Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 88 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:35:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.132 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935128018 209.181.118.132 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:46:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:46:58 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-xfer.epix.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , 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? Well, as I write this I haven't had a chance to read all the followups. But here are the script excerpts he made available. Please, everyone, keep in mind that Moriarty has already been roasted over the coals for this, and he was not responsible for any of it. 1) Arwen and Aragorn: "EXT. TROLLSHAW FOREST - NIGHT ANGLE ON: STRIDER hurries through the DARK FOREST, collecting FIREWOOD. SUDDENLY! STRIDER FREEZES as a SWORD BLADE touches his neck! A WHITE HORSE steps into FG. ARWEN (o.s.) What's this? A Ranger caught off-guard? STRIDER slowly looks up. His eyes widen with RECOGNITION." 2) Scouring of Shire: I'd have to answer carefully and say, "I can't address this issue at this time." That's not a committal in either direction on the question. I know this is a big one to most fans, but I'm sorry. 3) Lorien and Galadriel and her Mirror: The whole deal about Galadriel and Lothlorien: Without spoiling the whole sequence, let me say that Galadriel's Glade is indeed in Lothlorien, and that Frodo visits it while in Rivendell. That's what I meant to imply in my initial review, and I'm confirming it again here. No mistake, no confusion. Let me say here that Michael Deluca has reportedly told someone that he believes "Scouring of the Shire" will be in the movie. Also, Moriarty has stated that the Lothlorien scene will occur in the 3-film deal. >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. No, it doesn't make sense at all. Glorindel was sent out to face the Nine. Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as much as possible). >>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. The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. I can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story in as brief a format as possible. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: xaecarol@ix.netcom.com (Andrew Carol) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:14:44 -0700 Organization: Netcom Lines: 25 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ali-ca16-55.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Aug 20 10:11:22 AM CDT 1999 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ix.netcom.com!xaecarol In article <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: > The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. I > can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story in as > brief a format as possible. Huh? Lothlorien so much more critical than Bombadil. Bombadil was a visit with Father Nature and furthered the story very little except to contrive a rescue, and perhaps show that he was immune to the rings powers. He is deeply interesting as a part of the history of Middle Earth, but not so much in the War of the Ring. Lothorien was critical because it dramaticly brought into focus the desires of the principles and showed the depth of their temptation to use the ring. It also shows the sacrifice the elves are making in assiting in the destruction of the ring. IMHO, LoTR is a book about temptation, redemption, and sacrifice. ---- Andrew -- Andrew Carol xaecarol@ix.netcom.com (Remove leading x from my address to e-mail) ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:28:44 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > >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. > > No, it doesn't make sense at all. Glorindel was sent out to face the Nine. Indeed he was. So were a few others. > Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as > much as possible). Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and make one or two decisions of her own at this stage? A stage where her own true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme danger? Not to mention the fact that the fate of the entire free world rests on the safe arrival of the Ring. Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth and be mortal? Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. > The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. The Lothlorien passage is, of course, much more crucial than the Bombadil passage. It is plainly out of the question that Bombadil be included in a mere 6-hour film. But it appears that Lothlorien does stand a chance, provided the time constraints are not too severe. > I can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story > in as brief a format as possible. Time constraints are, of course, the issue. Nobody is saying "I hate Lothlorien, I hope they cut it out of the film." -- John Whelan ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:03:08 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 35 Message-ID: <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> 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!netnews.globalip.ch!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.tvd.be!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail Aris Katsaris wrote: > Michael Martinez wrote in message > news:7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org... > > The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. > > > Strange. I think that most people would consider it far more important > than > the Bombadil passage, myself included. The Bombadil section simply > provides > a stylistic intermediary between the world of "The Hobbit" and that of > "The > Lord of the Rings". Lorien not only provides prophecies for the future > > (Galadriel's mirror), provides the Fellowship with much more important > gifts > than the swords (the glass, the earth, the cloaks, even the boats), it > is > also an example of a place protected by one of the Three Rings (and > thus an > example of what will be lost if Frodo succeeds) with Galadriel giving > Frodo > advice on the subject , and is a connection to a far older world. > > Aris Katsaris But the most important part, IMO, is that this is where Boromir's lust for the ring really wakens. And this scene can help explain to the audience why this lust hasn't broken out before to the point of open moves against Frodo (say in Hollin): i.e. Galadriel's probing brings his fanatasies to the fore. LGR ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:41:56 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 19 Message-ID: <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-f108.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 935138728 13152 195.167.116.108 (20 Aug 1999 08:45:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 08:45:28 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Michael Martinez wrote in message news:7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org... > The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. Strange. I think that most people would consider it far more important than the Bombadil passage, myself included. The Bombadil section simply provides a stylistic intermediary between the world of "The Hobbit" and that of "The Lord of the Rings". Lorien not only provides prophecies for the future (Galadriel's mirror), provides the Fellowship with much more important gifts than the swords (the glass, the earth, the cloaks, even the boats), it is also an example of a place protected by one of the Three Rings (and thus an example of what will be lost if Frodo succeeds) with Galadriel giving Frodo advice on the subject , and is a connection to a far older world. Aris Katsaris ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 14:17:59 GMT References: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820101759.16940.00001513@ngol02.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >1) Arwen and Aragorn: > > "EXT. TROLLSHAW FOREST - NIGHT > ANGLE ON: STRIDER hurries through the DARK > FOREST, collecting FIREWOOD. > SUDDENLY! STRIDER FREEZES as a SWORD > BLADE touches his neck! A WHITE HORSE steps > into FG. > ARWEN (o.s.) > What's this? A Ranger caught off-guard? > STRIDER slowly looks up. His eyes widen with > RECOGNITION." > Good God that absurd. Geez, it's one thing to believe an elf on foot could sneak up on a ranger - but a friggin two ton horse? Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 14:18:00 GMT References: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820101800.16940.00001514@ngol02.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!bignews.mediaways.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. I >can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story in as >brief a format as possible. I don't quite understand the importance you place on Bombadil in terms of the movie. Tolkien himself stated he is not central to the narrative. As people who are more interested in Tolkien's world, we understand the importance of Bombadil (and of Aragorn and Arwen for that matter whose story Tolkien left out of the narrative completely) but leaving Bombadil in the screenplay would quite simply leave "non-experts" scratching their heads. If he is written in literally, he'll come off as Jar Jar Binks. Russ ###### From: gordon@127.0.0.1 (Gordon Walker) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:23:26 GMT Organization: N/A Message-ID: <37bd6256.21541945@192.168.0.43> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> 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 935158880 nnrp-07:15445 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: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.tli.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lerhost.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:35:24 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >Let me say here that Michael Deluca has reportedly told someone that he >believes "Scouring of the Shire" will be in the movie. As reported on http://theonering.net he said "I don't think it's out but I'll double check". -- Gordon Walker ###### From: gordon@127.0.0.1 (Gordon Walker) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:23:26 GMT Organization: N/A Message-ID: <37bd6256.21541945@192.168.0.43> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> 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 935158880 nnrp-07:15445 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: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.tli.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!lerhost.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 05:35:24 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >Let me say here that Michael Deluca has reportedly told someone that he >believes "Scouring of the Shire" will be in the movie. As reported on http://theonering.net he said "I don't think it's out but I'll double check". -- Gordon Walker ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 15:03:23 GMT References: <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820110323.16940.00001532@ngol02.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at>, Maia writes: >Yes, I did wonder and Arwen's general behaviour in LOTR didn't make >sense for me. IMHO her portrayal made her love story with Aragorn >highly implausible. I.e. if Aragorn didn't succeed to become the King >of Arnor and Gondor, she would be quite content to part with him >beyond the End of the World. And, she didn't lift a finger to help him >- that's some love... > Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of Beren until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was never in that sort of danger. Russ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk00s$140_022@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 27 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:33:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935167518 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:45:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:45:18 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 <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards wrote: > But the most important part, IMO, is that this is where Boromir's >lust for the ring really wakens. And this scene can help explain to the >audience why this lust hasn't broken out before to the point of open >moves against Frodo (say in Hollin): i.e. Galadriel's probing brings his >fanatasies to the fore. You're assuming, however, that the scene where Boromir's lust is hinted at will be included in the movie. Nonetheless, Bombadil sets up a lot of stuff. Without him, you have a Ranger appearing out of nowhere with no background or explanation, you have no explanation for how Merry gets his sword, for how Gandalf is able to overtake the hobbits, or for how Aragorn knows where to find the hobbits (he overhears them talking with Bombadil on the road). Bombadil contributes other elements which would not translate easily to film, but which are nonetheless necessary to the story. Tolkien pointed out that this passage was integral to the story and he had plenty of good reason for saying so. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk0al$140_024@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 69 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:38:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935167831 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:50:31 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:50:31 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!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, Michael Martinez wrote: > >> >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. >> >> No, it doesn't make sense at all. Glorindel was sent out to face the Nine. > >Indeed he was. So were a few others. > >> Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as >> much as possible). > >Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and >make one or two decisions of her own at this stage?... No, not at all. But it would be out of character for Arwen to sneak up on Aragorn in the Trollshaws with a sword when the Nazgul were running around. >...A stage where her own true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme >danger?... And she just happens to be in the right place at the right time? Tolkien had a few contrivances in his story, but this one smacks of YUCK all over the place. It's cheap fantasy, not high art or even good story-telling. Tolkien knew better than to fall into that trap, and I'd like to know Jackson knows better, too. >...Not to mention the fact that the fate of the entire free world rests on >the safe arrival of the Ring. That's implying it rests on Arwen's sneaking up on Aragorn. What a change in the story this is bound to bring about. >Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth >and be mortal?... Only if Aragorn succeeds. What if he's killed? Should she stay anyway? >...Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life >for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens >to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she >would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even >an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. No one said anything about Arwen cowering, but Tolkien makes it clear in the book that she abides her father's wishes, and one of them (apparently) is that she be as far removed from the peril as possible. Also, Elven women were generally not expected to be warriors. Fighting impaired some of the other abilities of the Elves, and it was a grave choice for an Elf to become a warrior. >> The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. > >The Lothlorien passage is, of course, much more crucial than the Bombadil >passage. Hardly. It barely approaches the importance of Bombadil's passage. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk0i5$140_026@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 32 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:42:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935168070 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:54:30 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:54:30 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at>, Maia wrote: >But why do you insist that she could help less than any other >elf-lord? Would Galadriel, for instance, be able to drive away the >Nazgul sans her ring? Except for Merry and Eowyn we never see anyone >successfully fighting Nazgul with weapons - Glorfindel and Gandalf >drive them away with their innate power, not their swords. Galadriel wouldn't be able to drive them away WITH her Ring. The Three Rings did not grabnt that kind of power. Galadriel might indeed have the innate power to fend off the Nazgul, but then again, she might not. Tolkien's view of how the Elves exercised their powers incorporated certain costs. Healers and nurturers were far less likely to fight than other Elves because it would impair their abilities to heal and protect life if they took it. >Yes, I did wonder and Arwen's general behaviour in LOTR didn't make >sense for me. IMHO her portrayal made her love story with Aragorn >highly implausible. I.e. if Aragorn didn't succeed to become the King >of Arnor and Gondor, she would be quite content to part with him >beyond the End of the World. And, she didn't lift a finger to help him >- that's some love... Arwen actually did give Aragorn SOME help, but it appears to be a condition of Elrond's concession to their love that Aragorn achieve as much as he could on his own. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <19990820101800.16940.00001514@ngol02.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 25 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:46:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935168276 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:57:56 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:57:56 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <19990820101800.16940.00001514@ngol02.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) wrote: >In article <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) writes: > >>The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. I >>can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story in as >>brief a format as possible. > >I don't quite understand the importance you place on Bombadil in terms of the >movie. Tolkien himself stated he is not central to the narrative. Lothlorien is hardly central to the narrative. But Tolkien left him in because he felt Bombadil served a purpose. But Bombadil the character is not equivalent to Bombadil the episode. There is much which occurs in "In the House of Tom Bombadil" and "Fog on the Barrowdowns" which has an impact later on in the story. Much of the dialogue later chapters becomes irrelevant without Bombadil, and so Jackson will have to cut that out, too. But he cannot delete the importance of Bombadil to the story. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk0t6$140_030@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 32 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935168424 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:00:24 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:00:24 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newnews.hk-r.se!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.itconsult.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , xaecarol@ix.netcom.com (Andrew Carol) wrote: >In article <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) wrote: > >> The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. I >> can't justify cutting it for any reason other than to tell the story in as >> brief a format as possible. > >Huh? Lothlorien so much more critical than Bombadil. No, not really. Bombadil serves a critical function in the book and leaving him out of the movie raises so many questions it's simply an unbelievable mistake on Jackson's part. There are many other passages which should have been cut in place of Bombadil. >Lothorien was critical because it dramaticly brought into focus the >desires of the principles and showed the depth of their temptation to use >the ring. It also shows the sacrifice the elves are making in assiting in >the destruction of the ring. > >IMHO, LoTR is a book about temptation, redemption, and sacrifice. In Tolkien's opinion it was about death and the search for deathlessnes. I rather favor that view myself, and Bombadil certainly contributes to that notion. Lothlorien doesn't. The overall theme of the story changes without Bombadil. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:50:13 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 42 Message-ID: <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-g084.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 935157226 3008 195.167.116.212 (20 Aug 1999 13:53:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 13:53:46 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote in message news:Pine.SUN.3.96.990820080344.25679D-100000@amanda... > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > > Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as > > much as possible). > > Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and > make one or two decisions of her own at this stage? A stage where her own > true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme danger? Not to mention the > fact that the fate of the entire free world rests on the safe arrival of > the Ring. She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. > Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth > and be mortal? Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life > for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens > to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she > would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even > an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. Nevertheless this is what made perfect sense to everyone had read LoTR. When you first read it, did you wonder: why the hell wasn't Arwen also out looking for them? I know I didn't. > > The Lothlorien passage is almost as crucial as the Bombadil passage. > > The Lothlorien passage is, of course, much more crucial than the Bombadil > passage. It is plainly out of the question that Bombadil be included in a > mere 6-hour film. But it appears that Lothlorien does stand a chance, > provided the time constraints are not too severe. Not just a chance. Lorien has been fully restored in the three-movie version from what we hear. Aris Katsaris ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pk1cq$140_036@Org.xenite.org> References: <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <19990820110323.16940.00001532@ngol02.aol.com> <37BD8C94.562185CA@univie.ac.at> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 18 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:56:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.147.81 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935168923 207.224.147.81 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:08:43 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:08:43 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37BD8C94.562185CA@univie.ac.at>, Maia wrote: > >IIRC at least in the earlier versions of the story Thingol imprisoned >Luthien on a tree to prevent her from going with Beren. Or am I having >a massive hallucination? When Sauron imprisoned Beren in Minas Tirith Luthien sensed something was wrong, and she went to Melian to find out what happened. Luthien realized no one would try to help Beren, so she resolved to leave Doriath, Thingol sensed or learned this and had her imprisoned. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: Maia Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:00:22 +0200 Organization: Vienna University, Austria Lines: 42 Message-ID: <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: elektronik.hno.akh-wien.ac.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: www.univie.ac.at 935159857 65928 149.148.83.4 (20 Aug 1999 14:37:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-adm@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 14:37:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [de] (Win98; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nacamar.de!blackbush.xlink.net!news-kar1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!aconews.univie.ac.at!news.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Aris Katsaris schrieb: > > John Whelan wrote in message > news:Pine.SUN.3.96.990820080344.25679D-100000@amanda... > > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > > > Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as > > > much as possible). > > > > Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and > > make one or two decisions of her own at this stage? A stage where her own > > true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme danger? Not to mention the > > fact that the fate of the entire free world rests on the safe arrival of > > the Ring. > > She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, > who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. But why do you insist that she could help less than any other elf-lord? Would Galadriel, for instance, be able to drive away the Nazgul sans her ring? Except for Merry and Eowyn we never see anyone successfully fighting Nazgul with weapons - Glorfindel and Gandalf drive them away with their innate power, not their swords. > > Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth > > and be mortal? Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life > > for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens > > to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she > > would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even > > an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. > > Nevertheless this is what made perfect sense to everyone had read LoTR. When > you first read it, did you wonder: why the hell wasn't Arwen also out > looking for them? > > I know I didn't. Yes, I did wonder and Arwen's general behaviour in LOTR didn't make sense for me. IMHO her portrayal made her love story with Aragorn highly implausible. I.e. if Aragorn didn't succeed to become the King of Arnor and Gondor, she would be quite content to part with him beyond the End of the World. And, she didn't lift a finger to help him - that's some love... ###### From: Maia Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 19:12:52 +0200 Organization: Vienna University, Austria Lines: 20 Message-ID: <37BD8C94.562185CA@univie.ac.at> References: <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <19990820110323.16940.00001532@ngol02.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: elektronik.hno.akh-wien.ac.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: www.univie.ac.at 935167805 160318 149.148.83.4 (20 Aug 1999 16:50:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-adm@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 16:50:05 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [de] (Win98; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!news.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail McREsq schrieb: > > In article <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at>, Maia > writes: > > >Yes, I did wonder and Arwen's general behaviour in LOTR didn't make > >sense for me. IMHO her portrayal made her love story with Aragorn > >highly implausible. I.e. if Aragorn didn't succeed to become the King > >of Arnor and Gondor, she would be quite content to part with him > >beyond the End of the World. And, she didn't lift a finger to help him > >- that's some love... > > > > Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of Beren > until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was never in that sort > of danger. IIRC at least in the earlier versions of the story Thingol imprisoned Luthien on a tree to prevent her from going with Beren. Or am I having a massive hallucination? ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:44:30 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$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: <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.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.3.96.990820080344.25679D-100000@amanda... > > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > > > Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as > > > much as possible). > > > > Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and > > make one or two decisions of her own at this stage? A stage where her own > > true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme danger? Not to mention the > > fact that the fate of the entire free world rests on the safe arrival of > > the Ring. > > She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, > who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. I never suggested that she might go out INSTEAD of the elf-lords sent by Elrond. I am suggesting that she may have gone IN ADDITION to the elf-lords sent by Elrond. As someone has pointed out already, there were thousands of square miles of wilderness to be covered. > > Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth > > and be mortal? Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life > > for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens > > to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she > > would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even > > an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. > > Nevertheless this is what made perfect sense to everyone had read LoTR. When > you first read it, did you wonder: why the hell wasn't Arwen also out > looking for them? > > I know I didn't. It bothered me as soon as I became aware of it. Arwen has such a low profile in the book, that I cannot say I even noticed her enough to be bothered at first reading. Their romance seemed cold and stilted and made no impression on me whatsoever at first. It might have if she had ever demonstrated her love for him in a tangible way. And no, it did not, and does not, make perfect sense to me. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:50:28 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <19990820110323.16940.00001532@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: <19990820110323.16940.00001532@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: > Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of > Beren until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was never > in that sort of danger. Aragorn's danger at this point was enormous. If the Ring was captured, Aragorn and all other mortals were totally DOOMED, to death at the very least and possibly to a far worse fate. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:59:03 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@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: <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Larry Richards wrote: > But the most important part, IMO, is that this is where Boromir's > lust for the ring really wakens. And this scene can help explain to the > audience why this lust hasn't broken out before to the point of open > moves against Frodo (say in Hollin): i.e. Galadriel's probing brings his > fanatasies to the fore. ?? Most important? I can think of far more important aspects of Lothlorien than that. Lothlorien is not even remotely required to explain the eventual effect of the Ring on Boromir, which was merely a function of time and proximity to it's corrupting influence. Besides which, your interpretation implies that Boromir's later actions are somehow Galadriel's fault, which I don't believe is correct at all. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:54 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> 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: <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> 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-feed.riddles.org.uk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: [regarding importance of Bombadill] > Er, no, it does far more than that. Bombadil saves the Ring. Galadriel > simply undergoes a test. Now, Celeborn gives the Fellowship some boats, > and Galadriel gives Frodo that phial, but Bombadil gives the hobbits their > swords, This is the only issue that impacts on the later story. See below. > tells them about the Dunedain, Assuming that Jackson even has time to go into the Dunedain's background (which is doubtful) there are much more efficient ways he can present this information to the audience than by having a whole long side-adventure involving the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs. Since the hobbits don't recognize Strider as a Dunedain in any event, there is no need for the audience to know about them before Bree. Indeed, there is supposed to be alot of tension about Strider's introduction that stems from NOT knowing who he is. > sends them on to Butterbur's place in Bree, This is ludicrous. They were going to Bree anyway. Butterbur's place is the only inn in town. They would have stopped there anyway. > helps them avoid being snared by Nazgul, ??? When did this happen? > trees, and Wights, Indeed, but this entire side adventure can be eliminated without leaving plot-holes. According to Jackson, he still plans to leave room for fans to imagine that they happened anyway. > and gives Gandalf time to catch up to Frodo (or nearly so). Since Gandalf does not in fact catch up to Frodo, and all of this occurs "off screen" (so to speak) even in the book, this point is completely irrelevant. In case anyone in the audience (who has not read the book) starts to wonder how Gandalf got to Weathertop before them (assuming this detail is even included) they will naturally assume that a guy riding roads on the fastest horse in the world can go faster than hobbits sneaking through woods on foot. They will, of course, be right. That is the explanation, and Bombadil has relatively little to do with it. > >...provides the Fellowship with much more important gifts > >than the swords (the glass, the earth, the cloaks, even the boats),... > > The boats MIGHT be arguably more valuable than the swords, but without > Merry's sword there is no way Eowyn could have defeated the Lord of the > Nazgul. However, it can still be left out without any plot hole being noticeable to non-experts. Even if a newbie audience is aware that Merry's dagger is magical, they will probably assume he got it at Rivendell, and be satisfied. Fans can assume he got it (off-screen) at the Barrow Downs, and be just as satisfied. Alternately, there is no reason for a newbie audience to assume that Eowyn and Merry need a magic weapon to slay the Witch King. They will probably accept the outcome of the battle just fine without Jackson filling them in on the origins of Merry's blade. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:22:30 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> <7pk00s$140_022@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pk00s$140_022@Org.xenite.org> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news.belnet.be!news.tvd.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > Nonetheless, Bombadil sets up a lot of stuff. Without him, you have a > Ranger appearing out of nowhere with no background or explanation, you have > no explanation for how Merry gets his sword, for how Gandalf is able to > overtake the hobbits, or for how Aragorn knows where to find the hobbits > (he overhears them talking with Bombadil on the road). I just want to address this last point, which was not included in your other post. It is real silly. What do you need Bombadil for to explain Aragorn's ability to spot the Hobbits as they arrive at Bree? Yes, I know he is much fatter than they, but that is hardly a required explanation. Bombadil is not even present when Frodo mentions the name of "Baggins", which is what really tips Aragorn off. He certainly would have suspected in any event, even without this clue, and tried to approach Frodo at the Inn. After Frodo fell off the table, he would have known for certain in any event. The encounter with Strider at the Bree Inn will work just as well with no background explanation as to how he found them. Strider is supposed to be mysterious. Everything does not have to be spelled out. Or perhaps you are suggesting that he overheard Bombadil recommending The Prancing Pony, and this is the only way he was able to track them there. Get real! -- John Whelan > Bombadil contributes other elements which would not translate easily to > film, but which are nonetheless necessary to the story. Tolkien pointed > out that this passage was integral to the story and he had plenty of good > reason for saying so. > > > -- > \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:43:36 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pk0al$140_024@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pk0al$140_024@Org.xenite.org> 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, Michael Martinez wrote: > In article , John Whelan wrote: > >On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > > > >> >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. > >> > >> No, it doesn't make sense at all. Glorindel was sent out to face the Nine. > > > >Indeed he was. So were a few others. > > > >> Arwen has been brought back to Rivendell so Elrond can protect her (as > >> much as possible). > > > >Is it so radical to imagine that Arwen might have a mind of her own and > >make one or two decisions of her own at this stage?... > > No, not at all. But it would be out of character for Arwen to sneak up on > Aragorn in the Trollshaws with a sword when the Nazgul were running around. Evidently, you have a very poor estimation of her character. > >...A stage where her own true love is approaching Rivendell in extreme > >danger?... > > And she just happens to be in the right place at the right time? Tolkien > had a few contrivances in his story, but this one smacks of YUCK all over > the place. It's cheap fantasy, not high art or even good story-telling. > Tolkien knew better than to fall into that trap, and I'd like to know > Jackson knows better, too. It's hardly worse than them running into Glorfindel. Is it too much to imagine that this 2,000 year old elf-maid might have some magical powers that might help her track down her true love when she knows he is nearby and in danger? > >...Not to mention the fact that the fate of the entire free world rests > > on the safe arrival of the Ring. > That's implying it rests on Arwen's sneaking up on Aragorn. What a change > in the story this is bound to bring about. I don't know what you mean. How is this going to alter the rest of the story (except to make us actually care about their romance). > >Hasn't Arwen, at this point, pretty much decided to stay in Middle Earth > >and be mortal?... > Only if Aragorn succeeds. What if he's killed? Should she stay anyway? No. But she is already willing to sacrifice her life for him...to live as he lives and die when he dies. So why would she not risk her life at this critical point? It is not that she is risking all that much anyway. It's not as thought the Nazgul are likely to chase after her or anything, and she has a fast horse. > >...Has she not already, in effect, chosen to give up her life > >for Aragorn? And here she finds herself at a point where it all threatens > >to be for naught. What doesn't quite make sense is the idea that she > >would sit cowereing "safely" in Rivendell at this stage when there is even > >an iota of a chance that she could possibly be of use. > > No one said anything about Arwen cowering, but Tolkien makes it clear in > the book that she abides her father's wishes, and one of them (apparently) > is that she be as far removed from the peril as possible. Well, as we all know, good little women should be obedient to their menfolk. It is actually a little known fact that Arwen WAS in fact out looking for Aragorn at the time, as well as Glorfindel and the other elf-lords that were sent by Elrond. It's just that Glorfindel was the one who was fortunate enough to run into him. Elrond found out that Arwen had left Rivendell without his permission, and was real pissed. They had a huge argument about it, but it was kept between themselves. Since these facts never came to the attention of hobbit chroniclers, they are therefore nowhere recorded in the Red Book. > Also, Elven women were generally not expected to be warriors. Fighting > impaired some of the other abilities of the Elves, and it was a grave > choice for an Elf to become a warrior. Nowhere is it implied, in the information revealed so far, that Arwen is going to be turned into a warrior specialist. The fact that she is carrying a sword does not mean that she is especially skilled with it. Even if it were to turn out that she were, I don't see why you would have a problem with it. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:46:29 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <19990820101800.16940.00001514@ngol02.aol.com> <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org> 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, Michael Martinez wrote: > Much of the dialogue later chapters becomes > irrelevant without Bombadil, and so Jackson will have to cut that out, too. Yes he will. Then he will realize that he still has a 12 hour movie on his hands and will have to set to work figuring out what ELSE to cut out as well. You just don't get it, do you? -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:55:21 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pk0t6$140_030@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pk0t6$140_030@Org.xenite.org> 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!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > >Huh? Lothlorien so much more critical than Bombadil. > > No, not really. Bombadil serves a critical function in the book and > leaving him out of the movie raises so many questions it's simply an > unbelievable mistake on Jackson's part. This implies he has a choice. He doesn't. There is no way Bombadil can be reasonably accommodated in a 6-hour adaptation. > There are many other passages which should have been cut in place of > Bombadil. I'm not sure what passages you are referring to. But don't worry! I'm sure they will be cut as well. After that, he will have to cut more stuff, which I will probably make you even more upset than you are about Bombadil. -- John Whelan ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:32:07 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 18 Message-ID: <37BDD767.9DE24AD5@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > In case anyone in the audience (who has not read the book) > starts to wonder how Gandalf got to Weathertop before them (assuming > this > detail is even included) First, let me say, I agree with all of your points. Second, however, was my reaction to this little snippet. Yes, I suppose PJ could leave this out. But it is another one of those, What in the world was that?, scenes that adds mystery to the book. Yes we find out later what happened at Weather Top, but at the time it is first related we have no idea what is going on. It is all these little touches that Tolkien adds that really brings the books alive for me. LGR ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:39:32 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 14 Message-ID: <37BDD924.7AC0550D@virginia.edu> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <7pk0i5$140_026@Org.xenite.org> <37BDB04E.63ED445F@univie.ac.at> 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!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail Maia wrote: > if Galadriel was > supposed to be the second most powerful Noldo after Feanor, I don't > see how she could lack sufficient innate power. She is certainly much > more powerful than Glorfindel, who isn't even of a royal House. I've always thought he was of the house of Finrod because of his blond hair. Wasn't it said somewhere that blond hair was associated with the house of Finrod? LGR ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:45:16 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 11 Message-ID: <37BDDA7C.3B14EE66@virginia.edu> References: <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <19990820101800.16940.00001514@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!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail McREsq wrote: > If he is written in literally, he'll come off as Jar Jar Binks. > > Russ LOL LGR ###### From: Larry Richards Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:50:13 -0400 Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 22 Message-ID: <37BDDBA5.61C89D90@virginia.edu> References: <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org> <19990820151528.05899.00001356@ngol03.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!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU!not-for-mail McREsq wrote: > Timelines are going to have to be fudged all over the place. Heck, > the entire > Helm's Deep episode adds nothing to the main story line except give > the other > characters something to do while Frodo and Sam get closer to Mordor. > > Russ I agreed with most of this post until I read this. I believe the whole Helm's Deep stuff is much more exciting than tramping through Dead Marshes or Ithilien. And the treachery of Saruman and the fate of Rohan are key aspects of the story. If this kind of stuff is cut, you know I'm not going to watch the movie, even on video, or commercial television. There'd be no point. I mean, why not just have a one hour story where some small gets chased around, has to climb a few mountains until one of his traveling companions throws him into a volcano? This, after all, would seem to be the "essence" of the story. LGR ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 19:15:28 GMT References: <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820151528.05899.00001356@ngol03.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!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.239.227!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pk0oj$140_028@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >>I don't quite understand the importance you place on Bombadil in terms of >the >>movie. Tolkien himself stated he is not central to the narrative. > >Lothlorien is hardly central to the narrative. But Tolkien left him in >because he felt Bombadil served a purpose. But Bombadil the character is >not equivalent to Bombadil the episode. There is much which occurs in "In >the House of Tom Bombadil" and "Fog on the Barrowdowns" which has an impact >later on in the story. Much of the dialogue later chapters becomes >irrelevant without Bombadil, and so Jackson will have to cut that out, too. > But he cannot delete the importance of Bombadil to the story. OK, but can't some of the important events that happened in the bombadil phase be moved or fudged in some way? For example, the hobbits could receive their "magic" swords in Rivendell asa gift from Elrond. This does present a sort of problem if we want Frodo to have a sword on Weathertop and at the ford but that can be fudged (between the Shire and Rivendell, the hobbits could be outfitted with swords that were leftover from Bilbo's dragon hoard.) Timelines are going to have to be fudged all over the place. Heck, the entire Helm's Deep episode adds nothing to the main story line except give the other characters something to do while Frodo and Sam get closer to Mordor. Russ Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 19:15:31 GMT References: <37BD8C94.562185CA@univie.ac.at> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820151531.05899.00001357@ngol03.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!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37BD8C94.562185CA@univie.ac.at>, Maia writes: >> Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of Beren >> until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was never in that >sort >> of danger. > >IIRC at least in the earlier versions of the story Thingol imprisoned >Luthien on a tree to prevent her from going with Beren. Or am I having >a massive hallucination? > Maybe I am. Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 20 Aug 1999 19:15:31 GMT References: <7pk0t6$140_030@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820151531.05899.00001358@ngol03.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!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.239.227!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pk0t6$140_030@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >In Tolkien's opinion it was about death and the search for deathlessnes. I >rather favor that view myself, and Bombadil certainly contributes to that >notion. Lothlorien doesn't. The overall theme of the story changes >without Bombadil. I agree with everyting you say except "Lothlorien doesn't" Lothlorien is central to the themes of death and deathlessness. Lorien shows us how the fading high elves of the late Third Age were dealing with their deathlessness and the weariness that their long lives gave them. They sought to create little bubbles of stasis that they could mould and exist in. I think Lorien is central to this question. Russ ###### From: Maia Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:45:18 +0200 Organization: Vienna University, Austria Lines: 53 Message-ID: <37BDB04E.63ED445F@univie.ac.at> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <7pk0i5$140_026@Org.xenite.org> 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 935176951 33116 149.148.83.4 (20 Aug 1999 19:22:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-adm@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 1999 19:22:31 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!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed03.univie.ac.at!news.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Michael Martinez schrieb: > > In article <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at>, Maia wrote: > >But why do you insist that she could help less than any other > >elf-lord? Would Galadriel, for instance, be able to drive away the > >Nazgul sans her ring? Except for Merry and Eowyn we never see anyone > >successfully fighting Nazgul with weapons - Glorfindel and Gandalf > >drive them away with their innate power, not their swords. > > Galadriel wouldn't be able to drive them away WITH her Ring. The Three > Rings did not grabnt that kind of power. Galadriel might indeed have the > innate power to fend off the Nazgul, but then again, she might not. No, I meant whether she could drive the Nazgul away _without_ her ring: "sans" is a french word for without. And if Galadriel was supposed to be the second most powerful Noldo after Feanor, I don't see how she could lack sufficient innate power. She is certainly much more powerful than Glorfindel, who isn't even of a royal House. She was also supposed to be involved in a constant battle of wills with Sauron. For that matter Arwen also might have an unnexpected bonus because of infusion of Melian's "blood". Wasn't Luthien considered the _most_ powerful of all the children of Iluvatar? > Tolkien's view of how the Elves exercised their powers incorporated certain > costs. Healers and nurturers were far less likely to fight than other > Elves because it would impair their abilities to heal and protect life if > they took it. Yet Elrond, supposedly the greatest remaining Healer, could do both. And what about Finrod? I have a foggy notion that he was also supposed to be some sort of a healer... > >Yes, I did wonder and Arwen's general behaviour in LOTR didn't make > >sense for me. IMHO her portrayal made her love story with Aragorn > >highly implausible. I.e. if Aragorn didn't succeed to become the King > >of Arnor and Gondor, she would be quite content to part with him > >beyond the End of the World. And, she didn't lift a finger to help him > >- that's some love... > > Arwen actually did give Aragorn SOME help, but it appears to be a condition > of Elrond's concession to their love that Aragorn achieve as much as he > could on his own. Very unconvincing, if you ask me. Luthien didn't put that much store in her father's wishes. She didn't ask her parents permission to become mortal. That was a love the reader/viewer could believe in. Arwen was ready to part from Aragorn forever if he should fail. She let Aragorn face the toils, dangers and impossible odds alone and die alone if he were unlucky. Elwing flew to Eärendil with Silmaril upon her breast and dared the wrath of the Valar by stepping on the Immortal Shore so that they could remain together. Sorry, I can't suspend my disbelief so far that the story of Arwen's love to Aragorn would seem genuine to me. ###### Message-ID: <37BE28B0.31F0BC25@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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <7pk0i5$140_026@Org.xenite.org> <37BDB04E.63ED445F@univie.ac.at> <37BDD924.7AC0550D@virginia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:18:57 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 935209210 24.128.99.214 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:20:10 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:20:10 EDT Organization: Road Runner 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!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!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 Larry Richards wrote: > Maia wrote: > > > if Galadriel was > > supposed to be the second most powerful Noldo after Feanor, I don't > > see how she could lack sufficient innate power. She is certainly much > > more powerful than Glorfindel, who isn't even of a royal House. > > I've always thought he was of the house of Finrod because of his blond > hair. Wasn't it said somewhere that blond hair was associated with the > house of Finrod? Finrod was of the house of Finarfin, a Noldorin house associated with blond hair. Glorfindel's exact place in a family tree is still obscure. We know he was a Noldo with strong allegiance to Turgon, and had 'kin' in Gondolin. Turgon's daughter Idril was also golden haired too btw, a Vanyarin trait for certain sneaking into the Fingolfin line as well. Cheers, Cain ###### Message-ID: <37BE29EC.4E58B0FE@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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <7pk0i5$140_026@Org.xenite.org> <37BDB04E.63ED445F@univie.ac.at> <37BDD924.7AC0550D@virginia.edu> <37BE28B0.31F0BC25@mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:24:12 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 935209525 24.128.99.214 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:25:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:25:25 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.nyu.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 Cian wrote: > Larry Richards wrote: > > > Maia wrote: > > > > > if Galadriel was > > > supposed to be the second most powerful Noldo after Feanor, I don't > > > see how she could lack sufficient innate power. She is certainly much > > > more powerful than Glorfindel, who isn't even of a royal House. > > > > I've always thought he was of the house of Finrod because of his blond > > hair. Wasn't it said somewhere that blond hair was associated with the > > house of Finrod? > > Finrod was of the house of Finarfin, a Noldorin house associated with blond > hair. > > Glorfindel's exact place in a family tree is still obscure. We know he was > a Noldo with strong allegiance to Turgon, and had 'kin' in Gondolin. > Turgon's daughter Idril was also golden haired too btw, a Vanyarin trait > for certain sneaking into the Fingolfin line as well. > > Cheers, > Cain Adjust vowels there. I never slew my brother - really! ;-) CIan ###### From: kern@ac.grin.edu (Chris Kern) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Message-ID: <37bdf331.39906551@news.usenetserver.com> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 11 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:31:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.162.144.91 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: IRIS 935206134 149.162.144.91 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:28:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:28:54 PDT Organization: UseNet Server, Inc. http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!do.de.uu.net!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!IRIS.POSTED!not-for-mail On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:59:03 -0400, John Whelan wrote: >?? Most important? I can think of far more important aspects of >Lothlorien than that. The most important part of Lothlorien, of course, is the Temptation of Galadriel (Tolkien said this as well). This may not translate well to a movie, though. -Chris ###### From: kern@ac.grin.edu (Chris Kern) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Message-ID: <37bdf36b.39964605@news.usenetserver.com> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 13 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:32:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.162.144.91 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: IRIS 935206198 149.162.144.91 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:29:58 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:29:58 PDT Organization: UseNet Server, Inc. http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!WCG!news.randori.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!IRIS.POSTED!not-for-mail On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:54 -0400, John Whelan wrote: > >Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being >pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your >clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. I will not see this film, nor do I think a movie version of LoTR should be made. (I don't watch any movies based on books I've read, but that's another story). -Chris ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 30 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 01:14:10 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.54.141 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 935191096 130.244.54.141 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:18:16 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:18:16 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Michael Martinez hath written: >But here are the script excerpts he made available. Please, everyone, keep >in mind that Moriarty has already been roasted over the coals for this, and >he was not responsible for any of it. > >1) Arwen and Aragorn: > > "EXT. TROLLSHAW FOREST - NIGHT > ANGLE ON: STRIDER hurries through the DARK > FOREST, collecting FIREWOOD. > SUDDENLY! STRIDER FREEZES as a SWORD > BLADE touches his neck! A WHITE HORSE steps > into FG. > ARWEN (o.s.) > What's this? A Ranger caught off-guard? > STRIDER slowly looks up. His eyes widen with > RECOGNITION." > I have no doubt that this scene will be defended tooth and nail by the "the film can never be wrong" fanatics, but this really is Hollywood at its worst. The mischievous tomboy heroine in her glory! Öjevind ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 21 Aug 1999 02:04:47 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820220447.15206.00001125@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 , John Whelan writes: >> Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of >> Beren until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was never >> in that sort of danger. > >Aragorn's danger at this point was enormous. If the Ring was captured, >Aragorn and all other mortals were totally DOOMED, to death at the very >least and possibly to a far worse fate. Ok, Immediate danger. Beren was locked up in Sauron's dungeons with werewolves taking bites out of his compatriots. Aragorn wasn't in such immediate danger. Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 21 Aug 1999 02:04:47 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820220447.15206.00001126@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!uunet!ams.uu.net!grolier!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.239.227!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article , John Whelan writes: >Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being >pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your >clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. > Hehe. That's not true but I'll let the 'ol curmudgeon himself explain. Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 21 Aug 1999 02:04:47 GMT References: <37BDDBA5.61C89D90@virginia.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820220447.15206.00001127@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!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37BDDBA5.61C89D90@virginia.edu>, Larry Richards writes: >> Timelines are going to have to be fudged all over the place. Heck, >> the entire >> Helm's Deep episode adds nothing to the main story line except give >> the other >> characters something to do while Frodo and Sam get closer to Mordor. >> >> Russ > >I agreed with most of this post until I read this. I believe the whole >Helm's Deep stuff is much more exciting than tramping through Dead >Marshes or Ithilien. And the treachery of Saruman and the fate of Rohan >are key aspects of the story. If this kind of stuff is cut, you know >I'm not going to watch the movie, even on video, or commercial >television. There'd be no point. I mean, why not just have a one hour >story where some small gets chased around, has to climb a few mountains >until one of his traveling companions throws him into a volcano? This, >after all, would seem to be the "essence" of the story. > I agree Helm's Deep and the wole Rohan arena of teh stroy is fun adn interesting. Much more interesting, as one member pointed out, that wondering how Frodo and Sam are going to get down a cliff. BUT...a lot of it is not tremendously central to the main point of the exercise - getting the Ring into the fire of mount doom. Russ ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 21 Aug 1999 02:04:47 GMT References: <37bdf331.39906551@news.usenetserver.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990820220447.15206.00001128@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!golmote!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.239.227!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <37bdf331.39906551@news.usenetserver.com>, kern@ac.grin.edu (Chris Kern) writes: >The most important part of Lothlorien, of course, is the Temptation of >Galadriel (Tolkien said this as well). This may not translate well to >a movie, though. > >-Chris > This is a scene that will mean more to Tolkien fanatics. We understnad more the temptation she was under and her history. Russ ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 45 Message-ID: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQSO+mLiYvBVCbr0twSNuOWL3l/BQIUBecsPlqp/A8XUlGhE+YRPdULaWY= Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail In article <7pk00s$140_022@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: > > Nonetheless, Bombadil sets up a lot of stuff. I disagree. While Bombadil is one of my favorite charachers in the story, I have come to realize that it may be truly necessary to cut him in a film version of LoTR. >Without him, you have a Ranger appearing out of nowhere with no background or explanation, Not really. Remember, Aragorn was already informed of Frodo's mission by Gandalf. He was watching the road not only because of the Nazgul, but also to learn when Frodo would arrive in Bree. > you have no explanation for how Merry gets his sword, While the daggers are arguably the most important part of the Bombadil adventure (as they do connect later on in the story), this adventure is not really required. Merry could have procured them along with the rest of the supplies. While arms are rare in the Shire, its possible that the Brandybucks, as one of the more adventurous familiesof hobbit could have some stored away against future need. Perhaps they could even be mathoms. > how Aragorn knows where to find the hobbits (he overhears them talking with Bombadil on the road). Yes, Bombadil does recommend the Prancing Pony, but Aragorn could followed them there and waited in the common room while they ate in private. Also, I get the impression that the Prancing Pony is the only inn in Bree, so it would be the most likely place for the hobbits to stay. Merry mentions that Bucklanders occasionally travel to Bree as well, and that the Pony is accounted as a good inn, so Bombadil's services as a travel guide aren't really necessary. >Tolkien pointed out that this passage was integral to the story and he had plenty of good reason for saying so. Perhaps, but the impression that I get from this newsgroup is that even Tolkien regarded the Forest and downs as a side adventure in Book 1 ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was 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: <37BD6E2C.7CFFBE86@virginia.edu> <37bdf331.39906551@news.usenetserver.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 04:37:36 GMT Lines: 19 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!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!uwvax!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth kern@ac.grin.edu (Chris Kern): > The most important part of Lothlorien, of course, is the Temptation of > Galadriel (Tolkien said this as well). This may not translate well to > a movie, though. I entirely agree, at least from the perspective of the broader history (which I think is what you meant). After I learned just how powerful Galadriel was in Tolkien's mind (equal to Feanor, second only to Luthien among the Children of Iluvatar), and after I understood how ambitious she had been in her younger days, I've been far more in awe of that scene than I used to be. But, as you say, it probably takes a decent knowledge of the greater history to make this truly work (hopefully, assuming the scene is there, the actress will be able to convey just how powerful and terrible Galadriel as Ringwearer would be). It's a shame that this aspect will be lost; though we don't see it much in LotR, Galadriel is really one of the best characters in Tolkien's works (female or otherwise). Steuard Jensen ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 110 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:10:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.146 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935227326 209.181.118.146 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 05:22:06 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 05:22:06 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!news.tvd.be!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) wrote: >In article <7pk00s$140_022@Org.xenite.org>, > Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >> >> Nonetheless, Bombadil sets up a lot of stuff. > > >I disagree. While Bombadil is one of my favorite charachers in the >story, I have come to realize that it may be truly necessary to cut him >in a film version of LoTR. Cutting Bombadil means either leaving a lot of loose ends in the film or else cutting a lot of other stuff. Bombadil is tied to maybe 20-30% of the story in one way or another. >>Without him, you have a Ranger appearing out of nowhere with no >background or explanation, > >Not really. Remember, Aragorn was already informed of Frodo's mission >by Gandalf. He was watching the road not only because of the Nazgul, >but also to learn when Frodo would arrive in Bree. Absolutely. No Bombadil means Aragorn doesn't see the Hobbits talking to him on the East Road, which means he has no real explanation for how he happened to find them so easily. He was watching the road because Gildor's people had told him Frodo had left Hobbiton but no one had heard of when he left the Shire. He overheard Frodo tell the others he was Mr. Underhill, and he knew Frodo would be travelling by that name. Jackson will undoubtedly alter the story to account for all the various things dropped with the Bombadil episode. >> you have no explanation for how Merry gets his sword, > >While the daggers are arguably the most important part of the Bombadil >adventure (as they do connect later on in the story), this adventure is >not really required. Merry could have procured them along with the rest >of the supplies. While arms are rare in the Shire, its possible that >the Brandybucks, as one of the more adventurous familiesof hobbit could >have some stored away against future need. Perhaps they could even be >mathoms. The adventure with the Wight is very important. It is Frodo's first major test with the Ring. It also demonstrates just how far Sauron's power extends, and it provides important clues to the background of Eriador. The history will most likely be downplayed in the films -- there probably won't be much information provided about Eriador's past at all. But it's ridiculous to think the Hobbits of the Shire would have swords taken from the hoard of a Dunadan prince who had opposed the Lord of the Nazgul in a past war. At the very least Jackson should have the Hobbits leave the Shire swordless and show up with the blades in Bree, maybe alluding to some off-screen adventure very quickly. >> how Aragorn knows where to find the hobbits > (he overhears them talking with Bombadil on the road). > >Yes, Bombadil does recommend the Prancing Pony, but Aragorn could >followed them there and waited in the common room while they ate in >private... See above. How is Aragorn to identify the Hobbits without their discussion on the road? Will Jackson retain that last bit of the Bombadil episode, or will the Ranger simply show up out of the blue with no foreshadowing at all? Bombadil's discussion of the wandering and forgotten Dunedain is important -- it shows that the Elves are not the only people who are working for the benefit of Eriador (I cannot say against Sauron, because Bombadil was not supposed to be AGAINST anyone). Bombadil's relationship with the Hobbits also vindicates Farmer Maggot. Is he also going to be cut from the film? >...Also, I get the impression that the Prancing Pony is the only >inn in Bree, so it would be the most likely place for the hobbits to >stay. Merry mentions that Bucklanders occasionally travel to Bree as >well, and that the Pony is accounted as a good inn, so Bombadil's >services as a travel guide aren't really necessary. Maybe, maybe not. The Hobbits don't have to stay in Bree at all. >>Tolkien pointed out that this passage was integral to the story and he >had plenty of good reason for saying so. > >Perhaps, but the impression that I get from this newsgroup is that even >Tolkien regarded the Forest and downs as a side adventure in Book 1 He did not. He said Bombadil was not important to the narrative. He did not say the Bombadil encounter was unimportant. Quite the opposite, in fact, he said he left Bombadil in because he served a function. More importantly, the Barrow-downs proved to be a critical episode in the story, not just for the swords. Removing Bombadil and replacing the source of the weapons is simply a gratuitous change based on a misunderstanding of the importance of the chapter. Cutting Bombadil and leaving everything else in place will be faithful to the story and yet leave holes in the film's sequence of events. Things won't be explained. It would be far more preferable to leave in Bombadil and cut out the long travels, the pointless bickering which lends nothing to the characters of the Hobbits, and just cut to the quick with Weathertop, the Ford, and Rivendell. Jackson can offer transitions showing the characters moving across the countryside -- even Gandalf with Frodo in Rivendell -- without adding any dialogue. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: "RLV" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:21:51 +0200 Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos Lines: 57 Message-ID: <7plr10$ara$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: tn174-134.tinn.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed.bcn.ttd.net!news.bcn.ttd.net!not-for-mail Öjevind Lång escribió en mensaje ... >Michael Martinez hath written: > > > >>But here are the script excerpts he made available. Please, everyone, keep >>in mind that Moriarty has already been roasted over the coals for this, and >>he was not responsible for any of it. >> >>1) Arwen and Aragorn: >> >> "EXT. TROLLSHAW FOREST - NIGHT >> ANGLE ON: STRIDER hurries through the DARK >> FOREST, collecting FIREWOOD. >> SUDDENLY! STRIDER FREEZES as a SWORD >> BLADE touches his neck! A WHITE HORSE steps >> into FG. >> ARWEN (o.s.) >> What's this? A Ranger caught off-guard? >> STRIDER slowly looks up. His eyes widen with >> RECOGNITION." >> > > >I have no doubt that this scene will be defended tooth and nail by the "the >film can never be wrong" fanatics, but this really is Hollywood at its >worst. The mischievous tomboy heroine in her glory! AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (*Sobs*) I had been avoiding this thread. I didn't want to read things like that. I wanted to believe that the film would be true to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the books. I ignored evidence and clinged to my hopes... And now this! (Sigh!) I knew I should have kept avoiding this thread... R.L.V. ~~#~~ "Call me Wingalam" ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:48:55 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> <37bdf36b.39964605@news.usenetserver.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: <37bdf36b.39964605@news.usenetserver.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Chris Kern wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:54 -0400, John Whelan wrote: > > >Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being > >pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your > >clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. > > I will not see this film, nor do I think a movie version of LoTR > should be made. (I don't watch any movies based on books I've read, > but that's another story). An interesting position, and not one that I can argue with much. It is, at any rate, far more reasonable than criticizing a film adaptation for actually making adaptations. A film is not a novel. They are different art forms, and one cannot be translated literally and faithfully into another. Films that try to be too faithful in fact often end up being unfaithful in spirit. As far as whether it "should be made" or not, I think this will have to be judged by the outcome. If it turns out to be a very entertaining film that alot of people see and enjoy, then it would be hard to justify a statement that it should not have been made. If I enjoy it, I will feel that it should have been made. If the studio makes its money back, with some profit, then it will feel that its decision to make the film was justified. OTOH, it the film sucks and no-one bothers to see it... -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:55:19 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <19990820220447.15206.00001125@ngol07.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: <19990820220447.15206.00001125@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!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 21 Aug 1999, McREsq wrote: > In article , John Whelan > writes: > >> Remeber though that Luthien didn't leave Doriath and go in search of > >> Beren until Beren was captured and in serious danger. Aragorn was > >> never in that sort of danger. > >Aragorn's danger at this point was enormous. If the Ring was captured, > >Aragorn and all other mortals were totally DOOMED, to death at the very > >least and possibly to a far worse fate. > Ok, Immediate danger. Beren was locked up in Sauron's dungeons with > werewolves taking bites out of his compatriots. Aragorn wasn't in such > immediate danger. The doom may have still been distant, but the danger itself was immediate. Aid had to be provided immediately... any that came later would be too late. The distinction you are making is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 19:55:15 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> <37bdf36b.39964605@news.usenetserver.com> <7pn1uv$2ug_014@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <7pn1uv$2ug_014@Org.xenite.org> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Michael Martinez wrote: > In article , John Whelan wrote: > >On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Chris Kern wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:54 -0400, John Whelan wrote: > >> > >> >Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being > >> >pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your > >> >clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. > > Was this addressed to me? Umm. Yes. You seem to have missed quite a few posts addressed to you. For instance, I answered all of your points regarding why you thought the Bombadil sections were crucial. You have continued to repeat those points in later posts without responding to the points I raised. > I fully expect to be thrilled with the movies. That's more than I can say. I doubt I will enjoy it unless it is good. > I have no reservations about the pleasure I'll feel on seeing them. I > just know that the movies will not be faithful to the books. I've > conceded that from the start. > I'll even be pleased to see Orc graffiti in Moria. Gosh! Is that your idea of "not faithful"? Where in the books does it state that there is no orc graffiti in Moria? And you speak of it as though it were a worst-case scenario. Kinda proves my point, I would think. -- John Whelan ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pn1uv$2ug_014@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pj4j8$cr0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <7pjvpe$140_020@Org.xenite.org> <37bdf36b.39964605@news.usenetserver.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 22 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:25:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.184 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935267813 209.181.118.184 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:36:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:36:53 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.abs.net!newsfeed.fast.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , John Whelan wrote: >On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Chris Kern wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:48:54 -0400, John Whelan wrote: >> >> >Michael, you clearly do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being >> >pleased with Jackson's film, no matter what choices he makes. Your >> >clearly regard the most minor points as crucial. Was this addressed to me? I fully expect to be thrilled with the movies. I have no reservations about the pleasure I'll feel on seeing them. I just know that the movies will not be faithful to the books. I've conceded that from the start. I'll even be pleased to see Orc graffiti in Moria. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:09:38 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> 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!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, =D6jevind L=E5ng wrote: > Michael Martinez hath written: >=20 > >=20 > >But here are the script excerpts he made available. Please, everyone, k= eep > >in mind that Moriarty has already been roasted over the coals for this, = and > >he was not responsible for any of it. > > > >1) Arwen and Aragorn: > > > > "EXT. TROLLSHAW FOREST - NIGHT > > ANGLE ON: STRIDER hurries through the DARK > > FOREST, collecting FIREWOOD. > > SUDDENLY! STRIDER FREEZES as a SWORD > > BLADE touches his neck! A WHITE HORSE steps > > into FG. > > ARWEN (o.s.) > > What's this? A Ranger caught off-guard? > > STRIDER slowly looks up. His eyes widen with > > RECOGNITION." >=20 > I have no doubt that this scene will be defended tooth and nail by the "t= he > film can never be wrong" fanatics,=20 I guess you are talking about me, since I am one of the few people defending the film-makers in this NG. However, I am not a "the film can do no wrong" fanatic. I just believe people are attacking the film far too early and for all the wrong reasons. I will be happy to criticize the film after I have seen it.=20 > but this really is Hollywood at its worst. The mischievous tomboy > heroine in her glory!=20 If you think that "the mischievous tomboy in her glory" really represents "Hollywood at its worst", then I think that speaks volumes about your values and priorities. I'm no defender of Hollywood, but allowing women some variety in the roles they play has hardly been the worst thing they have done. -- John Whelan ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-65.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 93 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 03:25:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 935292126 207.212.198.18 (Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:22:06 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:22:06 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!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:10:16 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >>Not really. Remember, Aragorn was already informed of Frodo's mission >>by Gandalf. He was watching the road not only because of the Nazgul, >>but also to learn when Frodo would arrive in Bree. > >Absolutely. No Bombadil means Aragorn doesn't see the Hobbits talking to >him on the East Road, which means he has no real explanation for how he >happened to find them so easily. He was watching the road because Gildor's Isn't "because he's a ranger and he's had sixty years of experience in tracking people" good enough? >people had told him Frodo had left Hobbiton but no one had heard of when he >left the Shire. He overheard Frodo tell the others he was Mr. Underhill, >and he knew Frodo would be travelling by that name. It didn't matter what name Frodo was using. Aragorn didn't go door to door asking people if they'd seen Mr. Underhill. He followed Frodo all the way from Bombadil's house to Bree. >Jackson will undoubtedly alter the story to account for all the various >things dropped with the Bombadil episode. I don't think he'll need to alter it. It's quite possible to remove the Bombadil episode and simply not have anyone mention it for the rest of the movie. >The adventure with the Wight is very important. It is Frodo's first major >test with the Ring. It also demonstrates just how far Sauron's power >extends, and it provides important clues to the background of Eriador. The What, and the Nazgul in the streets aren't enough of an indication of Sauron's reach? >history will most likely be downplayed in the films -- there probably won't >be much information provided about Eriador's past at all. Unfortunately, no. We can't expect the films to go into a lot of historical detail. That sort of thing just doesn't translate well to film, or at least to this kind of film. ("Ken Burns Presents the History of Middle-earth", anyone?) >But it's ridiculous to think the Hobbits of the Shire would have swords >taken from the hoard of a Dunadan prince who had opposed the Lord of the >Nazgul in a past war. At the very least Jackson should have the Hobbits >leave the Shire swordless and show up with the blades in Bree, maybe >alluding to some off-screen adventure very quickly. I agree that Jackson should at least leave open the possibility that the Bombadil episode occurred and we just didn't see it. The problem is that if they mention it at all without explaining it in detail it's unclear, and it seems weak. WTH is a "Barrow-wight", anyway? >>...Also, I get the impression that the Prancing Pony is the only >>inn in Bree, so it would be the most likely place for the hobbits to >>stay. Merry mentions that Bucklanders occasionally travel to Bree as >>well, and that the Pony is accounted as a good inn, so Bombadil's >>services as a travel guide aren't really necessary. > >Maybe, maybe not. The Hobbits don't have to stay in Bree at all. That's right. They could stay in the Old Forest with the homicidal oak trees. Or they could stay in Bree where they'll get hot food and baths and warm beds. I think Aragorn understands enough of hobbit culture to know which one they'll pick. Anyway, even if he loses them, he can always follow the Nazgul. They know where they're going. >He did not. He said Bombadil was not important to the narrative. He did >not say the Bombadil encounter was unimportant. Quite the opposite, in >fact, he said he left Bombadil in because he served a function. More He said Bombadil served a function that was external to the story. The word he used was 'comment', as in "Bombadil exists to make a comment on the story". It's an important comment, but it will be unintelligible in a film. >importantly, the Barrow-downs proved to be a critical episode in the story, >not just for the swords. Removing Bombadil and replacing the source of the >weapons is simply a gratuitous change based on a misunderstanding of the >importance of the chapter. > >Cutting Bombadil and leaving everything else in place will be faithful to >the story and yet leave holes in the film's sequence of events. Things There *will* be holes in the sequence of events. There will be things that the audience will have to *assume* happened when we weren't looking. Otherwise, the film will last as long as the War of the Ring itself. ###### From: Solinas Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:08:32 -0400 Lines: 31 Message-ID: <37C02E85.7A1D90F1@erols.com> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <37C00103.32B251BB@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+LF9l0JOOQj61TDUsAU2oI4rqvDU3KbBiXoiYFM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 1999 18:09:37 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 Creole wrote: > Maia wrote: > > > > She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, > > > who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. > > > > But why do you insist that she could help less than any other > > elf-lord? > > Wouldn't an "elf-lord" be defined as an elf who was in Valinor at the time of the > Two Trees? Glorfindel qualifies, as does Galadriel; Arwen (and Elrond, and > Celeborn, and even Cirdan) does not. > > Creole An "elf-lord" is a powerful male Elf. Elrond, Celeborn, Cirdan, Glorfindel, and Thranduil are elf-lords. Powerful, important, and/or famous female Elves are "elf-ladies". Galadriel, Celebrian, Arwen, Aredhel, and Luthien are elf-ladies. Luthien It's the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine! ###### Message-ID: <37C00103.32B251BB@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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 14 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:54:11 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.115.22.95 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 935326358 192.115.22.95 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:52:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:52:38 GMT Organization: Verio Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.interpacket.net!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-artgen.news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Maia wrote: > > She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, > > who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. > > But why do you insist that she could help less than any other > elf-lord? Wouldn't an "elf-lord" be defined as an elf who was in Valinor at the time of the Two Trees? Glorfindel qualifies, as does Galadriel; Arwen (and Elrond, and Celeborn, and even Cirdan) does not. Creole ###### From: "RLV" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:40:21 +0200 Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos Lines: 45 Message-ID: <7ponha$93n$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: tn174-152.tinn.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed.bcn.ttd.net!news.bcn.ttd.net!not-for-mail John Whelan escribió en mensaje ... On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Öjevind Lång wrote: > but this really is Hollywood at its worst. The mischievous tomboy > heroine in her glory! If you think that "the mischievous tomboy in her glory" really represents "Hollywood at its worst", then I think that speaks volumes about your values and priorities. I'm no defender of Hollywood, but allowing women some variety in the roles they play has hardly been the worst thing they have done. Yes, they should write original scripts with good roles for women, or adapt novels in which women have good parts. Completely agreed. But it happens that they are adapting LoTR. And in LoTR women have few roles, and they are of minor importance (not zero, and I don't want to start discussing "is X more/less important than Y?") in general compared to male characters. If they wanted a movie with equal parts for women, they shouldn't be doing a movie based on LoTR. The problem is not that women must be or not be important in movies. The problem is that the Arwen of LoTR (all we know of her, which is not much) is *very* different of what that script fragment shows. Different in form and substance. More annoying still is the fact that changes like that are not necessary for the adaptation. I accept (although I regret) the elimination of Tom Bombadil, because of time limitations. But what do we gain with a Xena-like Arwen, in film terms? Teenager audience? R.L.V. ~~#~~ "Tilde Power!" ###### From: mark@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> Reply-To: mark@pc-intouch.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com Lines: 124 Date: 22 Aug 1999 19:33:51 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 935375730 207.212.198.18 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:35:30 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:35:30 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail >>Isn't "because he's a ranger and he's had sixty years of experience in >>tracking people" good enough? > >Not for me, no. I have read and reread the Bombadil section and it >provides a great deal of important setup to the whole business. It really >underscores just how much Sam has missed when he's told by Gandalf the King >awaits him. It reveals just how much mystery there is around the Dunedain. > It emphasizes the ancient enmity between Aragorn's people and Sauron. It >shows just how desperate Frodo's plight truly is. Why should he need >anyone's help on the road since nothing untoward is going to happen to him >between Hobbiton and Bree? I agree that this is a problem. By the time the Hobbits get to Bree, they've been through a lot that has really shaken up their view of the world as a nice quiet place. The Old Forest, in particular. If there's no Old Forest (except in a few establishing shots), no Barrow-wight, no homicidal oak tree, why is Frodo sufficiently terrified that he's willing to *think* about letting Aragorn travel with him? (It's not the Nazgul. He hasn't even met the Nazgul yet.) So the dangers of the Old Forest et al. really need to be included. (For it to work right, we also need to see enough of the Shire to realize how completely unaccustomed to these dangers the Hobbits are.) Which means, I suppose, that Bombadil needs to be included also, at least for continuity reasons. The problem that comes up now is how to *present* Bombadil in such a way that he doesn't seem contrived. If Jackson includes Bombadil in two minutes of getting Merry out of the oak tree and chasing off a Barrow-wight, the perception will be that Jackson (or Tolkien) wrote himself into a corner by trapping Merry in the oak tree, and invented this extremely powerful unexplained character to get him out. >>It didn't matter what name Frodo was using. Aragorn didn't go door to >>door asking people if they'd seen Mr. Underhill. He followed Frodo >>all the way from Bombadil's house to Bree. > >No, he followed Frodo from where Bombadil said good-bye to the hobbits on >the road. It was rather contrived how Aragorn just happened to be lying >under that hedge within hearing distance, unless Bombadil led the hobbits >to where Aragorn could find them (I wouldn't be surprised if this was what >Tolkien had in mind, but I know of no passage which suggests such a thing). I don't see why Bombadil would choose to let Aragorn overhear his conversation with the Hobbits. If he knew where Aragorn was, he could have sent the Hobbits on their way and then explained the whole thing to Aragorn in more detail. So I really doubt that was Tolkien's explanation for it. >>I don't think he'll need to alter it. It's quite possible to remove >>the Bombadil episode and simply not have anyone mention it for the >>rest of the movie. > >Hardly. You have missed much if you can say such a thing and believe it. What, it's not possible? Here, I'll illustrate: pjackson$ sed "s/Bombadil//" < lotr-script > lotr-script.tmp pjackson$ mv lotr-script.tmp lotr-script What we should be discussing is not whether it's 'possible', but whether the plot will still make sense. >>What, and the Nazgul in the streets aren't enough of an indication of >>Sauron's reach? > >The Nazgul are messengers, not permanent inhabitants of the neighborhood. I suppose the Barrow-wight is a more effective illustration that Sauron is already on the Shire's doorstep, so to speak. >>Unfortunately, no. We can't expect the films to go into a lot of >>historical detail. That sort of thing just doesn't translate well to >>film, or at least to this kind of film. ("Ken Burns Presents the >>History of Middle-earth", anyone?) > >Don't know Ken Burns, but there will have to be a bare-bones recap of the >history of the Rings in order for the story to make sense. Ken Burns was the guy who did the PBS documentaries "The Civil War" and "Baseball". They're eleven hours and eighteen hours, respectively, so I figure if anyone can do the history of Middle-earth as a documentary series, it's him. He'd have a little trouble finding photographs to show, but I'm sure he could come up with something. "Listen, Ken, if you don't do this we'll reduce the size of the dumpster of money PBS sends you every week from seven yards to...[dramatic pause/drumroll]...FIVE YARDS!" "NO! NOT THAT!" >>I agree that Jackson should at least leave open the possibility that >>the Bombadil episode occurred and we just didn't see it. The problem >>is that if they mention it at all without explaining it in detail it's >>unclear, and it seems weak. WTH is a "Barrow-wight", anyway? > >He has promised that the Bombadil episode can be easily inferred by viewers >who are familiar with the story, but short of doing what I suggest, I don't >see how he can do that successfully. > >A Barrow-wight is an evil spirit which animates a dead body and "lives" in >a barrow -- a burial mound. There were many of them in Tyrn Gorthad, the >hilly region in the northern part of Tom's country through the hobbits had >to pass in order to reach the highway. I know what a Barrow-wight is. My point is that you have to explain it. Audiences don't like things that have to be explained. (Just look at "Jurassic Park", and how much the technical detail of the book had to be dumbed down for the movie, to make room for more eviscerations and dismemberments and computer-generated dinosaur skin.) >>Anyway, even if he loses them, he can always follow the Nazgul. They >>know where they're going. > >Aragorn wasn't following Nazgul, however, he was on the lookout for >hobbits. So were the Nazgul. He could have followed them and he would have found the Hobbits eventually. >>The word he used was 'comment', as in "Bombadil exists to make a >>comment on the story". It's an important comment, but it will be >>unintelligible in a film. > >You are WAY out of context here. I suggest you review Letter 144 again. I'll do that. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 148 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:15:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.119.143 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935364339 209.181.119.143 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:25:39 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:25:39 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!oleane!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com>, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: >On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:10:16 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) wrote: > >>>Not really. Remember, Aragorn was already informed of Frodo's mission >>>by Gandalf. He was watching the road not only because of the Nazgul, >>>but also to learn when Frodo would arrive in Bree. >> >>Absolutely. No Bombadil means Aragorn doesn't see the Hobbits talking to >>him on the East Road, which means he has no real explanation for how he >>happened to find them so easily. He was watching the road because Gildor's > >Isn't "because he's a ranger and he's had sixty years of experience in >tracking people" good enough? Not for me, no. I have read and reread the Bombadil section and it provides a great deal of important setup to the whole business. It really underscores just how much Sam has missed when he's told by Gandalf the King awaits him. It reveals just how much mystery there is around the Dunedain. It emphasizes the ancient enmity between Aragorn's people and Sauron. It shows just how desperate Frodo's plight truly is. Why should he need anyone's help on the road since nothing untoward is going to happen to him between Hobbiton and Bree? >>people had told him Frodo had left Hobbiton but no one had heard of when he >>left the Shire. He overheard Frodo tell the others he was Mr. Underhill, >>and he knew Frodo would be travelling by that name. > >It didn't matter what name Frodo was using. Aragorn didn't go door to >door asking people if they'd seen Mr. Underhill. He followed Frodo >all the way from Bombadil's house to Bree. No, he followed Frodo from where Bombadil said good-bye to the hobbits on the road. It was rather contrived how Aragorn just happened to be lying under that hedge within hearing distance, unless Bombadil led the hobbits to where Aragorn could find them (I wouldn't be surprised if this was what Tolkien had in mind, but I know of no passage which suggests such a thing). >>Jackson will undoubtedly alter the story to account for all the various >>things dropped with the Bombadil episode. > >I don't think he'll need to alter it. It's quite possible to remove >the Bombadil episode and simply not have anyone mention it for the >rest of the movie. Hardly. You have missed much if you can say such a thing and believe it. >>The adventure with the Wight is very important. It is Frodo's first major >>test with the Ring. It also demonstrates just how far Sauron's power >>extends, and it provides important clues to the background of Eriador. The > >What, and the Nazgul in the streets aren't enough of an indication of >Sauron's reach? The Nazgul are messengers, not permanent inhabitants of the neighborhood. The Wights are local terrors serving the Dark Lord. >>history will most likely be downplayed in the films -- there probably won't >>be much information provided about Eriador's past at all. > >Unfortunately, no. We can't expect the films to go into a lot of >historical detail. That sort of thing just doesn't translate well to >film, or at least to this kind of film. ("Ken Burns Presents the >History of Middle-earth", anyone?) Don't know Ken Burns, but there will have to be a bare-bones recap of the history of the Rings in order for the story to make sense. >>But it's ridiculous to think the Hobbits of the Shire would have swords >>taken from the hoard of a Dunadan prince who had opposed the Lord of the >>Nazgul in a past war. At the very least Jackson should have the Hobbits >>leave the Shire swordless and show up with the blades in Bree, maybe >>alluding to some off-screen adventure very quickly. > >I agree that Jackson should at least leave open the possibility that >the Bombadil episode occurred and we just didn't see it. The problem >is that if they mention it at all without explaining it in detail it's >unclear, and it seems weak. WTH is a "Barrow-wight", anyway? He has promised that the Bombadil episode can be easily inferred by viewers who are familiar with the story, but short of doing what I suggest, I don't see how he can do that successfully. A Barrow-wight is an evil spirit which animates a dead body and "lives" in a barrow -- a burial mound. There were many of them in Tyrn Gorthad, the hilly region in the northern part of Tom's country through the hobbits had to pass in order to reach the highway. >>>...Also, I get the impression that the Prancing Pony is the only >>>inn in Bree, so it would be the most likely place for the hobbits to >>>stay. Merry mentions that Bucklanders occasionally travel to Bree as >>>well, and that the Pony is accounted as a good inn, so Bombadil's >>>services as a travel guide aren't really necessary. >> >>Maybe, maybe not. The Hobbits don't have to stay in Bree at all. > >That's right. They could stay in the Old Forest with the homicidal >oak trees. Or they could stay in Bree where they'll get hot food and >baths and warm beds. I think Aragorn understands enough of hobbit >culture to know which one they'll pick. No, they could have gone on to the wood on the other side of town, or they could have looked around for harborage among the hobbits in Staddle (on the far side of Bree hill). The Old Forest is nowhere near Bree. >Anyway, even if he loses them, he can always follow the Nazgul. They >know where they're going. Aragorn wasn't following Nazgul, however, he was on the lookout for hobbits. >>He did not. He said Bombadil was not important to the narrative. He did >>not say the Bombadil encounter was unimportant. Quite the opposite, in >>fact, he said he left Bombadil in because he served a function. More > >He said Bombadil served a function that was external to the story. No, he did not. I took the time to look up the reference before posting the above rebuttal. I stand by it. >The word he used was 'comment', as in "Bombadil exists to make a >comment on the story". It's an important comment, but it will be >unintelligible in a film. You are WAY out of context here. I suggest you review Letter 144 again. >>importantly, the Barrow-downs proved to be a critical episode in the story, >>not just for the swords. Removing Bombadil and replacing the source of the >>weapons is simply a gratuitous change based on a misunderstanding of the >>importance of the chapter. >> >>Cutting Bombadil and leaving everything else in place will be faithful to >>the story and yet leave holes in the film's sequence of events. Things > >There *will* be holes in the sequence of events. There will be things >that the audience will have to *assume* happened when we weren't >looking. Otherwise, the film will last as long as the War of the Ring >itself. That's not an excuse for cutting as vital a section of the story as Bombadil. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pq0ct$3es_050@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7pjmla$2u0$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37BD6D85.B761C086@univie.ac.at> <37C00103.32B251BB@yahoo.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 21 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:16:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.119.143 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935364401 209.181.119.143 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:26:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:26:41 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37C00103.32B251BB@yahoo.com>, Creole wrote: >Maia wrote: > >> > She couldn't help out any more than any other Elf-lord. She wasn't Luthien, >> > who knew that Beren had no ally at all in her kingdom. >> >> But why do you insist that she could help less than any other >> elf-lord? > >Wouldn't an "elf-lord" be defined as an elf who was in Valinor at the time of >the Two Trees? Glorfindel qualifies, as does Galadriel; Arwen (and Elrond, and >Celeborn, and even Cirdan) does not. An "Elf lord" is simply someone of importance among the Elves. -- \\ // 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's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pqdkb$2l4_014@Org.xenite.org> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 152 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 03:02:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.119.143 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935377948 209.181.119.143 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:12:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:12:28 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.new-york.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article , mark@pc-intouch.com wrote: >So the dangers of the Old Forest et al. really need to be included. (For it >to work right, we also need to see enough of the Shire to realize how >completely unaccustomed to these dangers the Hobbits are.) Which means, I >suppose, that Bombadil needs to be included also, at least for continuity >reasons. > >The problem that comes up now is how to *present* Bombadil in such a way >that he doesn't seem contrived. If Jackson includes Bombadil in two minutes >of getting Merry out of the oak tree and chasing off a Barrow-wight, the >perception will be that Jackson (or Tolkien) wrote himself into a corner by >trapping Merry in the oak tree, and invented this extremely powerful >unexplained character to get him out. Knowing virtually nothing about the current script, I cannot really suggest anything. It's easier to offer a solution for showing the party travelling over great distances. Covering all the important details in the Bombadil section -- that's tough. The weakest point in the first movie threatens to be the Hobbits meeting Aragorn in Bree -- much weaker than a sword-bearing Arwen "sneaking up" on the Ranger (and I infer from Moriarty's script excerpt that Jackson actually intended to convey somehow that Aragorn detected her and knew who she was). >>>It didn't matter what name Frodo was using. Aragorn didn't go door to >>>door asking people if they'd seen Mr. Underhill. He followed Frodo >>>all the way from Bombadil's house to Bree. >> >>No, he followed Frodo from where Bombadil said good-bye to the hobbits on >>the road. It was rather contrived how Aragorn just happened to be lying >>under that hedge within hearing distance, unless Bombadil led the hobbits >>to where Aragorn could find them (I wouldn't be surprised if this was what >>Tolkien had in mind, but I know of no passage which suggests such a thing). > >I don't see why Bombadil would choose to let Aragorn overhear his >conversation with the Hobbits. If he knew where Aragorn was, he could have >sent the Hobbits on their way and then explained the whole thing to Aragorn >in more detail. So I really doubt that was Tolkien's explanation for it. Bombadil gave the Hobbits a vision of Aragorn. I believe Bombadil knew Aragorn. They both knew Gildor and his folk, Aragorn knew who Bombadil was, and Bombadil knew a great deal about the history of Aragorn's people -- the only person outside of the Istari, the Elves, and the Dunedain themselves to know that much history. Naturally some people will suggest that since Tolkien's description of the vision doesn't name Aragorn it cannot possibly be referring to him -- star on the brow, last in the line of wanderers, and all that. >>>I don't think he'll need to alter it. It's quite possible to remove >>>the Bombadil episode and simply not have anyone mention it for the >>>rest of the movie. >> >>Hardly. You have missed much if you can say such a thing and believe it. > >What, it's not possible? Here, I'll illustrate: > >pjackson$ sed "s/Bombadil//" < lotr-script > lotr-script.tmp >pjackson$ mv lotr-script.tmp lotr-script Cute -- but simply removing the Bombadil episode leaves all the stuff which follows on from it. >What we should be discussing is not whether it's 'possible', but whether the >plot will still make sense. I'm sure the plot of the movies will mostly make sense, especially to people who are familiar with the story well enough to relate it in summary (at least) to a friend or stranger. But there will most likely be significant changes in the plot for several reasons. These should (hopefully) be more in the form of deletions (or compression) than of deliberate changes and fabrications, but you never know. The Aragorn/Arwen story is obviously going to have to be contrived to some extent, and Jackson be thinking (or may have thought -- one can only wonder what he thinks of all the discussions which have erupted since Moriarty posted the excerpt) that combining Arwen's part with the part of less essential characters such as Glorfindel may be a forgiveable sin. For my part, I will forgive him, but I'll probably rake him over the coals before doing so. >>>What, and the Nazgul in the streets aren't enough of an indication of >>>Sauron's reach? >> >>The Nazgul are messengers, not permanent inhabitants of the neighborhood. > >I suppose the Barrow-wight is a more effective illustration that Sauron is >already on the Shire's doorstep, so to speak. I think you put it better above. The Barrow-wight shows that the world outside of the Shire is a very dangerous place. There are reasons for why Eriador is depopulated and the Wights are one of those reasons. >>>Unfortunately, no. We can't expect the films to go into a lot of >>>historical detail. That sort of thing just doesn't translate well to >>>film, or at least to this kind of film. ("Ken Burns Presents the >>>History of Middle-earth", anyone?) >> >>Don't know Ken Burns, but there will have to be a bare-bones recap of the >>history of the Rings in order for the story to make sense. > >Ken Burns was the guy who did the PBS documentaries "The Civil War" and >"Baseball". They're eleven hours and eighteen hours, respectively, so I >figure if anyone can do the history of Middle-earth as a documentary series, >it's him. He'd have a little trouble finding photographs to show, but I'm >sure he could come up with something. "Listen, Ken, if you don't do this >we'll reduce the size of the dumpster of money PBS sends you every week from >seven yards to...[dramatic pause/drumroll]...FIVE YARDS!" "NO! NOT THAT!" I saw "The Civil War" and liked it very much. I'm not sure I'd come across as the sex symbol that Shelby Foote did, but I'd love to be the "historian" who gets to sit in the mock library and pontificate about the deeper meanings of everything. No possibility of flames in that setting, you know. :) >>A Barrow-wight is an evil spirit which animates a dead body and "lives" in >>a barrow -- a burial mound. There were many of them in Tyrn Gorthad, the >>hilly region in the northern part of Tom's country through the hobbits had >>to pass in order to reach the highway. > >I know what a Barrow-wight is. My point is that you have to explain it. >Audiences don't like things that have to be explained. (Just look at >"Jurassic Park", and how much the technical detail of the book had to be >dumbed down for the movie, to make room for more eviscerations and >dismemberments and computer-generated dinosaur skin.) Ah. I don't think it would have to be explained in detail. Gandalf should already have told Frodo about the wraiths, so the audience can wonder if the thing is a wraith until Bombadil shows up. If necessary one of the characters could say, "Was that...a black rider?" And Bombadil could say, "No, that was a barrow wight, but it served the Dark Lord once...." >>>Anyway, even if he loses them, he can always follow the Nazgul. They >>>know where they're going. >> >>Aragorn wasn't following Nazgul, however, he was on the lookout for >>hobbits. > >So were the Nazgul. He could have followed them and he would have found the >Hobbits eventually. He knew there were Nazgul about, but he wanted to get to the Hobbits FIRST. Getting the Hobbits past the Nazgul was easier than rescuing them would be. What could he do, stand up at the edge of town and say, "Elendil! I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Dunadan! Here is the Sword that was Broken! As soon as I get it reforged I shall come after thee, wraith of Sauron!"? -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37c0eb58.2300393@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> <7pqdkb$2l4_014@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-62.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 70 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 06:44:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 935390652 207.212.198.18 (Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:44:12 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:44:12 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 03:02:35 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >Knowing virtually nothing about the current script, I cannot really suggest >anything. It's easier to offer a solution for showing the party travelling >over great distances. Covering all the important details in the Bombadil >section -- that's tough. The weakest point in the first movie threatens >to be the Hobbits meeting Aragorn in Bree -- much weaker than a >sword-bearing Arwen "sneaking up" on the Ranger (and I infer from >Moriarty's script excerpt that Jackson actually intended to convey somehow >that Aragorn detected her and knew who she was). What exactly are we talking about with Arwen 'sneaking up' on Aragorn? I missed the original comment, but I refuse to buy that anyone is 'sneaking up' on Aragorn. He's too paranoid (and too good at what he does) to let anyone sneak up to within medium-range ballistic-missile range of him. (No, I'm *not* implying that Sauron had Scuds.) >>What we should be discussing is not whether it's 'possible', but whether the >>plot will still make sense. > >I'm sure the plot of the movies will mostly make sense, especially to >people who are familiar with the story well enough to relate it in summary >(at least) to a friend or stranger. But there will most likely be >significant changes in the plot for several reasons. These should >(hopefully) be more in the form of deletions (or compression) than of >deliberate changes and fabrications, but you never know. The Aragorn/Arwen >story is obviously going to have to be contrived to some extent, and >Jackson be thinking (or may have thought -- one can only wonder what he >thinks of all the discussions which have erupted since Moriarty posted the >excerpt) that combining Arwen's part with the part of less essential >characters such as Glorfindel may be a forgiveable sin. > >For my part, I will forgive him, but I'll probably rake him over the coals >before doing so. There are enough people who *won't* forgive him that there won't be anything left for you to rake over the coals. >I saw "The Civil War" and liked it very much. I'm not sure I'd come across >as the sex symbol that Shelby Foote did, but I'd love to be the "historian" >who gets to sit in the mock library and pontificate about the deeper >meanings of everything. No possibility of flames in that setting, you >know. :) No, but you'll only come up with so many observations on your own. Some of your best research goes on when people are disputing everything you say. >Ah. I don't think it would have to be explained in detail. Gandalf should >already have told Frodo about the wraiths, so the audience can wonder if >the thing is a wraith until Bombadil shows up. If necessary one of the >characters could say, "Was that...a black rider?" And Bombadil could say, >"No, that was a barrow wight, but it served the Dark Lord once...." I suppose that would work. >>So were the Nazgul. He could have followed them and he would have found the >>Hobbits eventually. > >He knew there were Nazgul about, but he wanted to get to the Hobbits FIRST. > Getting the Hobbits past the Nazgul was easier than rescuing them would >be. What could he do, stand up at the edge of town and say, "Elendil! I >am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Dunadan! Here is the Sword that was Broken! >As soon as I get it reforged I shall come after thee, wraith of Sauron!"? He put up a pretty good defense when he *did* have to fight them off, but I'm not sure he'd know that in advance. He was probably as surprised to see them retreat as we are. ###### From: andreas@eyfa.org (Andreas Jaeger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:24:49 GMT Organization: EYFA Message-ID: <37c2205f.5070286@news.eyfa.org> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: eyfa.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news1.xs4all.nl 935405084 13001 194.109.62.239 (23 Aug 1999 10:44:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Aug 1999 10:44:44 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Lines: 16 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!xs4all!not-for-mail On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:15:43 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >He has promised that the Bombadil episode can be easily inferred by viewers >who are familiar with the story, but short of doing what I suggest, I don't >see how he can do that successfully. I heard rumours (some months ago) that PJ will probably leave out the Bombadil episode for the first movie, but soon after the third movie is released, they will surely offer a video (laserdisc/DVD/whatever) edition of all the three movies, and for this special edition they might even include the Bombadil episode (to be taped after RotK). *If* that's the way it's gonna happen, it would be a pretty good decision IMO. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> References: <6260-37BE4F34-68@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7plqdo$118_002@Org.xenite.org> <37bf6769.252426137@news.pc-intouch.com> <7pq0av$3es_048@Org.xenite.org> <7pqdkb$2l4_014@Org.xenite.org> <37c0eb58.2300393@news.pc-intouch.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 58 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:17:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.149.201 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935447262 207.224.149.201 (Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:27:42 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:27:42 EDT 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!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37c0eb58.2300393@news.pc-intouch.com>, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 03:02:35 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) wrote: > >>Knowing virtually nothing about the current script, I cannot really suggest >>anything. It's easier to offer a solution for showing the party travelling >>over great distances. Covering all the important details in the Bombadil >>section -- that's tough. The weakest point in the first movie threatens >>to be the Hobbits meeting Aragorn in Bree -- much weaker than a >>sword-bearing Arwen "sneaking up" on the Ranger (and I infer from >>Moriarty's script excerpt that Jackson actually intended to convey somehow >>that Aragorn detected her and knew who she was). > >What exactly are we talking about with Arwen 'sneaking up' on Aragorn? Well, I see the excerpt has been cited again, so I won't repeat it. >>I saw "The Civil War" and liked it very much. I'm not sure I'd come across >>as the sex symbol that Shelby Foote did, but I'd love to be the "historian" >>who gets to sit in the mock library and pontificate about the deeper >>meanings of everything. No possibility of flames in that setting, you >>know. :) > >No, but you'll only come up with so many observations on your own. >Some of your best research goes on when people are disputing >everything you say. That sort of environment leaves me searching Deja.Com and cursing myself for not using more "Keywords: " lines. >>>So were the Nazgul. He could have followed them and he would have found the >>>Hobbits eventually. >> >>He knew there were Nazgul about, but he wanted to get to the Hobbits FIRST. >> Getting the Hobbits past the Nazgul was easier than rescuing them would >>be. What could he do, stand up at the edge of town and say, "Elendil! I >>am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Dunadan! Here is the Sword that was Broken! >>As soon as I get it reforged I shall come after thee, wraith of Sauron!"? > >He put up a pretty good defense when he *did* have to fight them off, >but I'm not sure he'd know that in advance. He was probably as >surprised to see them retreat as we are. The Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop thinking they had accomplished their purpose. Aragorn's "defense" was not really responsible. In fact, Aragorn was incapable of preventing the Lord of the Nazgul from reaching Frodo. The famous leap with firey brands occurred only after Frodo was wounded. > -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Aug 1999 23:15:13 GMT References: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >>He put up a pretty good defense when he *did* have to fight them off, >>but I'm not sure he'd know that in advance. He was probably as >>surprised to see them retreat as we are. > >The Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop thinking they had accomplished their >purpose. Aragorn's "defense" was not really responsible. In fact, Aragorn >was incapable of preventing the Lord of the Nazgul from reaching Frodo. >The famous leap with firey brands occurred only after Frodo was wounded. Oh No. Not another great debate!? Russ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7psl42$2g4_044@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:22:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.149.201 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935451153 207.224.149.201 (Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:32:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:32:33 EDT Lines: 26 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!grolier!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.icl.net!news.itconsult.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) wrote: >In article <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) writes: > >>>He put up a pretty good defense when he *did* have to fight them off, >>>but I'm not sure he'd know that in advance. He was probably as >>>surprised to see them retreat as we are. >> >>The Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop thinking they had accomplished their >>purpose. Aragorn's "defense" was not really responsible. In fact, Aragorn >>was incapable of preventing the Lord of the Nazgul from reaching Frodo. >>The famous leap with firey brands occurred only after Frodo was wounded. > >Oh No. Not another great debate!? This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37c208c0.75374975@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com> <7psl42$2g4_044@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-46.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 18 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 02:57:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 935463391 207.212.198.18 (Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:56:31 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:56:31 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.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:22:42 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but >if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE >Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense >was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. I agree that the Nazgul probably withdrew of their own accord. The problem is that I'm not sure we can conclusively say that Aragorn only attacked them with firey brands after they stabbed Frodo. The one observing all this is Frodo, and his perceptions are a little distorted at the time. He's wearing the Ring, and the Nazgul are messing with his mind, and somewhere in the sequence he gets wounded with a cursed knife. Those conditions might allow for a less-than-perfect understanding of what happened. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org> References: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com> <7psl42$2g4_044@Org.xenite.org> <37c208c0.75374975@news.pc-intouch.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 34 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:06:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.148.148 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news3.usenetserver.com 935475394 207.224.148.148 (Tue, 24 Aug 1999 02:16:34 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 02:16:34 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-xfer.epix.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!Xenite In article <37c208c0.75374975@news.pc-intouch.com>, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:22:42 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) wrote: > >>This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but >>if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE >>Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense >>was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. > >I agree that the Nazgul probably withdrew of their own accord. > >The problem is that I'm not sure we can conclusively say that Aragorn >only attacked them with firey brands after they stabbed Frodo. The >one observing all this is Frodo, and his perceptions are a little >distorted at the time. He's wearing the Ring, and the Nazgul are >messing with his mind, and somewhere in the sequence he gets wounded >with a cursed knife. Those conditions might allow for a >less-than-perfect understanding of what happened. It does not appear that Frodo consulted with anyone on what happened when he wrote that part of the book, but merely to assume that it should or must have happened in any other way is inappropriate. Aragorn clearly feared the Nazgul in Bree when he told the Hobbits they were terrible. Tolkien suggests that the Dunedain at Sarn Ford might have failed against the Nazgul even if Aragorn had been with them. That implies a great deal of power with which Aragorn at the head of his Rangers is no real match. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37c25d67.97049076@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <7pshac$2g4_028@Org.xenite.org> <19990823191513.13949.00001999@ngol04.aol.com> <7psl42$2g4_044@Org.xenite.org> <37c208c0.75374975@news.pc-intouch.com> <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-46.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 12 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:56:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 935484825 207.212.198.18 (Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:53:45 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:53:45 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:06:50 GMT, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote: >It does not appear that Frodo consulted with anyone on what happened when >he wrote that part of the book, but merely to assume that it should or must >have happened in any other way is inappropriate. Aragorn clearly feared >the Nazgul in Bree when he told the Hobbits they were terrible. I'm not saying he should or must have been wrong about what happened. I'm saying that he *might* have been. We have no idea how likely it is that he had the events out of order. ###### From: mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Lines: 65 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Aug 1999 14:39:08 GMT References: <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990824103908.01527.00001850@ngol08.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes: >>>This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but > >>>if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE >>>Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense >>>was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. That is nto my view of the scene. IIRC, our difference of opinion over the scene centers on whether the Nazgul's original plan was to wound and withdraw (your POV, correct me if I'm wrong); whereas my opinion is that the Nazgul intended to get the Ring right then and there but changed plans because they ran into unexpected resistence taking several forms - Frodo's drawing his sword and attacking, Frodo's invoking Elbereth, and Aragorn advancing with torches. In tems of timing issues, I think it misses the point. Frodo had advanced towards the Nazgul - how far I do not know. However, we do know that when Frodo hit the ground, he saw Aragorn out of the corner of his eye leaping forward with the fiery brands. I would have only taken a second for Frodo to fall, so Aragorn must have been moving slightly before or concurrently with Frodo's attempted attack - the exact time needed to be within Frodo's peripheral vision depends on how far he advanced from the fire. >>I agree that the Nazgul probably withdrew of their own accord. >> >>The problem is that I'm not sure we can conclusively say that Aragorn >>only attacked them with firey brands after they stabbed Frodo. The >>one observing all this is Frodo, and his perceptions are a little >>distorted at the time. He's wearing the Ring, and the Nazgul are >>messing with his mind, and somewhere in the sequence he gets wounded >>with a cursed knife. Those conditions might allow for a >>less-than-perfect understanding of what happened. > >It does not appear that Frodo consulted with anyone on what happened when >he wrote that part of the book, but merely to assume that it should or must >have happened in any other way is inappropriate. Aragorn clearly feared >the Nazgul in Bree when he told the Hobbits they were terrible. > >Tolkien suggests that the Dunedain at Sarn Ford might have failed against >the Nazgul even if Aragorn had been with them. That implies a great deal >of power with which Aragorn at the head of his Rangers is no real match. Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear. Frodo was particularly vulnerable because he was wearing the Ring and half in the wraith world. Aragorn's not an idiot. He clearly had some experience or at least knowledge of them. He had the hobbits grab torches for a reason. Aragorn believed they were of some use. Otherwise he might as well just had the hobbits drip their drawers, bend over and fart at the Nazgul. The Rangers at Sarn Ford were facing all the Nine, which Tolkien implies operates to magnify their power - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The draft tells us that some ran but others held but were overrun - and the text indicates that those who did hold on, kept that Nazgul at bay all day long until darkness fell. Remember too, that the Rangers had no warning. The had no idea that the Nine were abroad. Had they known, they might have been able to be better prepared and put up a better defense - they could have broken out their cache of nazgul-killer baldes from the secret Dunedain of the North armory . Aragorn, on the other hand, had an advantage because he knew what he was facing. Russ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7q049f$3mo_044@Org.xenite.org> References: <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org> <19990824103908.01527.00001850@ngol08.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 89 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:59:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.131 X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com X-Trace: news1 935564385 209.181.118.131 (Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:59:45 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:59:45 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!news.itconsult.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news1.POSTED!Xenite In article <19990824103908.01527.00001850@ngol08.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) wrote: >In article <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) writes: > >>>>This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but >>>>if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE >>>>Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense >>>>was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. > >That is nto my view of the scene. IIRC, our difference of opinion over the >scene centers on whether the Nazgul's original plan was to wound and withdraw >(your POV, correct me if I'm wrong); whereas my opinion is that the Nazgul >intended to get the Ring right then and there but changed plans because they >ran into unexpected resistence taking several forms - Frodo's drawing his sword >and attacking, Frodo's invoking Elbereth, and Aragorn advancing with torches. Well, since there was no resistance until the Lord of the Nazgul stabbed Frodo, and he was confident Frodo would end up as a wraith, it doesn't strike me as worthwhile to dwell on how the passage might have been reworked. >In tems of timing issues, I think it misses the point. Frodo had advanced >towards the Nazgul - how far I do not know... Frodo didn't advance at all. He couldn't move until the Nazgul looked at him, and then he just threw himself to the ground. He struck at the Lord of the Nazgul at the same moment, so old Angmar was already there. Unless someone would like to suggest a Hobbit in terror could toss himself forward 10 or more feet.... >...However, we do know that when Frodo hit the ground, he saw Aragorn out >of the corner of his eye leaping forward with the fiery brands. [snip] No, Frodo saw that AFTER he was stabbed. In fact, the book says, "Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand." So, the vaunted flaming brand defence did nothing. In fact, in the previous paragraph, Tolkien writes that the Nazgul rushed down the hillside toward Frodo after he put on the Ring. Where was their fear of fire then? Aragorn and the other hobbits were still standing with flaming brands in their hands. >>It does not appear that Frodo consulted with anyone on what happened when >>he wrote that part of the book, but merely to assume that it should or must >>have happened in any other way is inappropriate. Aragorn clearly feared >>the Nazgul in Bree when he told the Hobbits they were terrible. >> >>Tolkien suggests that the Dunedain at Sarn Ford might have failed against >>the Nazgul even if Aragorn had been with them. That implies a great deal >>of power with which Aragorn at the head of his Rangers is no real match. > >Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear. Frodo was particularly >vulnerable because he was wearing the Ring and half in the wraith world. He was vulnerable to far more than fear, however. >Aragorn's not an idiot. He clearly had some experience or at least knowledge of >them. He had the hobbits grab torches for a reason. Aragorn believed they were >of some use. Otherwise he might as well just had the hobbits drip their >drawers, bend over and fart at the Nazgul. Nonetheless the fires didn't deter the Nazgul. The only thing they hesitated about was when Frodo drew his barrow-sword. It flickered red and two of the Nazgul stopped. Only their Lord continued advancing on Frodo at that point. >The Rangers at Sarn Ford were facing all the Nine, which Tolkien implies >operates to magnify their power - the whole is greater than the sum of its >parts. The draft tells us that some ran but others held but were overrun - and >the text indicates that those who did hold on, kept that Nazgul at bay all day >long until darkness fell. Remember too, that the Rangers had no warning. The >had no idea that the Nine were abroad. Had they known, they might have been >able to be better prepared and put up a better defense - they could have broken >out their cache of nazgul-killer baldes from the secret Dunedain of the North >armory . Aragorn, on the other hand, had an advantage because he knew what >he was facing. The Rangers had plenty of warning by the time night came again. And it was only the Lord of Morgul himself who swept away the most valiant defenders. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: Michael Martinez Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: 25 Aug 1999 08:55:56 -0700 Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Web Lines: 90 Message-ID: <7q13mc$1ife@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-544.newsdawg.com 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!do.de.uu.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.cwix.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn In article <19990824103908.01527.00001850@ngol08.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (McREsq) wrote: >In article <7ptcpq$1ns_008@Org.xenite.org>, Michael@xenite.org (Michael >Martinez) writes: > >>>>This one has yet to take on the proportions of the Balrog Wings debate, but >>>>if anyone wants to cite a passage showing that Aragorn leaped out BEFORE >>>>Frodo was stabbed (thus proving conclusively that the firey brand defense >>>>was completely ineffective against the Lord of the Nazgul), I'm all eyes. > >That is nto my view of the scene. IIRC, our difference of opinion over the >scene centers on whether the Nazgul's original plan was to wound and withdraw >(your POV, correct me if I'm wrong); whereas my opinion is that the Nazgul >intended to get the Ring right then and there but changed plans because they >ran into unexpected resistence taking several forms - Frodo's drawing his sword >and attacking, Frodo's invoking Elbereth, and Aragorn advancing with torches. Well, since there was no resistance until the Lord of the Nazgul stabbed Frodo, and he was confident Frodo would end up as a wraith, it doesn't strike me as worthwhile to dwell on how the passage might have been reworked. >In tems of timing issues, I think it misses the point. Frodo had advanced >towards the Nazgul - how far I do not know... Frodo didn't advance at all. He couldn't move until the Nazgul looked at him, and then he just threw himself to the ground. He struck at the Lord of the Nazgul at the same moment, so old Angmar was already there. Unless someone would like to suggest a Hobbit in terror could toss himself forward 10 or more feet.... >...However, we do know that when Frodo hit the ground, he saw Aragorn out >of the corner of his eye leaping forward with the fiery brands. [snip] No, Frodo saw that AFTER he was stabbed. In fact, the book says, "Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand." So, the vaunted flaming brand defence did nothing. In fact, in the previous paragraph, Tolkien writes that the Nazgul rushed down the hillside toward Frodo after he put on the Ring. Where was their fear of fire then? Aragorn and the other hobbits were still standing with flaming brands in their hands. >>It does not appear that Frodo consulted with anyone on what happened when >>he wrote that part of the book, but merely to assume that it should or must >>have happened in any other way is inappropriate. Aragorn clearly feared >>the Nazgul in Bree when he told the Hobbits they were terrible. >> >>Tolkien suggests that the Dunedain at Sarn Ford might have failed against >>the Nazgul even if Aragorn had been with them. That implies a great deal >>of power with which Aragorn at the head of his Rangers is no real match. > >Tolkien tells us their chief weapon was fear. Frodo was particularly >vulnerable because he was wearing the Ring and half in the wraith world. He was vulnerable to far more than fear, however. >Aragorn's not an idiot. He clearly had some experience or at least knowledge of >them. He had the hobbits grab torches for a reason. Aragorn believed they were >of some use. Otherwise he might as well just had the hobbits drip their >drawers, bend over and fart at the Nazgul. Nonetheless the fires didn't deter the Nazgul. The only thing they hesitated about was when Frodo drew his barrow-sword. It flickered red and two of the Nazgul stopped. Only their Lord continued advancing on Frodo at that point. >The Rangers at Sarn Ford were facing all the Nine, which Tolkien implies >operates to magnify their power - the whole is greater than the sum of its >parts. The draft tells us that some ran but others held but were overrun - and >the text indicates that those who did hold on, kept that Nazgul at bay all day >long until darkness fell. Remember too, that the Rangers had no warning. The >had no idea that the Nine were abroad. Had they known, they might have been >able to be better prepared and put up a better defense - they could have broken >out their cache of nazgul-killer baldes from the secret Dunedain of the North >armory . Aragorn, on the other hand, had an advantage because he knew what >he was facing. The Rangers had plenty of warning by the time night came again. And it was only the Lord of Morgul himself who swept away the most valiant defenders. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// //\\ Michael@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org.......................................................... ###### From: Seppo Raudaskoski Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Moriarty's Script Excerpts (was Re: Moriarty and such) Date: 26 Aug 1999 16:08:35 GMT Organization: University of Tampere, Finland Lines: 25 Message-ID: <7q3oq3$ims$1@baker.cc.tut.fi> References: <7pdl2e$29cg@drn.newsguy.com> <7pipes$24k_018@Org.xenite.org> <7ponha$93n$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kielo.uta.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990805 ("Preacher Man") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4u)) 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!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail RLV wrote: : The problem is not that women must be or not be important in movies. The : problem is that the Arwen of LoTR (all we know of her, which is not much) is : *very* different of what that script fragment shows. Different in form and : substance. : More annoying still is the fact that changes like that are not necessary for : the adaptation. I accept (although I regret) the elimination of Tom : Bombadil, because of time limitations. But what do we gain with a Xena-like : Arwen, in film terms? Teenager audience? Damn right. If PJ thinks turning Arwen into a Xena is what it takes to make film to fit into the Hollywood Blockbuster Format (TM), fine. But my God, why this? Arwen is close to three thousand years old and a descendant of Lúthien and Melian. She's just too _grown-up_ to give any of that "sassy shield-maiden" crap to Aragorn. Besides, all this "I'm Shannara Shiningstar and no man can ever best me in battle" style boasting has got to be THE most tired cliché in all fantasy writing. Hey scriptwriters, was this really the only way to go in "developing" Arwen? -- Seppo Raudaskoski "I was Dave Bowman." trsera@uta.fi - David Bowman