The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Yeah, but GB's explanation is so much more eloquent

He sound like a great college professor, he would probably be very good to listen to during a lecture

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

is it a BDP S570? A lot of reports having trouble with the BD's in that model...

On disk two of each of the movies, once it loads, a menu bar should appear on the BDP S570. As you have observed, it does not. It does appear on the PS3 and other players. While the menu bar does not appear on the 570, it is in fact "there" . To bring up the menu bar, rather than press enter, just hit the right arrow next to the enter button and the pop up menu will apppear. The reason the film starts when you hit enter is because you're on the invisible "continue film" button.

The 570 will require a disk update to address this, but this is an effective work around, particularly if you don't want to "continue film" after you load disk 2.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

The Balrog (as far as the Valar were concerned) had no place in still existing in Middle-Earth. The Valar destroyed all of the Balrogs except those who hid themselves deep, deep underground.

Given that it was a foe from the first age, long thought to have been extinguished and originally a Maiar; it's understandable that Gandalf would intervene and fight it.

Sure. But he also fights against orcs earlier in Moria, at Helm's deep, in Minas Tirith etc. Granted I'm not sure any of that active fighting was depicted in the books.

[Hobbun]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

I also want to know. Can other nazguls be killed by men?

I understood that only to apply to the lead Nazgul (forgot 'its' title now).

And was that in the book?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Another superbly worded explanation GB, as usual.

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Excellent analysis. I always thoroughly enjoy reading your posts on these matters

Thank you for your kind words.

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

Who would win in a fight? Gandalf The White or Gothmog (Lord of balrogs)?

Gandalf; Gothmog was killed by the First Age Elf Ecthelion at Gondolin (where Gandalf's sword originated). Gandalf had more power than Elves.

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Yes, I understand mercy (and therefore restraint at times) is needed to distinguish between “good” and “evil”.

But we aren’t talking about Gandalf ruthlessly killing people. It's one thing showing mercy to Gollum, or Saurman, who were previously good people. He is killing monsters, evil to the core, and is doing so in defense of Middle Earth. Why could he not kill those large pockets of orcs/Cave Trolls (with spells) attacking Helms Deep and Minas Tirith? Why could he not blast down those Nazguls on their flying mounts (besides the lead one, I know he could not be killed by any man)? I know the Nazguls and their flying mounts killed hundreds alone scooping soldiers off the parapets a dozen at a time a dropping them to their death. Why could he not at least destroy the siege equipment with spells to prevent them from boarding the walls of Minas Tirith, or destroy the flaming wolfhead battering ram?

I don’t see Gandalf flinging his spells and killing orcs and the like is any more ‘evil’ than Aragorn taking off their heads, Legalos putting an arrow between the eyes or Gimli burying his axe in their chest. Yes, Gandalf would have killed many with his spells. But they were evil creatures, and in the process, would have also saved thousands.

Unless there was something established in the books that indicated the more ‘good’ magic-users use their magic, the more evil they become?

This is an excellent question and along with the other posts about Gandalf is best addressed by Tolkien:

"There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what [Gandalf] was. I would venture to say he was an incarnate 'angel' - that is with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed'... Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world and of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them.

"But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing... The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the test, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). For in his condition, it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was in vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope for success."

"That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards' as such had failed: or if you like, the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains the similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Theoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'... He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its gates destroyed - and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to mortal hands."

And regarding the relationship of the "Higher Power" or "Authority" to Gandalf and the story in general:

Tolkien:

"I have severely cut Gandalf's account of himself... I have purposefully kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords and Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's'... "

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by merrick97

How the Nazgul couldn't be killed by a man.

It was only the Witch-king of Angmar who it was said couldn't be killed by man. The came from a prophecy that Glorfindel gave to Earnur (the Last King of Gondor):

In his final stand, the Witch-King sat upon his black horse before us... As we rode forward, he realized that all hope is lost... His terrifying scream of rage sent the chills of winter to our spines as he turned and fled into the shadows... Earnur struck out to chase him down... But I then realized his power... We thought him as a powerful Black Númenórean but he was a Nazgûl... First of the nine and most fell of the servants of the Dark Lord Sauron... I put up my hand and call out for Earnur... Do not pursue him, he will not return to this lands... Far of yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall.

Originally Posted by merrick97

It was confusing as to who Galadriel actually was.

Galadriel was the wife of Celeborn, and keeper of Nenya (one of the Three). Co-ruler along with her husband of Lothlórien. She was extremely powerful and knowledgeable; born in the Year of the Trees, well before the first age.

Originally Posted by merrick97

Who was more powerful? Galadriel or Gandalf?

Gandalf, being a Maiar, would have been more powerful than Galadriel.

Originally Posted by merrick97

What did it exactly mean when it was said" the time of the elves have passed" and its not "time for men"?

I'll let Grand Bob take this one (gotta run to a meeting)

[Hobbun]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'... He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its gates destroyed - and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to mortal hands." [/I]
[/I]

Very interesting read, Grand Bob. Thank you.

I understand what Tolkien is saying, but the question is, what determines where "physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good of will opposers to be effective", as I feel Minas Tirith would have been lost if Aragorn was not able to call upon his undead army.

Did Gandalf count on this, and feel confident it 'would' happen? And that is why he did not "act in emergency as an 'angel'"?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

But none of it laid down in narrative terms by Tolkien, other than "Sauron was eventually driven out of Mirkwood after many days of battle". There are no lines for the characters, no scenes, just a description of the event. All that is going to have to be invented by the same people who gave us dwarf tossing, Denethor's flaming mile, Frodo sending Sam home, "Not the beard", Arwen dying for some fool reason, etc., etc., etc.

Instead of a three hour adaptation of a charming little book, we're going to get a five hour film with incredible amounts of newly invented scenes, and that worries me.

You crack me up.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Very interesting read, Grand Bob. Thank you.

I understand what Tolkien is saying, but the question is, what determines where "physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good of will opposers to be effective", as I feel Minas Tirith would have been lost if Aragorn was not able to call upon his undead army.

Did Gandalf count on this, and feel confident it 'would' happen? And that is why he did not "act in emergency as an 'angel'"?

There is a point where you come to the conclusion everyone must, even though Tolkien is regarded as higher than he should be, which is that it is simply a work of fiction and will never make complete sense. All rules in fiction need to be fudged at times to allow for a story to be told. Perfect, logical sense for powers and motivations will never exist in fiction like this. It is impossible if you want to be able to construct a story.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

Very interesting read, Grand Bob. Thank you.

I understand what Tolkien is saying, but the question is, what determines where "physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good of will opposers to be effective", as I feel Minas Tirith would have been lost if Aragorn was not able to call upon his undead army.

Did Gandalf count on this, and feel confident it 'would' happen? And that is why he did not "act in emergency as an 'angel'"?

Gandalf was going to stop the Witch-King from entering Minas Tirith. I feel he would have been successful. But then two unexpected events occur. First Rohan arrives and the Witch-King rides away to take on the new enemy. Second, Denethor loses it and is going to kill himself and Faramir. Pippin begs Gandalf to intervene. Gandalf is torn between saving Faramir and taking on the Witch-King on the battle field. Gandalf knows that if he saves Faramir, that bad things will happen without someone to stop the Witch-King.

Aragorn certainly made an invaluable contribution to the battle by removing the Corsairs of Umbar from the other side.

[Fors*]

Thanks for yet another excellent contribution to the discussion Grand Bob! I for one always appreciate your insight and ability to convey Tolkien's ideas and intentions.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hey gents, my son just asked me a question and I didn't have an answer. I told him I'd ask all of you

If the elves are adversely affected by the ring and Sauron's rise, and Arwen is at risk of dying as long as both continue to exist and grow more powerful, how is it that Legolas is at the top of his game? Why isn't he feeling any adverse effects? Or am I just missing something obvious? Thanks!

The Elves would only have been affected by the Ring if Sauron had recaptured it. After learning what was known of the craft from the Elves (primarily Celebrimbor), Sauron made the Ring with the intention of controlling all Rings of Power. The possessors of the seven Dwarf Rings and the nine rings for men were already under his control because Sauron made those rings. Had he obtained the One Ring, the thoughts of those possessing the Elven Rings would also have been known to him, and he would have had complete domination of the world. Arwen's fate was not tied to the Ring; that was a plot 'enhancement' of the movie.

Originally Posted by merrick97

What did it exactly mean when it was said" the time of the elves have passed" and its not "time for men"?

A more accurate phrase would have been, "the time of the elves in Middle-earth has passed". To make a (very) long story short, the Elves originally inhabited Middle-earth, but were expected to migrate to Valinor (the immortal lands) to live with the Valar, or angelic powers. A great portion of them came back to Middle-earth in the quest of recapturing the Silmarils (great jewels) that Morgoth (Satan) stole. After Morgoth was defeated in the greatest battle in the history of the World, most of the Elves returned to Valinor, but a few remained at the time of the Lord of the Rings, notably at The Grey Havens, Rivendell, Mirkwood, and Lothlorien. Rivendell and Lothlorien possessed some of the splendor of the undying lands due to the power of the Elven Rings. After the One Ring was destroyed, the Elven Rings also lost their power, thus most of the remaining Elves returned to Valinor. As a result, Middle-earth is now mostly populated by Men. Therefore, this is the "time for men". The Elves, being immortal, would of course hypothetically still be alive

Originally Posted by DarkDune

I like this idea. It is clear from even The Hobbit book that Gandalf is not "all-knowing". In fact he is more clearly trying to set Bilbo on "the right path". Gandalf himself is not certain of the outcome much of the time. It is almost Buddhist, in fact

You are correct , and parts of LotR are strongly Buddhist (e.g., see the chapter "In the House of Tom Bombadil").

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The Elves would only have been affected by the Ring if Sauron had recaptured it. After learning what was known of the craft from the Elves (primarily Celebrimbor), Sauron made the Ring with the intention of controlling all Rings of Power. The possessors of the seven Dwarf Rings and the nine rings for men were already under his control because Sauron made those rings. Had he obtained the One Ring, the thoughts of those possessing the Elven Rings would also have been known to him, and he would have had complete domination of the world. Arwen's fate was not tied to the Ring; that was a plot 'enhancement' of the movie.

Hmm... I thought Sauron was the originator of ring-craft and taught the Elves specifically because he intended to make the One Ring in order to dominate the three races.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

There is a point where you come to the conclusion everyone must, even though Tolkien is regarded as higher than he should be, which is that it is simply a work of fiction...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Hmm... I thought Sauron was the originator of ring-craft and taught the Elves specifically because he intended to make the One Ring in order to dominate the three races.

True. Sauron originated it, but the Elves perfected it (in the sense of adding capabilities not considered by Sauron); the end result being the Ring.

[Boob-Ray]

Golly...this thread. There are several threads (Star Wars, Criterion, This) that should really have their own sub-forum. I was just curious about the opinions on the new EE box. But I don't feel like paging through a health care bill to find it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

There is a point where you come to the conclusion everyone must, even though Tolkien is regarded as higher than he should be, which is that it is simply a work of fiction and will never make complete sense. All rules in fiction need to be fudged at times to allow for a story to be told. Perfect, logical sense for powers and motivations will never exist in fiction like this. It is impossible if you want to be able to construct a story.

While it's true that Tolkien became aware of problems in LOTR and revised it a few times, there are still some issues. However, I can't go any farther than that with you.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

There is a point where you come to the conclusion everyone must, even though Tolkien is regarded as higher than he should be, which is that it is simply a work of fiction and will never make complete sense. All rules in fiction need to be fudged at times to allow for a story to be told. Perfect, logical sense for powers and motivations will never exist in fiction like this. It is impossible if you want to be able to construct a story.

That's it in a nutshell. I find it's best to just not overanalyze fiction as it will always have issues here and there.

I get that Tolkien is a special case since he created such a rich world with it's own history and mythology etc., so in a sense it just begs to be studied and analyzed and debated.

But I just personally can't really see the utility of really digging into it beyond reading the main books (Silmarillion, Hobbit, LOTR) as there's far too much I still have to learn about the history and mythologies of our own world to spend that much effort studying and philosophizing about a fantasy world. So I just treat it as a work of fiction and only focus on it as entertainment. And that's a big part of why the changes from the book generally don't bother me, as I just don't take the story/body of work that seriously anyway. It's just two slightly different takes on a fictional story.

Not that I see anything wrong with those who enjoy doing so though! Too each their own when it comes to hobbies.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Boob-Ray

Golly...this thread. There are several threads (Star Wars, Criterion, This) that should really have their own sub-forum. I was just curious about the opinions on the new EE box. But I don't feel like paging through a health care bill to find it.

I like the box, I think its very very very good packaging, but it could be better. I was really hoping for a BD version of the EE DVD's, that packaging was beautiful. If I wasn't so OCD about my BD's I would do what some others have suggested and just put my BD versions in the DVD cases...

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That's it in a nutshell. I find it's best to just not overanalyze fiction as it will always have issues here and there.

I get that Tolkien is a special case since he created such a rich world with it's own history and mythology etc., so in a sense it just begs to be studied and analyzed and debated.

But I just personally can't really see the utility of really digging into it beyond reading the main books (Silmarillion, Hobbit, LOTR) as there's far too much I still have to learn about the history and mythologies of our own world to spend that much effort studying and philosophizing about a fantasy world. So I just treat it as a work of fiction and only focus on it as entertainment.

Not that I see anything wrong with those who enjoy doing so though! Too each their own when it comes to hobbies.

Talking about this is a WHOLE lot more fun than talking about the green issue over and over.