LOTR: Return of The King

[BigJim]

Had Gollum not shown up at the end there wouldn't have been that much problem in the actual destruction of the ring. So I will have to read the books just so I can say "Oh, THAT'S what was missing!"

You mean Gollum stopped Frodo from destroying the ring? In the book Frodo reached Mount Doom, only to fall victim to the Ring's seduction. He stands on the lip of the fire and declares he will not destroy it, but take it for himself; so saying, he puts it on. Being invisible doesn't halt Gollum who can hunt by scent. Pouncing on Frodo he struggles with him, biting his finger clean off to get the ring. While Frodo is down (and Sam is too, from Gollum's attack before he went for Frodo) Gollum is dancing round hollering and shrieking about his precious. Unfortunately he dances in the wrong direction and goes arse over tit into the chasm, taking the One Ring down with him, destroying both.

 

[BigJim]

Why did Frodo have to leave the shire?

Like all who had been ring-bearers, he was beginning to fade. He would probably have sickened and died before his time. (Not sure though.) By being part of the ring, he had become seperated slightly from this world and part of the other world. He probably stood more chance of finding healing and peace in Valinor than in Middle Earth.

 

[BigJim]

And that brings me up to my next question. What would have happened if Sauron got his ring back? Would he still be that floating eye-ball, or would he be restored to his former self and thus be able to do more evil personally? What would happen to him?

Because Sauron had cast so much of himself into the One, once seperated from it, his physical body was destroyed. Regaining it would have allowed him to take physical form again, most likely similar to the one he took at the battle of the Last Alliance, where he was slain by Isildur.

 

[BigJim]

In the first 2 films he was evil as a concept, but then in this last one, rather than be a functioning evil entity, he remained a concept. If that's how it is in the book that's fine, but I'm sure it is fleshed out in a much more enaging, gripping way.

In the books he as far less of a presence than he does in the films. All of the dread is instilled into the reader about Sauron, by the way others refer to him and the things he can cause to happen without being physically present.

 

[BigJim]

So Gandalf wasn't even human to begin with? I don't get it. Whats the point of coming as an old man? Couldn't he just as easily come in his true form and do his work that way? Knowing what I know now, it almost makes Gandalf seem like a fraud. I mean, was he ever really this kindly wizard we know?

He was the same kindly, old dude all the time. Bear in mind that people like Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast were the ONLY wizards in Middle Earth. This isn't the world of Dungeons & Dragons, where any human with the time and the money can learn magic. As for true form, no he couldn't. Everyone who comes from the spiritual realms to take part in events on Earth has to incarnate in a "genetic spacesuit" (human body) to be able to experience this wavelength of existence. Ask a christian why Jesus didn't come down in his true form sometime. 😀 😛

And what about his death fighting the Balrog? Wouldn't he have died no matter who he truely was? Yet he returns as Gandalf the White. A much more spiritual and powerful version of his previous self. Does this mean Gandalf had everything under control from the beginning?

He didn't die. It cartainly looked like he did from the Fellowship's standpoint on the bridge, but it's clearer from reading the book. He and the Balrog landed in a subterranean river, near an island. Maybe Gandalf helped himself a bit with a [iLevitation[/i] spell? Either way, he survived the fall and came up from the depths, fighting the Balrog all the way. He won the fight after a lengthy duel on the top of a mountain, when the Balrog went arse over tit down the rocks, to lie dead. The reason he then came back as a more powerful "white" form, was because he'd been promoted. In the order of wizards, rank was denoted by colour. Saruman the White was the head of the council, but he renounced his title and station to follow the course of evil. Gandalf was almost appointed head of the wizards in the first place anyway, so when Saruman fell from grace, Gandalf naturally took his place, rising a rank from Grey to White. Once that had happened, he was the head wizard in all of Middle Earth. Saruman's defeat at Orthanc and his spiritual defeat lost him 99% of his magical ability. Gandalf's "breaking of the staff" of Saruman, can be compared to be kicked out of a nightclub by the doorman.

Wizard's rank/colour shouldn't be thought of like ranks in an army. It's more like a reflection of their power that's expressed through a natural law of nature. Gandald didn't get promoted to White by the President or by a deity, with Saruman vacating his position (something that is better defined in the books by Saruman himself, when he describes his title of White as being "somewhere to start") Gandalf naturally moved up to White once the Balrog had been slain.

I'm sort of lost on this part now. If hes some demi-god or higher lifeform why not just come as himself instead of the guise of an old wizard who appears to have lived a long human life and is at the end of his journey? Whos the real Gandalf? Was Gandalf ever real or just a cover identity?

Gandalf was real all the time. His physical form just reflected his inner being. (As is the same with us all.) Wiseness and long learning reflected in an aged, but unbowed countenance. Despite being old as the hills he certainly never had any trouble kicking some arse!

Knowing what I know now about him, it was easier for me to accept him as this human man who lived a long life and had many adventures and such. Knowing that hes some higher creature from another land who just came under a guise to assert himself and see what would happen feels wrong.

Look on him as being similar to Jesus Christ. A human body encasing a spirit of immense power. Compare him to an angel, or something similar.

I don't know how to feel about Gandalf now. He was possibly my favorite character and I felt I could trust him, and now I feel frauded in a way. Just as any of the other characters might if they learned the truth.

Feels unsettling doesn't it? You think you have a handle on something or someone, but there turns out to be a totally alien side to them that you can't understand. Just think of Gandalf as a powerful soul who chose to come back to earth for the good of men and the embuggerance of Sauron and evil. The easiest form to incarnate in would be a human one and the most reflective of his inner self would be a wise, old human. Gandalf isn't so far removed from humanity that he doesn't like the occasional pipe of tobacco and a mug of beer.

Forgive my ignorance, I just don't know what to make of this or how to feel.

Just read it all above and have a good, long think about it. It'll work itself out in your mind in the end. 🙂

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Re: A Few Answered Questions

If I understand it correctly, Middle Earth is but one of two continents on "Arda." The western continent of Valinor is where the high elves dwell, as well as the Ainur, the most powerful servants of Illuvatar, of whom Melkor was once one. It's a place of incredible beauty and magic, where no pain nor sickness abide. It's ruled by Manwe, the head of the Ainur, and his wife Varda, whom the elves named Elbereth.

Manwe seemed to be the Christ equivalent in these tales, with Iluvatar being "God".

It seemed to me that Valinor was not just to the west of Middle Earth, but slightly removed from physical reality too. Maybe half way between heaven and Earth? *shrugs* It seems as if the isle of Numenor was the Atlantis of Arda. (For those who don't know, "Arda" is the name of the planet. It's elvish for Earth I think.)

 

[Amnesiac]

SLight Clarification

I'm sort of lost on this part now. If hes some demi-god or higher lifeform why not just come as himself instead of the guise of an old wizard who appears to have lived a long human life and is at the end of his journey? Whos the real Gandalf? Was Gandalf ever real or just a cover identity

-Celtic_Emperor

He came in the guise of a man because he had to be inconspicuous. Evil came to Middle-Earth through Melkor by accident, or by the fuck-ups of the Ainur, so it was their feeling that THEY should try to correct it; mortal man never had a chance by themselves, even with the aid of the Elves. Maiar spirits like Gandalf and Saruman were sent to HELP the denizens of Middle-Earth fight the forces of Sauron until he was vanquished, at which time they were to be recalled back to Valinor.

Gandalf didn't do all the WIZARDLY things you hint at because he wasn't allowed to. If the race of Men and Dwarves KNEW what he was, it would interfere with their own lives and sovereignty of Middle-Earth. On top of that, even though Sauron's corruption was the fault of the Ainur, his presence on Middle-Earth made it a HUMAN jurisdiction, so it was up to MEN to defeat him...but the Maiar were sent to help guide them to victory (the wizards by the way are called the Istani)...he was directly forbidden to use his true power in battle. The reasons escape me because I never really finished the Simarillion, but I'll have to get to that.

Sauron is what a Maiar spirit can do without restrictions. Since he ISN'T under the authority of the Ainur, he is free to use all of his life force. THAT is why Gandalf wouldn't TOUCH the Ring...because then the power of the Ring AND Gandalf's personal power would be combined...and then corrupted.

The Balrog is another point. When Melkor decided to take over Arda, he corrupted several Ainur to his service, including many Maiar spirits. Those Maiar who sided with him took a form that was fitting and powerful...and many of them became Balrogs. There weren't too many Balrogs because they were so bad-ass on their own, but a Balrog is basically the form of an evil Maiar who sided with Melkor. THAT is why Gandalf is afraid of him; because they are essentially the same caliber of power. Gandalf's ascention is never really explained too thoroughly in the book, so a lot of us are out of the loop on that one, but I'm pretty sure Eru had something to do with it.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

now i haven't read similarian yet, but...

.. from reading the 3 lotr books ,i have to disagree with you guys about gandalf. gandalf was a mortal human man. but his being a wisard gave him extreemly long life, and abilities. there were many wizards, mentioned in the books, but they didn't join in the fighting because they had their own areas to protect. gandalf choose not to use his magical powers in the fighting for the most part due to his "enjoying" trading blows with an apponant. he said i nthe second book that his fight with the belrog almost killed him, and he would have died if the big eagle hadn't brought him to the elves in loth-lorien. with his heeling he assended to the possition of white wizard, and head of the council. remember in the two towers movie, when gandalf met aragorn, gimley ,and legalas in fangorn forest?
he was asked if he was saruman (due to his blinding white appearence). he replied "yes i am, or as saruman should have been".

the thing about gandalf was that he enjoyed being the bumbling country wizard, just traveling around, visiting here and there.
he never was power hungry.

steve

 

[drew70]

Re: now i haven't read similarian yet, but...

.. from reading the 3 lotr books ,i have to disagree with you guys about gandalf. gandalf was a mortal human man.

The clues to Gandalf's origin as a Maia are found in The Two Towers and The Silmarillion. In the Two Towers, when he meets up with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, he's going over his various names. "Olorin I was in my youth. To the elves, I am Mithrandir, and to the north I'm called Gandalf." That name Olorin didn't mean much to us until The Silmarillion was released somewhere around the early 1980's. Early in the book it was talking about some of the various Maiar. One in particular was named Olorin who displayed unusual wisdom and compassion. Sounds like Gandalf to me. Also, Gandalf's battle with the Balrog of Moria seemed to suggest an equality of power between the two. As previously stated, Balrogs were originally Maiar that were corrupted into the service of Melkor, who was better known in Middle Earth as Morgoth, the dark enemy. While it's not entirely conclusive, I think there is more evidence to support the idea of Gandalf being a Maia than a mortal human.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Thank you everyone for all your help. I really appriciate it. ^___^

I only hope it didn't make me seem TOO ignorant. I am aware of more things than it may seem and alot of what we've been talking about could have been assumed and had been correct.

For instance, I figured Gandalf would be raised from one status of being to another (grey to white). I knew this when it happened, and I understand how it works.

I'm a catholic, so I can very much so appriciate and understand the workings of Jesus and of God in and through other people as well as on his own.

Thats why Gandalf appealed so much to me, because he was kind, thoughtful, he didn't need to be fancy or flashy and he 'rose from the dead' so to speak, much like Jesus. He is there to give his friends hope, determination, and purpose. He raises morale and is naturally charasmatic. It was only suiting for him to become a white wizard. Even if he had not been an Ainur, but a man, I would have appriciated him all the same.

Its good to know this now. I was wondering why he was holding back from using his powers. He could have easily defeated the enemy with the wave of his staff or something.

And I do agree that it wouldn't be safe for others to know what he truely is. Take Jesus for example. He was deemed a threat from the moment of his birth (or soon after) but wasn't found out until he actively began his ministry. People knew who he was, but his enemies did not until it became evident that he was a threat to their power and rule.

But Jesus (just like the Gandalf character) wasn't a threat as he didn't come to inslave, dominate or what have you. He came to save. It was the fear his enemies had (and their corruption) that drove them to seek him out and accuse him of things he had not done, when he was only doing good in the world.

So I understand how Gandalf would have wanted to avoid any political or governmental issues, threats, or problems from any of the kingdoms he would travel to, from, and by. And thats just several aspects of the reality of how the world would react to him if they knew who he was or who he claimed to be.

I like that he wasn't pompous however powerful he was/is. It makes you want to embrass the character more. Hes this humble, wise, traveling wizard who doesn't mind being in the company of the lesser and partaking of their passtimes. Jesus wasn't among royalty or socialites. He was among the poor, the vagabonds, the peddlers, and the sinners. He dined with them, and even called them friend.

I see so much of a reflection of Jesus when I look at Gandalf or listen to what he has to say in the movie. Granted hes just a fictional character, he meant more to me then perhaps he would to anyone seeing him as this merely 'rightious' character.

 

[BigJim]

Granted hes just a fictional character, he meant more to me then perhaps he would to anyone seeing him as this merely 'rightious' character.

Yes, he is fictional, and so is Gandalf. 😀

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I knew someone would take a stab at it sooner or later, so I won't act surprized or hurt, as no ammount of well wording would have stopped such a comment from coming. 🙄

Thanks for your help anyway.

 

[BigJim]

I knew someone would take a stab at it sooner or later, so I won't act surprized or hurt, as no ammount of well wording would have stopped such a comment from coming. 🙄

Thanks for your help anyway.

Dude, if I'd meant that comment as anything other than flippant or jocular, you'd have KNOWN about it. If you've read my uber-post on religion you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

[The Pianist]

About Gandalf having something to do with Jesus... I know Tolkien was a christian when he was writing LOTR... but like C.S Lewis... I don't think he had any real intention of making direct connections between his book and his beliefs.

I'm also pretty sure that Tolkien purposefully did not want LOTR to contain anything more than a very good story. There were a few docos on the DVDs that went into detail about how he dested historical commentaries or something (he gave a different name to it) basically saying that yes you can put his stories along any idea you want... but that was not why he wrote the story....

Sorry if that last bit is a bit confusing... I can only remember the gist of it myself.

 

[BOFH666]

I’ve got to say, after watching ROTK yesterday and a quick flick back through the first two films, I’m really impressed by the work the filmmakers put in to answer all the little questions that are left over. Okay, it doesn’t go into the level of detail that the appendicies of the book and the Silmarillion do but at least the basic answers are there. Just as a quick example, Sauron not being able to assume physical form is mentioned in a one-liner in the first film (I think) and it’s implied pretty strongly that without the ring he’s stuck as a ‘spirit’ (for lack of a better word). Very quick, very subtle, you don’t need to pick up on it but if it bugs you enough to go looking for the answer, it’s there to be found.

As to the film itself, as a movie it really is superb and a great compromise between the complexities of the book and the necessities of filmmaking. With the extended edition rumoured to be well over the four-hour mark (and that’s without the Scouring of the Shire which I don’t believe was filmed) getting it down to three and a bit hours while keeping the basic film intact is pretty good going. Certainly while watching it there was only two moments that pulled me out of the moment, one when I regretted the cinema hotdog and the other during the initial ohlipaunt attack when (to my shame and undying geekiness) I did for an instant think “where’s rogue squadron when you need ‘em?”

Which brings me to the one question that I can’t figure out an answer to, and it’s got nothing to do with the film itself but rather the people that watch it. Time and again I keep hearing the same thing: “You could tell it was an effect”. To which I answer “huh?” I’ve heard it again with ROTK and I just don’t get it. Seriously, the same thing happens with every damn ‘event’ movie these days with people complaining about effects that ‘don’t look right'. I grew up in the eighties with a dad that was a big fan of older ‘effects’ films like Sinbad and King Kong and I never once thought: “hey, that ape versus dinosaur fight didn’t look quite right”. Instead I was caught up in the film, and I really don’t understand why anyone would go to a flick and (seemingly) judge the effects rather than just enjoying them and the story around them. Anyone able to help me out on this?

 

[Oddjob0226]

I grew up in the eighties with a dad that was a big fan of older ?effects? films like Sinbad and King Kong and I never once thought: ?hey, that ape versus dinosaur fight didn?t look quite right?. Instead I was caught up in the film, and I really don?t understand why anyone would go to a flick and (seemingly) judge the effects rather than just enjoying them and the story around them. Anyone able to help me out on this?

Well, let me see if I can over-analyze this, since I brought up a similar point with an Attack of the Clones thread. I think films like Sinbad & King Kong were so advanced for their time compared to the other movies/effects that were out there that people were as blown away with them then as we are now with our event films. However, there probably were a few grousers then, too.... We don't say the effects don't look right for King Kong et al now because we know inherently as a viewer that there is going to be a technical lacking in some aspects, but we also consider that the effects were great "for their time" and, since they still hold up a great deal today, our critical mind glosses over technical defenciencies. Also, I leared about film making in college and even in the old days people complained about bad effects. Robot Monster didn't just become considered the worst film ever in the 1990s, after all....

So the effect bar has been raised, which causes it's own catch-22. Let's look at the Star Wars films. When the 1st ones were made, all the little ships were real, actual things - models in 3-dimentions that could be lit, touched & moved. Now everything is computer generated in "3-D" (no it isn't! it's on a computer screen! You aren't wearing glasses with 2 different colored lenses! It's highly detailed 2-D!!!!) The effects olf old were limited in many ways, but the things looked real because they were. Humans have an affinity for things they can see and touch.

Now days there's ships, animals, clone troopers, etc. They are highly detailed and allow more movement, etc. But now they look unaturally real and perfect, especially if these effects share a scene with that which is real. And it's not just the effect- it's the hype. If Lucasfilm tells us that this effect is going to be so much more realistic and will make everything seem like it is happeneing and everything is so much better now, well, it sets up in us the viewers an artificail expecation, so that ANY flaw becomes more glaring and obvious. They raise the bar, say they can make the leap over the bar, then we call 'em on it if they touch the bar going over it. In the old days, they just did the best they could, never really hyped the effects as being more realistic than ever before, and people took in their expectations for that lower bar, only to be blown away at what was achieved. It's talking the talk & walking the walk. Look at the original Star Wars and the special edition: In the 1st one you had a real stormtrooper sitting on the back of a model Dewback (minimal movement). It looked like the animal at rest, or it was just naturally a slower moving thing. In the special edition, you have this clunky looking CG stormtrooper with unnatural movements on the Dewback, looking all shiny and too flawless, moving in a way that feels unnatural becuase of the size of its body vs. the size of its legs. The CG department still hasn't been able to capture that intangible thing, that which appeals to the chemical, human "feeling" of what is real vs. what is unreal. That thing Seth Brundle was looking for in the remake of The Fly when he had sex with the reporter. So you get great space ships, but then you get bizzare animals with unnatural movement, a shiny grey bronto in Jurrassic Park and demons that look real but don't "feel" real in films like LOTR. And if the effect doesn't work in movement or is more out of proportion, it shatters the illusion so much more becuase you can now put more unreal stuff in amoungst that which is real.

It's like colorization. The color added to the B&W films made it look more realistic, but it sure did look odd & unnatural. So just leave 'em black and white, so they look real, only without the color.

 

[Oddjob0226]

About Gandalf having something to do with Jesus... I know Tolkien was a christian when he was writing LOTR... but like C.S Lewis... I don't think he had any real intention of making direct connections between his book and his beliefs.

Just a thought to throw out, though. There are pieces of the author that appear in books he creates - and paintings, sculptures, films, etc.- that end up there without the author necissarrily (I can never spell that!) meaning for them to be there. C. S. Lewis' interest in young girls is in his work. Clues to the writer being a pedophile comes out in the film Powder. There's often a subtext there the author himself doesn't see.

 

[BOFH666]

I think films like Sinbad & King Kong were so advanced for their time compared to the other movies/effects that were out there that people were as blown away with them then as we are now with our event films. However, there probably were a few grousers then, too.... We don't say the effects don't look right for King Kong et al now because we know inherently as a viewer that there is going to be a technical lacking in some aspects, but we also consider that the effects were great "for their time" and, since they still hold up a great deal today, our critical mind glosses over technical defenciencies.

See this is where I tend to run into problems. I look at a film, let's take Attack of the clones as an example, and I still think the effects are great "for their time". First time I saw that film I remember my jaw hitting the floor in more than a couple of places, mainly becuase the word Cool! was flashing before my eyes as I saw things that had until then been confined to literature. Prime example, the 'handheld' shot of the clone troopers in battle just after the trade federation ship's caused a major dust storm feels utterly convincing, really pulled me into the film, yet (I think) it's a CGI shot. Okay, so we can't quite do utterly realistic CGI shots yet, but I wonder if it really matters.

Take the last scene between Frodo and Golumn in ROTK for example (SPOILTER WARNING) as this is being held up as a bad example of CGI. To my mind it's not the CGI that's the problem, it's that you're seeing a character attacking someone who's invisible. To me it seems that those are complaining would never be satisfied with any form of that shot as it will always look fake unless you suspend disbelief in context of the story. Or maybe I'm just weird. Yeah, that's probably more likely.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Take the last scene between Frodo and Golumn in ROTK for example (SPOILTER WARNING) as this is being held up as a bad example of CGI. To my mind it's not the CGI that's the problem, it's that you're seeing a character attacking someone who's invisible. To me it seems that those are complaining would never be satisfied with any form of that shot as it will always look fake unless you suspend disbelief in context of the story.

I thought the effects of Attack of the Clones were amazing, too! What a movie. I may be morehyper sensitive the the real stuff and the unreal stuff mixing together on screen, but yeah, overall, I liked it.

I really think you hit the nail on the head with the example you gave. In some instances, where things could never happen in real life and they are even hard to imagine in one's mind, there are those for whom suspension of disbelif will be difficult. It's not the effects fault, it's not really the viewer's vault, it's just that something is missing between the two. That was actualkly a great effect, and probabaly about as real as you could get without turning a stunt man invisible and having him fight another one. But then, you've also got stacked one FX (an invisble creature) with another one (Gollum). So there's that risk, if you will, of creating an effect of something unreal then bumping it up a notch with something even more unreal (invisibility). And I cans ee for some that kind of thing might not work. I had a friend tell me back in 1990 that she reallyt didn't know what to think about the charaters in Dick Tracy. They looked so odd while still looking so real, but she couldn't say that she believed them as being real, becuase how could you imaging seeing characters so bizzare in real life - yet there they were on the screen, "real". Interesting paradox. I think what you bring up has always been the case to some, but with effects becoming more realistic, any deviation from that presented reality now becomes that much more obvious to SOME people.

 

[BigJim]

About Gandalf having something to do with Jesus... I know Tolkien was a christian when he was writing LOTR... but like C.S Lewis... I don't think he had any real intention of making direct connections between his book and his beliefs.

I didn't mean to suggest that tolkein was drawing paralells. Tolkein himself vigorously rejected the idea. Certainly I don't believe there was ever a conscious intention by him to do so. The reason I compared Gandalf with Jesus, was because Celtic_Emperor was looking for something to relate him to, having learned that he was not human, but some sort of "angel" or supernatural being, who'd taken human form. (As opposed to Dungeons & Dragons wizards, who are merely aged humans with the magical ability to prolong their lives.)
I was comparing him to Jesus because he's not human, but an immensely powerful being who's taken a human body.