My favourite character is the unsung hero of the entire trilogy, the 10th member of the fellowship. If you think Frodo is the only one that carried a burden on the road, then think again. This character did it without complaining once, having endured a hard life at the hands of that lout, Bill Ferny, and then being sent home all alone through the dangerous wilds of Eregion, rife with wargs and other nasties! And guess what? He found his way home, safe and sound.

He gets far too little credit... he is the one, the only... Bill the Pony!

Well i thought my favorite character/scene topic would get the ball rolling, but the ball didnt go very far

BladeCollector wrote:Well i thought my favorite character/scene topic would get the ball rolling, but the ball didnt go very far

Ill go...

Fav character: Grima (duh) because hes mysterious and I just think is the most real humen character. Theres more to him then meets the eye(s)

Fav scene: The king of the golden hall, very nicly done in the movie.
-wormtongue

i have a question about Grima/Theoden/Saruman... in the movie, Theoden is more or less possessed by Sarumon's magic, but in the book, i read somewhere that Theoden wasnt possessed at all, but was just under Grima's persuasion. I am assuming that there was some sort of drugs used, or Grima is very persuasive, because I dont think it is because Theoden is that weak.


alot of people dont like when a movie maker diverges from the book, but the "possession of theoden" and gandalf more or less exorcising saruman from theoden was more visually exciting for a movie.

BladeCollector wrote:i have a question about Grima/Theoden/Saruman... in the movie, Theoden is more or less possessed by Sarumon's magic, but in the book, i read somewhere that Theoden wasnt possessed at all, but was just under Grima's persuasion. I am assuming that there was some sort of drugs used, or Grima is very persuasive, because I dont think it is because Theoden is that weak.

Grima manipulated theoden to follow his rule using leechcraft that was supposedly taught to him by saruman, or somthing to that effect. Grima was manipulated himself, because he was under saurumans power and followed sarumans rule, so you kinda feel sorry for the guy.
-wormtongue

Supposedly, in one of the last drafts for LOTR, Tolkien wrote a story to be included in the books about grimas life, but then, for whatever reason he took it out. Aswell, in the first drafts, Grima didnt start out 'bad', he was just the caretaker of eown. Tolkien had theoden acting crazy, not wanting to let gandalf in rohan etc. But, it didnt work out, and tolkien decided to give grima blame for manipulating the king to not fight etc. Atleast, so Ive read...
-wormtongue

I just caught the last part of ROTK on Starz while waiting to go to church and something popped into my head. if Sauron could take forms, couldnt he have possibly taken the form of a big giant eye. i know its probably not right, because if he saw frodo with the ring, you would think he would have went after it himself. just a thought.

I know its established that the eye in the book was a metaphor, but this was meant to be one of those "what if" type discussions.

I think PJ did a good job visually representing something that isnt actually physical in the book. in a book you can have metaphor and use your own imagination, but in a movie... i believe it needs to be there and be seen. this was an "adaptation" of lord of the rings, like the movie Troy was of the Iliad... many of the things in that movie were changed from the book, but thats how things go. there have been many stories before Tolkien that told of a Ring of Power... we heard an Opera in music appreciation class that was about a ring of power and dwarves and things.

I remember in FOTR, I believe it was Gandalf said that he would not speak the language that was written on the ring, because it was the language of Sauron. But everyone, even Gandalf (who says he wont utter the black speech) uses the world Nazgul, which is from the black speech. am i wrong, or am i reading to much into this.

Sorry, I am watching ROTK on TV while doing homework. I believe they should have shown Denethor with the Palantir. He says "Do you think the white city is blind..." and "i have seen things...", the palantir would make since right then to show him with one and show how he he has seen the things he says he has. the new viewer just saw Pippin holding Sarumons palantir (he took it from Gandalf while he was sleeping.) and gandalf, aragorn, theoden etc were talking about it, so the viewer had the palantir fresh in his/her mind. Denethor having a palantir wouldnt be "that" confusing. it wouldnt be anymore confusing that having denethor act like a crazed lunatic, it would give more sense to his lunacy, and make it not seem as crazy.

BladeCollector wrote:I remember in FOTR, I believe it was Gandalf said that he would not speak the language that was written on the ring, because it was the language of Sauron. But everyone, even Gandalf (who says he wont utter the black speech) uses the world Nazgul, which is from the black speech. am i wrong, or am i reading to much into this.

You are correct I believe. "Nazg" means ring, and "gul" means wraith. And as for not speaking in black speech, he says the whole 'one ring to rule them all' incantation during the council of Elrond in Black speech, so he's obviously not to concerned by it, unlike the Elves who looked to be in pain when he did so.

Yea, I dont remember exactly, he may not have wanted to say what it said in front of Frodo when he first figured out what the ring was, or had an inkling to what it was.

Gandalf won't recite the Ring Spell in its original Black Speech in Bag End, in the nonmagical, defenseless Shire. However, he has no trepidations about uttering the words in Rivendell (in both book and movie) where he feels it will have no consequences worse than offending the Elves' linquistically sensitive ears.

The Ring script was the incantation used by Sauron as he forged the ring in his own hand. Is it possible that the Black speech may not in itself be powerful but the use of it in certain sentences can induce power, much like the Elven language (Altough beautiful, the elven languages only have magical powers when used as incantations).

The Ring Speech was spoken by evil in the creation of the object of Evil.
Either way, its not plesent on the ear!

Gilgalad-2490 wrote:Yes but even so after he recites it in rivendell he has some regret and what looks like exhaustion after he says it. But aside from that fact can someone e xp lain to me exactly what happens in that part of the scene in the extended edition in rivendell? I dont get it, is that sauron talking and if so where did he come from and why? I dont recall that from the book....a bit confused here :confused

One of the reasons LOTR was considered problematic to film was the essential absence of its main villain thru 99.9% of the story. In the book, Sauron is always "off-screen" in the present-tense part of the story. He's only seen in flashbacks: stories of his overthrow by the Last Alliance, Gollum's recollection of meeting him, and so forth. In the book, this works--your imagination paints a far scarier picture than if Tolkien had made him an actual ongoing character. In a movie, however, that probably wouldn't work so well, so PJ had to push other elements forward to serve as the villain. One of these was Saruman, who was more prominent in the movies than the books (in the books, Saruman is "seen" once during the Voice chapter at the end of TTT, and discussed in detail once, when Gandalf recounts his capture there). The other is the Ring. PJ uses it as the stand-in for Sauron himself. To help accomplish this, he had to imbue it with some personality. Part of that was by the perfectly creepy boys-choir theme that Howard Shore wrote for the Ring, and part of it was by giving it a voice (and a very small part was Gandalf's setup line in Bag End: "The Ring and the Dark Lord--they are one"). My interpretation of the movie scene in Rivendell is that when Gandalf recites the Ring Spell, the Ring wakes up and resonates with the Spell. One might assume such a thing would serve as a homing beacon to Sauron, telling him where the Ring is, but since at this point he already knows it's in Rivendell (since the Nazgul chased it right to the border), nothing is lost. Not so, if this had happened in Bag End!

Regarding Gandalf's regret or exhaustion, either may be the case, or perhaps saying those words were even more distasteful to him than they were for the Elves to hear. In the book, the recitation is Gandalf's capper of a very long speech e xp laining to the doubting Thomases why this really is the One Ring; in the movie, it seems intended to demonstrate to Boromir that the Ring is not to be used. However, that apparently doesn't work, since Boromir immediately launches into his "The weapon of the Enemy is a gift" speech. A little restructuring would make that scene flow better. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the changing audio quality in that scene? When Boromir begins speaking, his voice is slightly muffled sounding, as if he's distant from the microphone. As he continues, he gets much more distinct. But I digress....

Getting back to the voice of the Ring and is it Sauron--yes and no. It's the Voice of the Ring. Sauron is not there personally, but since the power of the Ring is the power of his demonic soul that he put into it, the Voice of the Ring is, in that regard, the voice of Sauron.

The movie credits list a voice actor for the Voice of the Ring, but interestingly, they never reveal who does Sauron's voice. Is it the same guy? Or is it the ever-talented Andy Serkis, who did the voice of the Witch King for his confrontation with Gandalf? Or someone else?

Anduril33 wrote:what got me "perturbed" is that back a few threads there was a whole big disscussion about Saurons physical form and it just irritated me because it such a simple thing to understand and certain ppl just kept going on and on about how hes physical and im just like"NOO you got it sooo wrong!!". thats what got me perturbed.

People go on about this subject because despite your rather forceful and condescending assertions, the issue of Sauron's physical form in the Third Age is far from being as cut-and-dry as you would have everyone believe. This has long been a topic of debate by many Tolkien e xp erts, and will continue to be so because quite simply, Tolkien did not present us with a straightforward answer in the texts. There are clues to support both sides of the argument, and these are very much open to the reader's interpretation. Just as you have formed an opinion from what you have read, so have others formed the opposite. I think you should learn to respect that before you go off and arbitrarily yell at others for being so wrong when you think you are so right.

If you doubt what I say, pull up this subject on any number of Forums that deal with Tolkien discussions or official sites and you will see what I mean. This is almost as controvertial (though not as much) a topic as whether Balrogs have wings or not. So please do yourself a favour and don't try to beat your opinion down upon others as if it were the law. This particular topic has been argued by many long before this and no clear resolution has been gained either way... people have simply chosen one answer or the other based on their own interpretation and that is something you need to learn how to respect.

Lastly, last I looked, this thread was here just for that... discussion, so allow people the courtesy of doing just that.

Here is a question: Did the balrogs really have wings? If so could they actually fly?

Anduril 101 wrote:Here is a question: Did the balrogs really have wings? If so could they actually fly?

If they did, they probly wouldnt fly because the balrog that fought gandalf falls and doesnt fly from the bridge.
-wormtongue

Grima Wormtongue wrote:If they did, they probly wouldnt fly because the balrog that fought gandalf falls and doesnt fly from the bridge.
-wormtongue

Well then, if they did have wings, but couldn't fly, what would be the point of having wings? And obviously, Balrogs are not distant descendants of birds that have wings but cannot fly, like Ostrichs or something!
Anyway, you have to take into consideration, that if Balrogs could indeed fly, there wasn't really much room for him to maneuver once the Bridge was broken and he fell. He would not have been able to fully extend them, thus making him incapable of flying. Sure, he could have extended his wings as soon as the Bridge collapsed, but either a) he didn't see it coming and therefore had no time to act before he fell, or b) Balrogs cannot fly and whoever designed it for the film should not have given it wings.

Here's a good and very unbiased look at the paramount question of Tolkien's texts: Do Balrogs have wings, and can they fly?

http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/flightless.html

And further to Sauron and his shape in the Third Age issue:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.ht ... shape.html

Thank you very much Valkrist

The Flame of the West wrote:Well then, if they did have wings, but couldn't fly, what would be the point of having wings? And obviously, Balrogs are not distant descendants of birds that have wings but cannot fly, like Ostrichs or something!
Anyway, you have to take into consideration, that if Balrogs could indeed fly, there wasn't really much room for him to maneuver once the Bridge was broken and he fell. He would not have been able to fully extend them, thus making him incapable of flying. Sure, he could have extended his wings as soon as the Bridge collapsed, but either a) he didn't see it coming and therefore had no time to act before he fell, or b) Balrogs cannot fly and whoever designed it for the film should not have given it wings.

Ostriches could fly, but they didnt need to. after some thousands of years of eveloution, they still have wings, yet there to small to use, because they never needed them. Same could be said with the balrog in some way, the balrogs didnt need wings, there a maiar anyways, so its not like they need them to live. Though, I can see what you said about not having enough room to fly, though there was a big space for flying, they may of needed more. For example, swans are so heavy, they need to run a half mile on water befor they can start to fly. They need a head start. But then again, if you drop a swan from a plain, im sure it wouldnt need to half the half mile head start, seeing its already in the air.
-wormtongue

Here's another complex and lengthy dissertation on the Balrog issue, if you feel inclined to read... it is quite good, and concludes the essay in favour of wings.

http://www.xenite.org/tolkien/do-balrog ... wings.html

For my part, I must say I always envisioned them having wings and being capable of the rudiments of flight, this meaning that I agree with Grima in that they were not likely to be graceful flyers but instead cumbersome and needing a fair bit of open space to do so.

It goes to show that PJ's interpretation on these issues is just as valid as anyone else's because his movies clearly illustrate two differing sides of two long-standing arguments: he chose to give his Balrog wings (all questions of actual flight aside,) and he opted to show Sauron as a flaming eye. These personal interpretations aside, it is clear from the essays that there is no firm 100% answer to either question.

This may seem like an elementary question, but if Sauron did NOT have physical form, how was he going to wear the ring.

since things seemed to have gotten a little heated, i believe the purpose of the thread was to have discussions about middle-earth, views on the books/movies, how you interpretted things and "what-ifs".

but it is interesting to read different views on a subject and see how different people interpret things so on.

As I stated before, there is nothing wrong with differing opinions so long as they are put forth in a manner which does not demean and insult the intelligence of others.

Again, I submit this article on the issue of Sauron and his shape. It points out various inconsistencies in the dialogue of the movie as it relates to what Tolkien actually wrote in the books. Again, interpretation and opinion are key here, but to me at least, I think there is far more conclusive evidence pointing to the fact that Sauron did indeed have a physical shape of some kind which was not the Flaming Eye.

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.ht ... shape.html

The Balrog debate and the Sauron debate...I guess they will never be settled, let alone on our forum. But people's typing fingers sure get their exercise trying.

In an interview, PJ says he was surprised to learn that there was debate over whether Balrogs had wings or not, as to him the passage in FOTR clearly indicated they did. But as that one essay Val linked pointed out, that passage seems to contradict itself. It's very surprising that Tolkien, the Master of the English Language, and someone who debated every word dozens of times (taking decades to finish books) would contradict himself. It suggests he wanted it to be vague. He's probably having a good chuckle right now up in Heaven on this very topic.

I tend to think they did have wings. I also thought the way the movie portrayed it in FOTR was very good, because although it did appear to have wings, they were so smoky you couldn't be sure they weren't just smoke. So the animators tipped their hat to both sides of the debate.

Another thought.... We know that the Wizards were Maiar who were given their form by the Valar and limited to the inherent abilities of those humanoid forms. The Balrogs were Maiar who were given their form by Melkor, the greatest of the Valar. Presumably they didn't have much control over their form after Melkor put them into it, but perhaps he gave some winged forms and others he didn't. The earlier breeds of dragons were wingless, as I recall.

Even if Balrogs could fly, he probably didn't have enough time to right himself before Gandalf caught up and started whaling away on him, and in that narrow chasm, he wouldn't be able to use them properly anyway. Contrast that to a cat, which can right itself and get into perfect free-fall form in mere seconds.

As for Sauron, above and beyond all other evidence, Tolkien says in "Letters" that he has human form, though very tall. That settles it for me, beyond any discussion of metaphors and the like. Saruman is referred to by his emblem, the White Hand, quite often also, but no one thinks of him as a hand walking around on its fingertips--because we see him first-hand (mmm, sorry...bad choice of words). However, if people prefer to envision Sauron as the flaming Eye, that's their perogative. Sci fi author John Varley cast the villain of his Gaia Trilogy in the form of a 50-foot-tall Marilyn Monroe. At least no one's proposing that Sauron looked like that!

But again, the two sides will never convince each other, and discussion--the purpose of the forum--lives on.

well the big eye of Sauron coulda been floating around middle earth instead of on top of barad dur

Okay, heres another argument we could make. If the balrogs wings were strong enough for him to fly, wouldnt gandalf try to find another way to kill the balrog, instead of having risking the balrog to fly out of the cracks and kill the fellowship? For example, if theres an evil killer duck (HA, pretty stupid idea), your not going to kill it by droping it off a bridge.
-wormtongue