, the reader has no >idea what happened and neither do the hobbits. It adds mystery to the >scene. > >LGR > Actually, you were clear. I misplaced the plot point you were talking about. As long as I get my elf lord revealed in his wrath (I don't care how and I don't care where), I'll be happy. Russ ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 22:13:16 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 245 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Reply-To: John Whelan NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, =D6jevind L=E5ng wrote: > John Whelan hath written: > > So far I have seen nothing that implies that Arwen will be turned into > > the equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess, all the sarcastic comments > > notwithstanding. Jackson apparently has her merely carrying a sword, > > not slashing away with it like Conan the Barbarian.=20 > In the book, she is not any kind of warrior princess. Changing her into > one is rewriting the story, something Jackson claimed in that famous > interview that he wouldn't do.=20 Umm, OK, but what does this comment have to do with what I just said? Did I not say that there was little evidence that he was turning her into a "warrior princess"? And you are being far too literal about Jackson's promise. According to standards of film adaptations, all the evidence shows that this one is being unusually faithful. Do you expect that he will not rewrite at all? Impossible! A script adaptation MUST be a rewrite to have any chance of being good. The scriptwriter must digest the material, internalize the material, and then "rewrite" it to suit a new (and much shorter) art form. A literal scene-by-scene adaptation of LOTR would likely be dreadful (not-to-mention interminable), and the fans would still tear it to pieces because of all the interpretation that would still be required. > >It does appear that some are horribly shocked by the idea that she might > >carry a weapon at all, even in extreme circumstances. I cannot sympathi= ze > >with such attitudes. They are not only retro, they are unrealistic. On= ly > >upper-class women of large civilized nations (like Victorian England) ha= ve > >ever been so totally pigeonholed. Poorer women have never been able to > >afford such restrictively specialized definitions of femininity, nor hav= e > >the women of smaller tribes and populations. > Women in "smaller tribes and poulations" did not fight in wars.=20 You are absolutely right. But this has nothing to do with the issue of women carrying weapons, and occasionally using weapons. Women do not fight in WARS. That hardly means that they do not fight EVER; nor that they never carry weapons ever for any purpose. Any person who finds that such behavior offends their sensibilities of what is properly feminine is thinking within a very limited cultural perspective that has rarely applied throughout history.=20 I will grant you only that a longsword or a broadsword would not be the most efficient weapon for most women, due to the upper-body strength required to wield it. But, in the hands of an active, healthy woman, a shortsword, dagger, or rapier should not challenge anyone's standards of realism.=20 =20 > It is certainly hard to > >imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside > >in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that > >they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or > >hunting. >=20 > Really? They were creatures of magic, and of Tolkien, who did not go in f= or > economic realism. Anyway, primitive peoples in real life regarded hunting= as > a job for men. The women gathered food, cooked food, took care of the > children, weaved mats, manufactured pots and had a great number of other > things to do around the house. While men have often been able to specialize, women are less apt to be able to do this entirely. Women, throughout history, have certainly PREFERRED to rely on men for fighting and hunting, but in the day to day struggles for survival have often had to do things for themselves. You note correctly that women are often left with the task of raising children. This is certainly true, but you are not considering it's full implications. And if the old man does not want to be bothered with his little boy, who gets left to teach him the basic skills of hunting and of fighting which are necessary for his survival?=20 > >It is, of course, true that no population has ever used women as soldier= s. > >It is impractical due to women's lesser strength, as well as a terrible > >idea from the POV of demographical survival (in which the males are far > >more explendable). However the idea of a women who is strong enough > >and brave enough to directly defend her family and loved ones is my no > >means new or radical. >=20 > Actually, it is; with the exception of the mythical Amazons, the female > warrior regiment of the King of the Dahomey in the 19th Century and a ver= y > few other (real or mythical) cases. The mythical Amazons, and the other examples you mention, are exceptions to the rule against women SOLDIERS, a rule I have already stated. Your examples do not contradict anything I have said. This has nothing to do with ordinary women using weapons in the day-to-day struggle for survival, events that are never recorded in history because history only concerns itself with nations and armies and rulers. I believe anthropolical evidence, however, does support that women did use weapons far more often than is previously supposed. It is also supported by folklore and mythology, in which warrior-women are often celebrated to the point of deification. Such tales imply that ancient cultures, at the very least did not have Victorian attitudes regarding the appropriateness of women using weapons. It is only in advanced "decadent" cultures, where even the men have ceased to be warriors, that there has been a tendency to suppress the "tomboy" so that men's manlihood will not feel threatened.=20 =20 > >My understanding is that, within ancient Scandinavian culture, it was no= t > >unheard of for women to be trained in the use of weapons prior to > >marriage. > It would interest me to know where you got that information from. If you > are thinking of the shield-maidens (the Valkyries), they were mythical > - the God Odin's messengers, appearing above the battlefield to decide > who were to fall and then bring their souls to Valhalla.=20 =20 The Valkieries were indeed the "shield-maidens" of Odin. But I don't believe the term "shield-maiden" (skjaldmaer) was invented to refer only to Valkieries. Please note the association with maidenhood. This is a common theme throughout mythology. It is one of many examples of the glorification (through religion) of the "tomboy" phase which is a normal part of the development of most girls. This may have been discouraged and considered an aberration by the Victorians, but I somehow doubt the ancient Norse felt that way about it. The Valkieries are the only Norse example I can think of. There are lots more from Greek Myth. Take Athena and Artemis, for instance. Both are warrior-godesses who are also (not coincidentally)= =20 eternal virgins.=20 Why is the Tomboy phase of competing with boys glorified in these cultures? Why does the phase exist at all? One might assume it serves no purpose to someone destined to home-life and motherhood. Why allow, or even encourage, women to learn skills that they will rarely use and never hope to compete with men on an equal basis? Does it not seem an abortive exercise? Think again. Women are the demographic backbone of any culture, and are completely essential to the culture's survival. They play a primary roll in the passing on of culture and knowledge, and the most difficult role in the bearing/raising of children. Men are the expendable ones. That is the primary reason women are never used as soldiers, more important than their smaller size and musculature. Men are expendable, women are not. Therefore the men are sent off to war, but the women stay home and only face danger as necessary. But when they do, it is good that they have the skills for it, and few cultures have denied them this. And if Big Johnny goes off to war and gets himself killed, who is it that must now teach little Johnny how to fight and hunt and be a man? Guess who? The men may get all the glory, but that Great Warrior just might have had a mom who knew just enough to give him a head start in his training.=20 > >This was, apparently, Tolkien's inspiration for the character of > >Eowyn, who refers to herself as a shield-maiden, a direct translation fr= om > >an Old-Norse term. What was unusual about Eowyn within Rohirrim culture > >was not that she could fight, but rather that she rode away to battle > >rather than staying to defend the homestead. >=20 > In the book, =C9owyn does not share your opinion. She complains bitterly = of > the fate of women - to stay at home until the men have died their gloriou= s > deaths, and then be killed or enslaved by the victors because they are no > longer needed to admire the heroes. You are annoying me by your inability to understand what I write. That does not contradict anything I have said. She is complaining that even women warriors like herself are always assigned to protect the homestead,= =20 rather than being allowed to ride away to battle. > There is not a word about female warriors as something normal in > Rohirrim culture.=20 "But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse?" = =20 Evidently these two concepts are connected. Evidently women of the House of Eorl are trained in the use of arms. Also: "But I am of the House of Eorl, and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield a blade, and do not fear pain or death." Again she draws a connection between the traditions of her House and her warrior skills. =20 Aragorn's counter-arguments are not that she cannot be a warrior because she is a woman. Rather, he points out that her military assignment has been to guard the homestead: "...did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord's return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshall or captain would have been set in the same place, ..." Eowyn has been assigned to a position that would normally be held by a marshall or captain. It is a position that requires military skills and knowledge. Her status as warrior is indeed recognized by her culture.=20 She just resents being assigned to defend the home, as women warriors always are.=20 Before she rides out secretly disguised as Dernhelm, she appears openly as a woman, but dressed as a Rider and carrying a sword. None of the Rohirrim are shocked. She gains the support of Elfhelm and his entire company in keeping her secret when she rides out. Evidently, Elfhelm is not so shocked by her plan that he is unwilling to cooperate. > >Still, Tolkien, influenced as he is by Victorian culture, seems very > >uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as hero (indeed, he seems > >uncomfortable dealing with women at all). He allows her to slay the > >Nazgul, but denies her any real glory. Instead of being praised as a he= ro > >for her deed (as she clearly should have been), she is subjected to > >condescending lectures and an humiliating dissection of her motives by > >various patronizing males. Lets hope that Eowyn makes out a little bette= r > >in the film. =20 > These are the politically correct arguments for turning Arwen into a > warrior Princess. Admitting that agenda openly is more honest than > claiming that it is necessary for reasons of script economy.=20 If this statement is intended to apply to what I just wrote, it is a total misrepresentation. My opinions in this case had little to do with script economy. When have I been dishonest, as you imply, and pretended otherwise? In most cases I find that Tolkien's attitude toward and treatment of women characters leaves something to be desired, and I am hoping the film will handle it better. It is my opinion.=20 Your use of the phrase "politically correct" is meant, of course, to imply that my opinions are not my own, but are part of some sort of "party line". I resent the implication, of course, as you no doubt intended. My opinions are my own. I did not copy them from anyone.=20 I also resent your misrepresenting my views so you can pretend to defeat me in argument. As you well know, I have never argued in favor of making Arwen an warrior princess. Rather, I have argued that there is nothing shocking or remarkable about the mere fact of her carrying a weapon. There is nothing shocking or remarkable about a maiden who is still a bit of a tomboy. =20 -- John Whelan ###### From: "Tom Durrant" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <37BD1B9B.144BB4CB@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Lines: 43 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.213.130.225 X-Complaints-To: abuse@quik.com X-Trace: newsfeed.intelenet.net 935304811 209.213.130.225 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:53:31 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:53:31 PDT Organization: Quik Internet -- http://www.quik.com/ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 06:53:31 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.intelenet.net!news.quik.com!not-for-mail Creole wrote in message <37BD1B9B.144BB4CB@yahoo.com>... >> Asfaloth may not have killed any Balrogs in his youth, but he still serves >> a more important story function in Book I than Glorfindel. Glorfindel's >> primary roll is to bring Asfaloth to Frodo, something that could >> plausably been achieved by the lowliest of elf maids. > >While I agree that Glorfindel's primary role was enabling Strider and the hobbits >to safely reach Rivendell, I think there's another important point here: Sam's >doubts of Aragorn finally being laid to rest. In terms of morale, having an elf as >guide -- one who clearly trusted and respected Strider -- probably did almost as >much to get them to safety as Asfaloth. In that respect, Arwen could adequately >take Glorfindel's place; giving up her horse, and clearly being on *very* good >terms with Aragorn, :) would reassure Frodo and Co. immensely. > >Creole > I agree. I think Arwen needs more air time. Not much (I am a Tolkien purist I guess), but enough. IMHO Tolkien is *much* too subtle about the romance between Aragorn and Arwen. I'm sure it was an entirely pure relationship, but it went on for ~70 years! The "Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" from the appendix of RK has the needed details, but they really really belong in FR. At the least knowledge of this romance greatly deepens the poignancy of Eowyn's infatuation with Aragorn, and helps us see Aragorn as a real human being (of course being engaged for ~70 years is not exactly normal, but it sure is dramatic). I suspect the romance will be brought out more explicitly in the first movie. If this is done tastefully, I think it will be an improvement to the book. -- Tom ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: 22 Aug 1999 17:00:39 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 97 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uu2pryi5k.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 John Whelan writes: > > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, =D6jevind L=E5ng wrote: > > > Women in "smaller tribes and poulations" did not fight in wars.=20 > > You are absolutely right. But this has nothing to do with the issue of > women carrying weapons, and occasionally using weapons. > > Women do not fight in WARS. Nope. They have actually fought as regular soldiers in wars. Cornelius Tacitus (an roman historian around 100.A.D) did an fact-finding mission through the northern part of the then-empire and the bordering german lands. He reports hearing from roman soldiers who captured enemies in some of their wars against germen tribes and after stripping them of their helmets finding some of them to be women. And being shocked at this. He reported both women in the main army and women as second line fighters. > > economic realism. Anyway, primitive peoples in real life regarded hunting= > as > > a job for men. The women gathered food, cooked food, took care of the > > children, weaved mats, manufactured pots and had a great number of other > > things to do around the house. This is nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out Ojevind. Women (particularly upper society ones) have hunted in many societies, including the european middle ages. Crossbows were very liberating in this respect. Archery (longbow) was known amoung women in Victorian times. > children. This is certainly true, but you are not considering it's full > implications. And if the old man does not want to be bothered with his > little boy, who gets left to teach him the basic skills of hunting and of > fighting which are necessary for his survival?=20 Noticed by UNO develpment agencies: teach men literacy and it vanishes in one generation, teach women and they will keep it going by teaching their children of both sexes. > itself with nations and armies and rulers. I believe anthropolical > evidence, however, does support that women did use weapons far more often > than is previously supposed. Scythians (predecessors of todays turks) for one. They were even burried with weapons). > It is also supported by folklore and > mythology, in which warrior-women are often celebrated to the point of > deification. Baedicea? Would even be in England, and surely known to Tolkien. Allthough she is more an Galadriel than an Arwen. Zenobia of Persia also. > Before she rides out secretly disguised as Dernhelm, she appears openly as > a woman, but dressed as a Rider and carrying a sword. None of the > Rohirrim are shocked. > > She gains the support of Elfhelm and his entire company in keeping her > secret when she rides out. Evidently, Elfhelm is not so shocked by her > plan that he is unwilling to cooperate. Perhaps because women fighting in war may be seldom, but was nowhere near unheard of? Eowyns problem is more violating her orders (which is what Aragorn dislikes), not her desire to fight in the war. > I also resent your misrepresenting my views so you can pretend to defeat > me in argument. As you well know, I have never argued in favor of making > Arwen an warrior princess. Rather, I have argued that there is nothing > shocking or remarkable about the mere fact of her carrying a weapon. Or in her going on an search mission. > There is nothing shocking or remarkable about a maiden who is still a > bit of a tomboy. =20 And Tolkien claims that Elf women like huntiong (Galadriel at least, and Arwen is her grand-daughter). -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Wizzard and Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:44:09 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.16.83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 22 Aug 1999 15:29:50 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks John Whelan wrote: > When I discuss importance, I am discussing whether an issue requires > screen time. This clearly does not. Check. > ...Tolkien, influenced as he is by Victorian culture, seems very > uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as hero (indeed, he seems > uncomfortable dealing with women at all). ...[Eowyn] is subjected to > condescending lectures and an humiliating dissection of her motives by > various patronizing males. Well, that brings up the matter of one's own (or Tolkien's) interpretation of the validity of those male characters' outlooks. He _may_ not necessarily be endorsing them. I notice that tales of Female Empowerment normally include a fair bit of grumbling from less-enlightened males. > Let's hope that Eowyn makes out a little better in the film. I'm sure she will. -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:51:13 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.16.83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 22 Aug 1999 15:36:53 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks John Whelan wrote: > ...if the old man does not want to be bothered with his > little boy, who gets left to teach him the basic skills of hunting and of > fighting which are necessary for his survival? Grandpa??? > It is only in advanced "decadent" cultures, where even the > men have ceased to be warriors, that there has been a tendency to suppress > the "tomboy" so that men's manlihood will not feel threatened. Considering the Ellen Ripleyization of today's culture, I don't think we have to worry about tomboy suppression any longer. BUT... In the light of the following questions: > Why is the Tomboy phase of competing with boys glorified in these > cultures? Why does the phase exist at all? I might also ask: Why is there seemingly _no_ corresponding phase (or role) for males (at least no such role that carries a generally positive sanction)? -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### From: Solinas Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:45:58 -0400 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <37C0293B.7EC7892A@erols.com> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <37BD1B9B.144BB4CB@yahoo.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: Aqnc+LF9l0Kh9Bre9KkyoRELDhv/ceI/THLfx8W5ZKE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 1999 18:09:36 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Tom Durrant wrote: > I agree. I think Arwen needs more air time. Not much (I am a Tolkien > purist I guess), but enough. IMHO Tolkien is *much* too subtle about the > romance between Aragorn and Arwen. I'm sure it was an entirely pure > relationship, but it went on for ~70 years! The "Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" > from the appendix of RK has the needed details, but they really really > belong in FR. Aragorn and Arwen first met around Aragorn's 20th birthday and Ara- gorn "from that hour he loved Arwen Undomiel daughter of Elrond". 29 years later, they met in Lothlorien, and Arwen fell in love with Ara- gorn. Thus, they were betrothed 41 years. > At the least knowledge of this romance greatly deepens the poignancy of > Eowyn's infatuation with Aragorn, and helps us see Aragorn as a real human > being (of course being engaged for ~70 years is not exactly normal, but it > sure is dramatic). See above. > I suspect the romance will be brought out more explicitly in the first > movie. If this is done tastefully, I think it will be an improvement to the > book. > > -- Tom Luthien It's the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine! ###### Message-ID: <37C007BF.F3240605@yahoo.com> From: Creole X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:22:56 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.115.22.88 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 935328130 192.115.22.88 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:22:10 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:22:10 GMT Organization: Verio Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!dfw-artgen.news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > It does appear that some are horribly shocked by the idea that she might > carry a weapon at all, even in extreme circumstances. I cannot sympathize > with such attitudes. They are not only retro, they are unrealistic. Only > upper-class women of large civilized nations (like Victorian England) have > ever been so totally pigeonholed. Poorer women have never been able to > afford such restrictively specialized definitions of femininity, nor have > the women of smaller tribes and populations. It is certainly hard to > imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside > in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that > they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or > hunting. Let's not forget what happened to Arwen's mother. After seeing his wife depart oversea after being tormented by orcs, I would imagine that Elrond would make sure that his daughter was capable of defending herself. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:43:50 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 31 Message-ID: <7pq5u9$9gb$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <6uu2pryi5k.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <7ppv8r$3es_042@Org.xenite.org> Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.29.86 X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 935369481 9739 12.79.29.86 (23 Aug 1999 00:51:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Aug 1999 00:51:21 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail Michael Martinez wrote in message news:7ppv8r$3es_042@Org.xenite.org... > I don't know about the Scythians, but the Sauromatae and > their successors, the Sarmatians, had warrior women > according to the archaeologists who have been excavating > their graves for several decades. I'm familiar with this culture (and recently cited it in a similar thread). However, my understanding was always that 'Sauromatae' was just the Greek term for 'Sarmatians', not a separate or preceding culture. > Boudicca was not renowned for being a warrior until she > was stripped of her inheritance after her husband died > and the Romans raped her daughters in front of her. The > parallels with Galadriel, if they are there, are not > obvious. Well, comparisons could be made to Celebrian... though the precise nature of the torments the Orcs inflicted on her is not specified. > Eowyn did not violate any orders. As mentioned elsewhere there seems to be text of Theoden saying she would be left in charge while he went to war in Gondor. As such, I'd say that she did violate his orders by riding out with him in secrecy. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7ppv8r$3es_042@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <6uu2pryi5k.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 54 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:57:31 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.119.143 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935363248 209.181.119.143 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:07:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:07:28 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <6uu2pryi5k.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: >John Whelan writes: >> itself with nations and armies and rulers. I believe anthropolical >> evidence, however, does support that women did use weapons far more often >> than is previously supposed. > >Scythians (predecessors of todays turks) for one. They were even >burried with weapons). I don't know about the Scythians, but the Sauromatae and their successors, the Sarmatians, had warrior women according to the archaeologists who have been excavating their graves for several decades. They were partially Scythian, but according to Herodotus they believed they were descended from a group of Scythian warriors who married a band of Amazons. >> It is also supported by folklore and >> mythology, in which warrior-women are often celebrated to the point of >> deification. > >Baedicea? Would even be in England, and surely known to Tolkien. >Allthough she is more an Galadriel than an Arwen. Zenobia of Persia also. Boudicca was not renowned for being a warrior until she was stripped of her inheritance after her husband died and the Romans raped her daughters in front of her. The parallels with Galadriel, if they are there, are not obvious. >> Before she rides out secretly disguised as Dernhelm, she appears openly as >> a woman, but dressed as a Rider and carrying a sword. None of the >> Rohirrim are shocked. >> >> She gains the support of Elfhelm and his entire company in keeping her >> secret when she rides out. Evidently, Elfhelm is not so shocked by her >> plan that he is unwilling to cooperate. > >Perhaps because women fighting in war may be seldom, but was nowhere >near unheard of? Actually, the appendix states the Rohirrim had songs of many valiant women. >Eowyns problem is more violating her orders (which is what Aragorn >dislikes), not her desire to fight in the war. Eowyn did not violate any orders. She would have left her post with Aragorn if he had permitted her, but she had no duty when she rode off as Dernhelm (a name she only contrived when she realized Merry didn't recognize her, btw). -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:58:51 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <37C6ED8D.2576F61@univie.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37C6ED8D.2576F61@univie.ac.at> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Maia wrote: > > >So far I have seen nothing that implies that Arwen will be turned into the > > >equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess, all the sarcastic comments > > >notwithstanding. Jackson apparently has her merely carrying a sword, not > > >slashing away with it like Conan the Barbarian. > > > > > It is certainly hard to > > >imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside > > >in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that > > >they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or > > >hunting. > > Actually, browsing POME today I have read that Galadriel was a match > for the greatest elven athletes in her youth and that she "fought > fiercely against Feanor in the defence of her (Telerian) kin" > during/after the rape of the ships. So, it certainly seems to me that > _she_ really was a sword-toting babe in her wild years and that it > isn't unheard of for an elf-maid to be so. Thank you. It's good to have a little support on this issue. I have really been surprised and a bit shocked by the incredible hostility engendered by the mere notion that Arwen might be so bold as to ride alone in the woods and carry a weapon. Folks on this NG have even drawn a connection between the independence this implies, and sexual looseness. Jokes have resulted about Arwen carrying condoms and jumping in bed with Boromir and god know who else, and "hopping Aragorn in the forest". I fail to see any necessary connection. Folks have argued that Elrond would keep her locked up and never let her out, and seem to think this is appropriate, for God knows what these girls will get up to if you let them out. Arwen is not quite the super-hero that Galadriel was, but it would be a bit surprising if she did not take after her grandmother to some small degree. Folks have argued that Tolkien never portrays her doing these things, and that therefore Jackson cannot because it would be "out of character" for Arwen, as well as unfaithful to Tolkien. But I certainly do not think that Tolkien intended us to assume that we knew all there was to know about Arwen, who is 2,000 years old. It would be a dull babe indeed who spent the last 2,000 years doing nothing but sewing. Were this the case I would have dumped her for Eowyn in a minute, were I in Aragorn's shoes. Jackson is entitled to "fill in the blanks" of Arwen's character, just as he is entitled to "fill in the blanks" of Tolkien's description of the Balrog to create a fully realized picture. This will merely be his own interpretation, and it will be impossible to determine if Tolkien would have approved. But if the films are not allowed to add *something* to the novels in the way of interpretation, then I scarcely see the point of making them at all. With the time constraints he has, Jackson must either leave Arwen out entirely, or find a way to introduce her by slipping her into the main narrative. I like the latter option better, because it adds dimension to the later interactions between Aragorn and Eowyn. It looks like Jackson has taken the latter option. Naturally, I will not be able to judge this decision until I see the final results. But there is at least a possiblility that it could work very well. -- John Whelan ###### From: Maia Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty and such Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:57:01 +0200 Organization: Vienna University, Austria Lines: 43 Message-ID: <37C6ED8D.2576F61@univie.ac.at> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: elektronik.hno.akh-wien.ac.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: www.univie.ac.at 935782413 48730 149.148.83.4 (27 Aug 1999 19:33:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-adm@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 1999 19:33:33 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [de] (Win98; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed03.univie.ac.at!news.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Öjevind Lång schrieb: > > John Whelan hath written: > > >On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Jeff Blanks wrote: > > > > > > >> But in any event, if you're going to put Arwen in there, _don't_ turn > >> her into an Amazon. > > > >So far I have seen nothing that implies that Arwen will be turned into the > >equivalent of Xena, Warrior Princess, all the sarcastic comments > >notwithstanding. Jackson apparently has her merely carrying a sword, not > >slashing away with it like Conan the Barbarian. > It is certainly hard to > >imagine that Elves, who have never been numerous, and who love to reside > >in wild and natural habitats, could ever afford such specialization that > >they would completely deprive their females of skills of self defence or > >hunting. Actually, browsing POME today I have read that Galadriel was a match for the greatest elven athletes in her youth and that she "fought fiercely against Feanor in the defence of her (Telerian) kin" during/after the rape of the ships. So, it certainly seems to me that _she_ really was a sword-toting babe in her wild years and that it isn't unheard of for an elf-maid to be so. > Really? They were creatures of magic, and of Tolkien, who did not go in for > economic realism. Anyway, primitive peoples in real life regarded hunting as > a job for men. The women gathered food, cooked food, took care of the > children, weaved mats, manufactured pots and had a great number of other > things to do around the house. Except that we are told many times that the elf-maids tend to wander by themselves through the woods and to live in the woods alone. And even during Morgoth's captivity it wasn't completely safe to do so as his creatures were still about and there were other dangers. So, they would have to know how to hunt at least. Elves began to build strong places in the Middle-earth only after Morgoth's return.