Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


lord of the rings

Related threads:
BS: The Hobbit movie (37)
BS: LOTRO Anyone? (19)
BS: Saw The Hobbit during the holidays (51)
Story: Mudcat of the Rings (120)
BS: ROTK Extended edition - Got it yet? (22)
BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant! (131)
BS: LOTR: Who was to play Aragorn? (30)
BS: LOTR-The Musical? (26)
BS: Help! -- Arwen's Pendant (10)
Chord Req: Looking for LOTR theme... (1)
LOTR - The Musical (14)
BS: Hobbit Question - Food in LOTR (70) (closed)
BS: Warning LOTR return of the king (74) (closed)
BS: Lord of the Rings-towers-then Koreans oh (60) (closed)
BS: Saunders/French: LOTR (5) (closed)
Welcome Hobbitwoman (17)
I want to start a new LOTR discussion! (86) (closed)
BS: So, why isn't there any sex in LOTR? (80) (closed)
BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it! (108) (closed)
Lord of the Rings. Movie and songs. (85)
The Hobbit (39)
BS: LOTR music, definitions, and BS threads (24) (closed)
BS: Manchester production of The Hobbit (14) (closed)


GUEST 17 Aug 02 - 11:04 PM
Clinton Hammond 18 Aug 02 - 09:54 AM
Clinton Hammond 18 Aug 02 - 12:19 PM
X 18 Aug 02 - 01:08 PM
YOR 18 Aug 02 - 01:33 PM
Clinton Hammond 18 Aug 02 - 01:53 PM
X 18 Aug 02 - 02:03 PM
GUEST,Jim I 18 Aug 02 - 02:08 PM
YOR 18 Aug 02 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,sorefingers 18 Aug 02 - 02:17 PM
Clinton Hammond 18 Aug 02 - 02:38 PM
Liz the Squeak 18 Aug 02 - 03:41 PM
Clinton Hammond 18 Aug 02 - 03:46 PM
Alice 18 Aug 02 - 03:48 PM
Alice 18 Aug 02 - 03:54 PM
Celtic Soul 18 Aug 02 - 11:41 PM
Coyote Breath 19 Aug 02 - 12:03 AM
Wincing Devil 19 Aug 02 - 12:47 AM
Kim C 19 Aug 02 - 10:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 19 Aug 02 - 10:50 AM
Alice 19 Aug 02 - 10:57 AM
Clinton Hammond 19 Aug 02 - 02:41 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 19 Aug 02 - 04:51 PM
The Shambles 19 Aug 02 - 06:31 PM
The Pooka 20 Aug 02 - 12:06 AM
The Pooka 20 Aug 02 - 01:01 AM
GUEST,GUEST 25 Aug 02 - 03:31 AM
The Pooka 25 Aug 02 - 10:52 AM
Clinton Hammond 25 Aug 02 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,julia 25 Aug 02 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Son of Pooka 25 Aug 02 - 05:34 PM
Hollowfox 25 Aug 02 - 06:38 PM
The Pooka 25 Aug 02 - 08:21 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 25 Aug 02 - 11:10 PM
Coyote Breath 26 Aug 02 - 01:55 PM
Raedwulf 26 Aug 02 - 06:19 PM
Keital 26 Aug 02 - 07:06 PM
Raedwulf 27 Aug 02 - 06:04 AM
Dave the Gnome 27 Aug 02 - 09:02 AM
Clinton Hammond 27 Aug 02 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,rob 27 Aug 02 - 06:21 PM
hesperis 28 Aug 02 - 06:51 PM
Nigel Parsons 29 Aug 02 - 05:28 AM
Clinton Hammond 29 Aug 02 - 10:29 AM
Nerd 29 Aug 02 - 04:59 PM
Clinton Hammond 29 Aug 02 - 05:35 PM
GUEST 29 Aug 02 - 06:07 PM
X 29 Aug 02 - 08:37 PM
Venthony 30 Aug 02 - 12:39 PM
Clinton Hammond 30 Aug 02 - 01:52 PM
Raedwulf 30 Aug 02 - 08:20 PM
Wincing Devil 30 Aug 02 - 10:23 PM
GUEST,rob 31 Aug 02 - 12:35 AM
The Pooka 31 Aug 02 - 12:43 AM
FreddyHeadey 13 Nov 18 - 04:33 PM
GUEST,Mark Bluemel 14 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: lord of the rings
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 11:04 PM

Can anyone tell me if the tune being played during bilbos party is an existing tune or is it a new composition?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 09:54 AM

I'm pretty sure it's all new music... but lemme ghost around a few of the LOTR geek sites I hang out at and ask...

;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 12:19 PM

Stand ye well back, I'm about to let my GEEK out!

O.k.. according to theonering.net the song at that point is called "Flaming Red Hair" and is credited to Janet Roddick, David Donaldson, Stephen Roche and David Long...

The end credits say it 'courtesy of Mama Music'

my one google search came up with nothing else on the subject...

But I know it didn't make the official soundtrack...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: X
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 01:08 PM

Bored Of The Rings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: YOR
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 01:33 PM

Bored already, there's two movies to go. This is going to be a billion dollar maker. But we all may be tired of the commercialism in about 4 years or so.

Thanks Clinton. Once in the theater and once on DVD so far and after three hours I haven't yet made it through the credits.

Anybody remember the name of the LOTR parody from I think the early 70's. It was kind of a sick twisted thing. Great stuff.

Roy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 01:53 PM

Saw it 3 times in the threatre, but more than twice that since the DVD release...

The LOTR parody yer after IS "Bored Of The Rings" by National Lampoon...

A hell of a funny read!

.-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: X
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 02:03 PM

Good old Dildo and Fritos.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,Jim I
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 02:08 PM

I was just about to buy the DVD when a friend informed me that a new DVD is due out in November. This will be on 4 discs (not 2) and will have about 30 minutes of bonus footage which didn't make the big screen as well as lots of the usual extra stuff which film makers put on DVDs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: YOR
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 02:15 PM

Thanks, I should have thunked that. My brain farts happen much too often.

My son didn't want to go to the theatre with me so I went alone. He's watched it 3 or 4 times (so far). Tring to get him to read the books. Hell he's read 3 or 4 Harry Potter books he can handle it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 02:17 PM

Too much too late, the book is now 30 years in print!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 02:38 PM

Jim I

I knew full well aobut the Special Edition DVD out in November... but for the number of times I've already watched the current DVD release, it was well worth the 20 bucks I spent to get it...

I'll also get the 4 DVD set in November...

And then the 12 or 13 DVD full special edition with Mithril maille and mallorn seed edition when all 3 movies have been finally released!

;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 03:41 PM

Don't forget the special edition Gollum pack, comes in a slimy feel package with extra pocketses.

LTS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 03:46 PM

Gollum doesn't have pockets...

,-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Alice
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 03:48 PM

I think it's great that the trilogy was given such care in making it to the big screen. Just saw part of the DVD and I'm looking forward to more. I do wish they had included Tolkein's songs. Precioussss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Alice
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 03:54 PM

By "just saw" I meant recently saw part of the DVD. My son took me to the opening night last December for my birthday present and I've seen it on video since then, also. I had assigned the Hobbit and trilogy to my son to read when I was home schooling him a few years ago, then afterward he learned that films were being made. It's been a long awaited treat to see them. The interview on Charlie Rose was interesting, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 11:41 PM

Clinton, have you ever tried "Dogpile" for searches? I find stuff there occasionally that I can't find with Google alone.

www.dogpile.com


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 12:03 AM

Banjoest, when all else fails and even pure gold begins to feel like s*** I find taking a tune or three from some over promoted entertainment extravaganza and playing them on my banjo puts all things in perspective, at least for a few minutes. Geez, look what Peter Stampfel did for "Long Tall Sally"!

Actually, I love LOTR, I always wanted to see a real orc.

CB

PS whatever happened to Tom Bombadil or was he in the Hobbit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Wincing Devil
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 12:47 AM

As to Tolkien's Songs:

You can hear a few snatches of "The Road Goes Ever on and on" being sung, absentmidedly, by Gandalf. The late Donald Swann, (of Flanders and Swann) wrote a book of tunes to many of the songs. I sing "Road Goes" to the tune of "Turtle Dove". Definitely a minor key song.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 10:44 AM

I had never read any of the books, but Mister had read them all some years back, and confessed that he and his friends used to play-pretend Lord of the Rings, and he always got to play Aragorn. (I guess because he was the tallest, I don't know.)

Anyway, I loved the movie, and it was completely because of this that we finally got a DVD player. And yes, we have the DVD. We haven't actually watched the movie yet, because we've been playing with all the bonus stuff!

Personally I felt very sorry for Gollum. He is a sad character. I think Sam Gamgee is my favorite, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 10:50 AM

Tom Bombadil should have been in the first book CB but, as in the earlier animated version, was excluded as not being crucial to the plot. Pity as I liked him but with so many things going an I guess they couldn't include everything.

As to seeing a real Orc. Just come up to Ingleton in Yorkshire during the winter and watch some of the cavers...;-)

Cheers

Dave the (non-orcish) Gnome


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Alice
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 10:57 AM

I noticed Gandalf singing a bit of the Road Goes Ever On and On, and doesn't Bilbo sing it, too, as he heads out the gate and down the road, leaving his hobbit home?
Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 02:41 PM

Yes... they both sing it...

Amd that Donald Swan stuff? Well, I have the album on tape after I found it in my high school library, and lemme tell ya... it's best AVOIDED!

That is NOT what Middle EArth is uspposed to souond like in MY book...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 04:51 PM

Speaking of Orcs....

At no place in the LOTR trilogy did Tolkien ever gave a real description of what an orc looks like. Hobbits are short and have hairy toes. Elves are tall, slim and graceful. But what does an orc look like? What is the essence of orcness? He never really says. He drops a few vague hints, but the reader must supply most of the physical characteristics from imagination.

I thought it was quite remarkable that the movie somehow achieved this same vagueness regarding the orcs' appearance. Even though there are hundreds of orcs in the movie, they do not share a common major physical characteristic (other than ugliness). If five artists were to watch the movie and then draw a hobbit, a dwarf, an elf, and an orc, all five hobbits, dwarves and elves would look pretty similar. But all five orcs would probably look quite different from each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 06:31 PM

I thought it was quite remarkable that the movie somehow achieved this same vagueness regarding the orcs' appearance.

Having just got the video and now seen FOTR for the 3rd time, I think the way the film has visually caught all of the described and the not described, vague imagry quite remarkable.

I particularly liked the way the orc's scurried 'en masse' up and down the pillars in Moria.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Pooka
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 12:06 AM

I kinda liked that Cave Troll. (I think CNN's got him on an al Qaeda tape now.)

In "The Hobbit", the orcs were goblins.

"Down, down to goblin town, you go, my lad!
*Ho ho*, my lad!"

Of course "The Hobbit" also had Beorn. Bit of bruinanthropy, there. Better character than The Fellowships's Bombadil. What's the deal with that Goldberry, anyway? River-daughter, me arse.

Truly remarkable movie. Faithful. / Perfect to see it for your *birthday pressssent*, Alice, my precioussss..... :) / Apparently lots of people now think New Zealand *is* Middle Earth. Great setting.

--Barliman Butterburr

PS But where are the Entwives?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Pooka
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 01:01 AM

I recall that the "Bored of the Rings" satire also featured the dynamic duo of Legolamb & Dimly. :)

My wife, a Tolkienista from waaaay back (she can still write in Elvish, I think), began reading the books to our son when he was 4. Later he read them on his own. Then, in time it faded. & Then, at 20, he saw the movie (with his dear old 'rents). Now he's reading, & re-reading, JRRT all over again.

Recently he told me that while he knew the unerring Elven archer was a male character, somehow he'd always mentally pictured Legolas as female. Interesting. / My favorite, I think, Legolas. Well. Apart from that Cave Troll y'know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 03:31 AM

Hi all, this is Brendan, The Pooka's son. My dad sent me a link to this thread, just for my enjoyment, not asking me to add anything... but since I'm a major Tolkien nerd these days, one of the posts got me thinking. I hope y'all don't mind if I throw in my two cents.

Re: Bee-dubya-ell's post on the "vagueness" of Tolkien's description of Orcs, and their apparent lack of shared physical characteristics in the movie. There are two explanations I can think of for this, one simple and one a bit more complex.

The simple explanation is that there are different "breeds" of Orc. I don't just mean the Uruk-hai (Saruman's Orcs) and the non-Uruk-hai, which is the most obvious difference in the movie; there are also many different breeds of non-Uruk-hai Orcs. They were bred in different places, at different times, possibly even by different Dark Lords (Sauron was originally only the servant of the Darkest of all Dark Lords, Melkor a.k.a. Morgoth). Often they speak different foul languages, and it would be no surprise if they look a bit different from one another. So some of the dissimilarities you notice may be the result of different breeds of Orcs appearing together in the same scene.

But having just watched the DVD again (my fifth time watching the movie overall -- three times in the theater, twice so far on DVD), I think your point is valid above and beyond these differences between the "breeds." For example, the Orcs of the Misty Mountains should all probably be the same breed, yet they don't look as similar to one another as one might think. How do you explain that? Well, it could just be Peter Jackson's laziness, but I have another explanation. I think Jackson is actually being faithful, wittingly or not, to Tolkien's (albeit unstated) intent.

It makes perfect sense to me that the Orcs' main shared characteristic would be ugliness. They need not share anything else. You see, whereas all the other races you mention were created by Iluvitar (the God of Middle-earth) -- or, in the case of the Dwarves, by one of Iluvitar's top servants -- the Orcs were created by Morgoth or Sauron, who are pure evil. In creating Elves, Men, and so on, Iluvitar intended to create things of beauty, and in order to do so, presumably devised a plan for what these creatures would look like. Elves would be tall, slim and graceful; hobbits would be short and have hairy toes; etc., as you say. But Morgoth and Sauron would not have put any such thought into the physical attributes of their creations. All they would have cared about was creating slaves that suited their evil needs. As such, their creatures would share a total lack of beauty -- that is, they would all be hideously ugly -- but they would not necessarily share much of anything else. It takes care and attention to create things that are beautiful and similar; but evil and malice may create things that are ugly and dissimilar.

Does that make sense? It's just an interpretation, but I think it helps explain why Orcs are hard to describe beyond generally being ugly mothers. :)

--PookaSon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Pooka
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 10:52 AM

These young-punk Guests are so verbose. & Wordy, too. Now where do they get that? WUTsa mattah wit' kids TOOO-day?Fuhtootsin' aroond on-line while neglectin' their studies, beDad....begone, Flame of Uduin: *You Cannot Pass*. :)

Excellent orceology exposition, GuestGuest BrendanBrendan. :) Yer Mom, generally being a Lovely Mother, will be proud to read it. & Forward it to her entire mailing list, thus temporarily crashing the internet. /Then *she'll* probably post, too. Oy. Of course she thinks the Orcs of the Misty Mountains were sired by John Denver. Mountain Mama, indeed.

--Gothmog (Balrogged again :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 10:56 AM

"the Orcs were created by Morgoth or Sauron"

Not exactly... the first orcs were once elves that Morgoth captured and 'perverted', to make mockery of Iluvitars creation...

The 'difference factor' of the movie is easily explained in that Weta had 10 or 15 different artists each design 10 or 15 different heads... So they had a broad spectrum of Orcness to use in the films...

It's talked about in one of the "Behind-The-Scenes" bits on the DVD...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,julia
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 01:11 PM

Regarding the omission of Tom Bombadil as "Non-essential" I would have to disagree. The visit to his house is not just a diverting interlude. You may recall that he is the ONLY character that is immune to the power of the ring. He throws it in tha air and laughs. It is suggested later, at the Council, that he be given the ring for safe-keeping. The idea is rejected because it was feared he would lose track of it as it has no importance to him. Tolkien created Bombadil as representing the elemental,incorruptible and enduring qualities of nature. For me, Bombadil & Goldberry, Sam Gamgee, and the Ents are the only hopeful entities in the entire trilogy. I think the omission of this element in the movie was a big mistake. I'm hoping that the Ents will be presented in this spirit. best- Julia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,Son of Pooka
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 05:34 PM

"Not exactly... the first orcs were once elves that Morgoth captured and 'perverted', to make mockery of Iluvitars creation..."

Is that really true? I know Saruman says it in the movie, but I was under the impression that this was incorrect -- that orcs were created in "mockery" of Elves, just as Trolls were created in "mockery" of Ents, but that they were not actually "Elves once" as Christopher Lee ("Darth Saruman," as I like to call him) says. However, I haven't actually made it through the whole Silmarillion yet -- that text is pretty darn thick -- so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. Did you get this from the movie (or behind-the-scenes commentary), or from Tolkien's writing? I'm all curious now.

Either way, I think it remains logical that the Orcs, whether "bred" or merely "corrupted" by the Dark Lords, need not share anything more than ugliness. However, I don't doubt that the true reasons for this in the movie are, as you say, more practical than literary.

All of this discussion reminds me, I need to get my parents to ship me The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. I forgot to pack them when I was getting my stuff ready to ship from home to college. Hey, Pooka..... :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Hollowfox
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 06:38 PM

I'm glad to see other LOTR freaks around here. Taking the view that there are certain limitations to the cinematic art, I can forgive the decisions to leave out some parts of the tale, or the film would have lasted longer than Wagner's Ring Cycle (not that *I'd* mind). I can forgive them a lot more knowing that some will be in the extended version. There's one question I haven't tracked down an answer to, though, and it's musical. In the "Frodo's Theme" motif, in at least one instance, the theme is played on a pennywhistle? ocarina? recorder with grace notes? I tried tracking it down via the soundtrack andd the composer, but no dice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Pooka
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 08:21 PM

Guest Son of Pooka: wouldyez shuttup, I'm talkin' t'yer Mudther. :) / OKOK, email me where to look in the rubble ('Catters may cast a cold eye on us exchanging family messuages this way) and I'll send the books, ye silly marillian. / As for the Dark Lord: "Luke! I'm yer Fadduh!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 25 Aug 02 - 11:10 PM

Brendan, Son of Pooka,

Thank you for your astute observations regarding the morphology of J.R.R. Tolkien's orcs. Also, thank you for understanding the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Apparently, my use of the word "vague" was not the best of all possible word choices. It appears that at least one subsequent responder interpreted my comments as being negative when they were actually in high praise.

Please allow me to clarify my point:

Between 1967 and 1971 I read The Lord Of the Rings at least six times. Even after that many readings I had no clear mental picture of what an orc looked like. Since I had very clear mental pictures of what all the other principle types of characters looked like, and I knew damned well I wasn't an idiot, I concluded that Professor Tolkien had intentionally left the matter of the physical apperance his orcs largely up to the readers' imaginations. Please note that he changed the name he used for these minions of evil from "goblins" in The Hobbit to "orcs" (which is, in fact, a legitimate English word for various toothed whales and dolphins - JRRT "borrowed" it). I think he changed it precisely because "goblin" is a creature of our own folk mythology about which we probably all have a preconceived mental picture developed during childhood. "Orc" is a word which has no history for the reader. With it, Tolkien has given the reader a mental blank slate upon which he draws only the broadest of outlines, allowing the reader to fill in the details.

There are definite precedents for this idea that the visual appearance of evil creatures is open to individual interpretation. All representations of angels in art look pretty much the same: beautiful, healthy humanoids with two bird-like wings. Yet, of the variety of evil creatures from our mythology, only Satan is conistently represented in basically the same way. All other imps, succubi, gargoyles, etc. are represeented in whatever outlandish fashion the imagination of the artist can conceive.

When I saw the movie The Lord Of the Rings I was amazed at how similar the visual depictions of the various "good" races agreed with the mental picture I had been carrying around for thirty years. In point of fact, this agreement was not due to any cosmic coincidence nor to exceptional astuteness on my part, but to the clarity with which Tolkien described the characters. The moviemakers were simply being true to his descriptions. On the other hand, I had no more idea of what an orc looked like after leaving the theatre than I did before I walked in. I don't think that this was because my perceptive faculties are substandard, nor because the moviemakers were inept. I think they were being absolutely true to the descriptive clues Tolkien gave in the books. The moviemakers were asking viewers to do what Tolkien has been asking readers to do for the last fifty-plus years: find what evil looks like from within your own mind.

Now, if you are one of the millions of folks who have bought the DVD or VHS and have watched it several times, you probably have developed a mental image of what an orc looks like. If so, it is probably based on one or two orcal depictions which have stood out in your mind. Next time you watch it, count the number of orcs who do not correspond with your mental picture.

Bruce


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 26 Aug 02 - 01:55 PM

Right, Dave the G, I just visited a website which dealt with Tom B. in great detail but basically said he was unclassifiable!

I just got back from Sturgis, SD and got to see plenty of orcs!, complete with great looking (although painful for us humans) leather strappy things and buckles and metal piercings and such like!

Julia, the site I mentioned DID remark upon Tom B's not being affected by the ring but until you mentioned it I had forgotten that someone at the council had suggested he keep the pesky thing and the reason for it being decided against. I don't think that part of the story was mentioned at the website. (sorry, I can't remember the site's name but I got there by doing a search for Tom Bombadil).

CB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Raedwulf
Date: 26 Aug 02 - 06:19 PM

Clinton is correct - Orcs & Trolls were created out of Elves & Ents. It's clearly implied in the earliest part of the Silmarillion, & later stated outright, that Morgoth had no power to create.

In "Of the Coming of the Elves" it says "...that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor... were corrupted & enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves... and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make..."

As for Bombadil, sorry, but he is almost entirely irrelevant to the story. His only significant role is that he rescues the hobbits from the Barrow Wights & it is here that Merry gains the Westernesse blade that will cause the downfall of the Morgul King.

His power over the Ring (or, rather, that the Ring has no power over him) is beside the point because the Council quickly dismisses the option of sending it back to him. The opinion of Gandalf is that he would quickly forget it, or more likely throw it away, & in any case would be an extremely unsafe guardian.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Keital
Date: 26 Aug 02 - 07:06 PM

Huzzah for Raedwulf! You are right on target, my friend. I always felt that T.B. was some sort of joke that Tolkien was playing on us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Aug 02 - 06:04 AM

Oh yeah, & I thought the film was rubbish. I already knew Jackson had screwed it up before it came out (turning Arwen into a warrior maiden, honestly! Just cos he wanted Liv Bloody Tyler to appear for more than 3 minutes in the entire trilogy, having paid her all that money), but I didn't realise quite how badly...

The first 5 minutes was quite the worst load of drivel it's been my misfortune to see in some time, & it didn't get much better. Wonderful special effects, *lousy* adaptation of the book. I ain't looking forward to the next two!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Aug 02 - 09:02 AM

Am I right in thinking that Bombadil was an Ainur and therefore more powerful than Gandalf and Saruman? In fact I am pretty sure that if he was then he would be pretty much on par with Sauron himself.

Save me trolling (pun intended) through the Silmarilion someone;-)

I still think it's a pitty that he did not get included though. I liked him but I can see that as far as the story goes he is pretty irrelevent.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Aug 02 - 04:17 PM

Dave... Tom Bombadil is undefined... there are theories, but no right answer to "What is Tom Bombadil"...

I think he's the best part of LOTR, but I understand that he's totally superfluous to the plot.. it's a shame he wasn't in The Hobbit instead... he'd fit into that book so much better...

Raedwulf... here's an example of how different people can be... I came out of the film WISHING the book was half that good... I totally understand most of the changed that Peter Jackson made to the story, and the characters...

That's why it's billed as PETER JACKSON'S Lord Of The Rings, based on JRR's...

JRR's LOTR, as it stands, without adaptation would make for a LOUSY, slow, yawn-fest of a movie...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,rob
Date: 27 Aug 02 - 06:21 PM

I was talking to a friend soon after the movie came out who had like me and several of you grew up with The Hobbit and the Lord Of The Rings. She stated that why she was was really disapointed about the ommission of Tom Bombadil was that his house was the ONLY place in the entire trilogy were a feeling of absolute saftey was felt. Nothing had power over the man, not the good, the bad, or the ugly, and the hobbits were under his protection. The rest of the book has at least a impending sense of dread or doom, which builds up steadilly, even in hobbiton, and rivendale. But during their time with Tom, that underlying dread is not there. This makes the dread that they will be facing in the near future all that more dreadful. Also this experiance demonstrates more then anything what will be lost if the ring is not destroyed. All the races in LOTR have some strong negative qualities (see Silmarillion for details) as well as positive ones, the Elves have the whole Silmaril (Doom Of... Mehedros?) epsiode haughnting them still, the men of Noldor really messed up when they listened to Sauron and got their island sunk and had to move back to middle earth, not to mention Isiludar not getting rid of the ring when he had the chance. Suramaun, the best wizard falls into evil which means the others are capable of it too. The dwarfs are generally stuborn confrontational isolationist, and hobbits (in the books) are bull headed, nieve, and generally foolish. But Tom is none of these things, he is seemingly above them. He goes around his forest and dales, singing, laughing, and making sure everyone plays nice and correcting the ones that dont such as old man willow... there is no possible remotely justifiable reason to destroy him. The very thought of destroying such a man as Tom Bombidill is inherantly evil. He, unlike every other character in the stories, is guiltless, completely good, untemptable, incorruptable! But if the ring were not destroyed he would have been destroyed sooner or later, he is not invincible just incorruptable he might be able to keep the ring, but not protect it. Ninty percent of all the power of evil in Tolkiens world is psychological which Tom is immune too, but that still leaves ten percent to kill him with. In my mind, Tom is indirectly central to the plot of LOTR, he is the foil to Gladreils mirrior, of what was, what is and what could be... sorry for rambling... the only reason they really got by with ommitting Tom in the moive was by making the hobbits less disagreeable and more "innocent" in the first part of the fellowship. It is not enough is such a story to be fighting against somthing overwellmingly evil, but to be fighting for somthing good... Tom Bombadil was that good, and in case you havent noticed, his ommision from the movie was sorely felt.

Rob, a english major who likes folk music, LOTR and has too much time on his hands... please excuse the spelling and grammer... ;)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: hesperis
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 06:51 PM

Exactly, for the true underlying theme of hope against utter evil, Tom Bombadil was absolutely necessary. The only problem I can see is that he would be bloody impossible to do properly. He was cut from the movie, and that was necessary. But he was important to the plot. As were the other quiet times, the good times that gave them the strength and the courage and the determination to face the evil they were up against.

The "boring parts" were cut, and they were cut too much. Which means that, nice as the film was, entertaining as it was - it wasn't great. A little more contrast would have worked well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 05:28 AM

To enter the fray on this topic so late allows me to 'cherry-pick' sections. With regards to the songs written by JRRT, good versions of some may be heard in the BBC Radio4 adaptation, Which I heard at its first broadcast, and recorded at the time (1980/81), but can't at present set my hand to the tapes. The whole thing has since been made available on tape or CD, but at rather expensive rates. Another part of the Radio4 version I found enlightening was the fact they gave Gollum a Jewish sound, it really gave substance to the character!

Nigel


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 10:29 AM

Nigel...

I have that version of LOTR, and ya... some of the songs are quite good...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 04:59 PM

Of course, giving Gollum a Jewish sound is part of a long tradition of anti-Semitism in English Theater and letters, where grasping villains whose main character trait is covetousness are often represented as Jews (Fagin, etc). I mean this not as a condemnation of current English people, just as a historical note. However, IF this is the same BBC adaptation that featured Ian Holm as Frodo, then as a non-English Jew I can say Gollum didn't sound Jewish to me at all. It may be that you'd have to be English to get that reference.

To get back to Tolkien arcana, I believe that Sauron is of the same order of beings as Gandalf and Radugast--he just followed the evil lord instead of the good one. His extra power was based on his having been able to create and harness the power of the one ring. As others have pointed out, Tolkien never says just how Bombadil fits into the heirarchy of beings, which may be just as well.

The remotely justifiable reason to eliminate poor Bombadil from the movie is that, either you've got to do a half-hour just of the Bombadil section, or you're left with a lame remnant of Bombadil, or you leave him out entirely. The first would have unbalanced the movie, the second would have been lame, so they went with the third. A necessary evil, as hesperis says.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 05:35 PM

Sauron is of the same order, yes... Him, Gandalf, Saruman, etc... Maiar I believe... one step down from the Ainur... Melkor (aka Morgoth) was Ainur... He was the real bad ass of Middle Earth... Sauron was just his lackey...

None of them can hold a candle to Rakoth Maugrum though...

;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 06:07 PM

I wanna live in one of those Hobbitt Holes!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: X
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 08:37 PM

I'd bet all you nerds go over to each others house and play "Dungeons and Dragons." ;o)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Venthony
Date: 30 Aug 02 - 12:39 PM

I know this sounds wacky, and there is absolutely no evidence in or out of the books, but I always thought Bombadil was the personification of an ideal, pre-industrial England. The safe and free island that the corruption of the Continent cannot touch.

On another level, I think he may be a self-portrait painted in words by the author, a sort of Hitchcock-like cameo.

Tony


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 02 - 01:52 PM

On a totally mundane level, he's based on a wooden doll that used to live on the mantle at JRR's place... As with most of his stories, Tom was 'fleshed out' to entertain his kids...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Raedwulf
Date: 30 Aug 02 - 08:20 PM

Minor note: The Ainur are the *entire* angelic-level horde. The two levels within that are the Valar & the Maiar. Melkor/Morgoth is a Valar (though not actually counted amongst them as such), the 15th of 14 *BG* IIRC. As noted Sauron, Gandalf & Radagast are all Maiar (along with Saruman, & also the Balrog, incidentally), though it should be noted that the Istari (the 5 wizards) came to Middle Earth with their powers heavily curtailed, unlike Sauron.

The entire first part of the Silmarillion is basically a straight take off of christianity - Melkor/Morgoth is Lucifer/Satan, read archangels & angels for Valar & Maiar. Tolkien was a terrible thief - he nicked stuff virtually straight from religion (pagan & otherwise) left, right & centre (Gandalf is actually a dwarf in one of the Edda's, f'r instance).

Clinton - you're the first person I've heard express the opinion that the film was better than the book (& Maugrim's a wuss! *BG*)!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: Wincing Devil
Date: 30 Aug 02 - 10:23 PM

Note: Gollum's name is not Gollum, but Smeagol! he was called Gollum by Bilbo, because of the swallowing sound he continually made.

I wish I could read LOTR once a year, like Christoper Lee (Saruman) does. So many things on my to read list, like finish the Cadfael series, start the Jack Aubrey series (essential for a nautical reenactor), plus read all the books I fudged on in high school


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,rob
Date: 31 Aug 02 - 12:35 AM

I want to just say to the comment that JRR Tolkien was "theif", that yes he was, and he was extreamly good at it, he would take different parts of different myths and stories and then he made somthing completely new with it. He made a distinct world with a distinct history... It would not take much imagination to believe that his writtings were the legends and myths of some forgotten culture, not much diiferent and no less valid then any other cultures stories. The man knew how to tell a good story as a extreamly few people can do. The thing i am most saddened by when i read tolkien, is that he never completed all the stories that he wanted too, or that he had started or outlined, whether he "nicked" them or not... besides as the father of modern fantasy (at least in my mind he is) he has been nicked from himself quite a few times by many less talented writers!

Rob


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: The Pooka
Date: 31 Aug 02 - 12:43 AM

Smeagol, yes. / Speaking of whom, let's hear it for the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit. "He rose in fire, and flew away south toward Running River." Funny how things stick in your mind. (Hmmph? Shaddup.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:33 PM

BBC radio4 "The Essay"
Tolkien and the Spirit of the English Forest
4 minute clip including a song
"Folk singer Mark Atherton celebrates the world of Tom Bombadil."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bbc iPlayer Radio app
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3yvdp3zQJWLtl204z9nxgRt/download-the-iplayer-radio-app 
(then click the '+' on the programme's web page
    then on the app click 
            Menu > My Radio > Listen Later)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: lord of the rings
From: GUEST,Mark Bluemel
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

"Hop o'er hill and pop a pill for Tim Benezdrine - O!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 18 December 5:22 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.