WOW! It's NEARLY OUT! Tomorrow/Today for you people in the US, UK and NZ... Boxingday (26th) for us in Australia (I don't know why the fuckers chose the 26th - probably everyone fattened up on turkey and ham and have nothing better to do than go to the movies).
"One ring to rule them all..."
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I better go to Burger King then. After all, that is where the adventure begins!!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
The Burgership of the King?
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
I do belive that Tolkein was a big customer of the BK broiler, hold the pickles, extra cheese and onion.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Tolkien. (i before e except after c)
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
My friend's away message yesterday consisted of:
"WATCHING LORD OF THE RINGS FINALLY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And he makes fun of me for Star Trek. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
GODS....even I'M wiping the spooge off my legs on that one. Tell your friend to learn a little "targeting control," huh?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I have my ticket for 8:30 tonight!!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Great. One more month before the movie premieres here.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm going to move this to General Sci-Fi, as that's where previous discussions of the movie have been found, and the board can use the traffic.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Saw it tonight. Liked it. Would read the books if I had the time.
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Ooops, that Mispelling of Tolkien was an accident. I tend to put some letters before others when I type, and spaces too soon or too late between my words.
Anyhow. I just saw "Fellowship" tonight. All I have to say is "holy ring-bearing hobbits, batman!" I give this movie a 9.7 on the kick-ass-O-meter. It didn't get that last .3 because I wasn't in it. Yeah, ummm... *leaves*
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Holy Crizap that was a good movie. It's been such a long time since a movie that received so much damned hype actually lived up to it. Wow! I need to see it again soon.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
A good movie. If you have read the books as many times as I have, you notice an awful lot of things that aren't there, but I think these folks made as good a film as can be made form LOTR.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Saw it last night. An excellent attempt to adapt the book. It was unfortunate that so much had to be left out. At least half the entire first book is missing in certain key areas, which had to be done though for running time reasons. But still, superb in many places.
I'd waited my whole life to see this, the greatest literary work ever, brought to the screen.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: the greatest literary work ever
An opinion, & should be noted as such.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: An opinion, & should be noted as such.
A pretty widly held opinion.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
...yes, the opinion of the masses after LOTR was deemed the greatest work of fiction for the 20th century. Only those that haven't read it would question that.
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
I've read it, and I would question that. I'll admit it was a great literary work in that Tolkien created a vast and consistent world, but I don't think it is clearly the greatest literary work ever. Arguably the greatest, certainly.
AndrewR: There are exceptions to that rule, especially in names etc which can come from other languages. Some exceptions: weird, protein.
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jernau Morat Gurgeh ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Well I saw it last night, a fantastic movie. Some parts are left out and the story changed slightly but great none the less. They took great pains to the detail. Costumes, armour, characters, all wonderful.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I saw it.
It looks nice. It's fun. I'd see it again, if someone bought my ticket. Might even buy it on DVD.
But.
It's long. It's very, very, very long. So long that I suspect it isn't going to wind up doing very well. When I'm ready to get up and leave after Moria, and there's still an hour left, and I'm really enjoying the film...well, we'll see.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I must be alone in that I love long films. The more to the story, the better. I've never had trouble sitting through a three hour film that I liked.
quote: It's long. It's very, very, very long. So long that I suspect it isn't going to wind up doing very well. When I'm ready to get up and leave after Moria, and there's still an hour left, and I'm really enjoying the film...well, we'll see.
That's about the last thing I would have expected from Simon. 45 million for this weekend. Second place was 14 million, but I don't recall which film.
quote: A good movie. If you have read the books as many times as I have, you notice an awful lot of things that aren't there, but I think these folks made as good a film as can be made form LOTR.
The more I think about what I saw, and talk to others, the more I like the movie. I need to go see it again, and probably will, after my sister arrives on Christmas day. She is also a big fan of the books, and it will be nice to have her perspective.
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Kosh ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Don't get me wrong. I liked it a lot. But there was just this sense that, after certain events, the movie could be over. The movie, if you will, exuded a certain sense of overness. And then it kept going. And then it seemed to be over. And then it kept going. This happened three times, by my reckoning. I suppose you could say the editing was off, that the film was allowed to lag too much after certain sequences. But that sounds too much like a criticism, and while I don't think the film was perfect, it was one of the better films I've seen this year (perhaps the best, I can't quite recall).
Actually, I do have one criticism. Though Jackson handled his computer-assisted shrinking of hobbits and dwarves rather well, when a scene called for a human or elf to speak directly to someone thus shrunk, and both were on screen, the effect was obvious.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
My mom hated it. She thought it was too violent. I dunno. It was pretty violent, but I don't think the violence was over-glorified. It was really brutal and vicious and certainly didn't look like fun. The rest of the fam seemed to enjoy it...
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Of course it wasn't fun, swordbattles are terrible. But they were very artistically created, all the characters were allowed to do their thing, Legolas with his bow, Gimli with the axe and Aragorn with brutal efficiency.
I was glad when a reporter from a swedish movie-program interviewed Viggo Mortensen and he answered in danish! I never knew he still had ties with his homecountry, thought it was just the name.
I loved the attention to detail, down to the golden leaf-buckles on their cloaks, and was sad for certain reasons.
(mini-pseudo-spoiler) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The dialogue between Galadriel and Gimli that took place in the book at the parting of Lothlorien, when she was surprised at the audacity of Gimli's request, yet amused by it. She was much more sweet and gentle in the book, laughing in a maternal way when Frodo offered her the ring.
Another thing, I think they made bilbo a bit too terrible when being refused to touch the ring in Rivendell, he kind of scared the audience so much they never trusted him after that moment, always waitng for him to make another move. Had he done THAT in the book I think Frodo'd had much more difficult to save their relationship.
But, of course, he proved a nice connection between the ring and Gollum's illness and state of mind.
------
Loved the Balrog, I was specifically keen on how they would portray it and was very satisfied. They could made Gandalf a little more mighty, like he became when Bilbo wouldn't give up the ring in Bagshot Row, what with his growing stature and deepening voice.
I am very grateful that they incorporated Arwen. First I thought they would add her to the nine companions and fuck up the whole story, but this turned out very well.
(spoiler ends)
I hope they'll release the second movie in the summer so we don't have to wait a whole year between every episode...
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: G.K Nimrod ]
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
And furthermore I absolutely believe that "LOTR" deserves the number one spot before "1984". Sure, "1984" was a very thought-through criticism against Stalin and the Soviet Union and all that, but I believe it was too heavy and sorrowful to attract as wide an audience as "LOTR" did.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't believe any novel mentioned thus far deserves a "number one spot," largely because I don't believe in such a classification.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I can't believe I just added a Vacuume Cleaner site to my favorites.
Had to take out old one apart, found the bearings in the brush were about gone, and sprayed them with Liquid Wrench, then reversed the poor rubber belt, which was worn badly. It worked for two more times around the house, but I'm going to need parts.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Riiiiiiiiight....
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
The film is very good and can stand apart from the novel.
Sol System,
The official box office report, after 13 days out, is that the film has grossed $184.50 million. This is not surprising for many who liked the film on the first showing are going back for repeat viewings.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Loved the dwarf/halfling effects. Couldn't see the seams... Loved the way they spiced up the long opening exposition with that battle scene to keep us interested (but wasn't the battle on the wrong side of the mountains?). Agreed with most of the shortcuts, and especially with the choice to kill Boromir off and get Merri and Pippin caught this side of the cliffhanger.
Was scared out of my seat with Bilbo's sudden transformation. Loved the effect - a little something to surprise those who have read the book, and certainly dramatically very effective for all audiences.
Saruman was cool. Eisengard was cooler. The scenery simply rules (and the less CGI-augmented, the more impressive it is!). And the Frodo's-eye-view of invisibility sent shivers up and down my spine.
Won't get this one on video. It deserves a SDDS theater. Wonder if Jackson had gone the full circle and watched some Babylon 5 - the sound effects for the depths of Moria were so similar to what was done for Za'ha'dum...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The Battle at the start - the Last Alliance of Elves and Men was set on the correct side of the Mordor mountains... The Last Alliance actually held Barad-d�r under seige... until Sauron finally came down and confronted them at the foot of Orodruin - or the Dark Mountain - there Gil-Galad and Elendil were Slain by Sauron, until the one ring was cut off his hand by Isildur.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Saw it yesterday. Thought it was a great film. I haven't read the books, although I might now, because I enjoyed the film a lot. The visuals were very good, as was the story. It's sort of a "Harry Potter" meets "A Clockwork Orange," but after seeing Harry Potter (which was aimed at a younger auidence), I welcomed a darker movie.
Can't wait for "The Two Towers" this Christmas. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: It's sort of a "Harry Potter" meets "A Clockwork Orange,"
?!
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
You know... Harry Potter & LOTR: Wizards, magic, a sacred object. Clockwork Orange & LOTR: Torture, decapitated heads, fights, knives. Do you see the similarities? Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Yeah, but it doesn't have the black humour of A Clockwork Orange.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Yes, always be weary of the black humour of clockwork oranges.
--------------------
Elrond, Isildur & men: "Hahaaah!"
Orcs, Goblins & minions: "Rraaaarrrgh!?"
Sauron: "*sigh* If you want something done properly..."
[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: G.K Nimrod ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I would just like to say that I know several people who have read all three books who would in no way claim them to be the greatest work of fiction from the 20th century. Most of the criticisms were that the first book was a bit hard to get into, and the plot a little slow. They say it then picked up like a mad thing half way through book two.
Me, I dunno. I've only just finished Goblet of Fire, and The Fellowship of the Ring is next on my list.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I have read the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, and, now, the Silmarillon. All three are very good, and I think as a whole book are fantastic.
I have grievances on the movie. 1. Sauron. He is depicted as a stock villian with no real backstory. The books give more detail to his history. 2. Gollum. The movie gives the audience I think the mistaken opinion that Gollum is a man. For, as I believe the movie said, a Hobbit found the ring in the Misty Mountains. Gollum is a hobbit by the name of Smeagol who took the ring by force from his cousin. (The cousin died in the incident.) 3. Merry's sword. I have no trouble with removing the Tom Bombadil scenes. He is a minor character who is given 15 minutes of fame in the first book and mentioned very infrequently in the rest of the book. He is even considered irrelevent by the Riverdell Council. However, Merry's sword is important. Why? In the history of Arnor, a vanished kingdom, the rules of this land fought the Witch-King of Angmar. Long before the W-K was killed, the land of Arnor was destroyed and the last king of this land killed. He was buried in a barrow down which the hobbits visited. After surviving that harrowing experience, they recovered swords. One of these swords will belong to Merry uses it against the Lord of the Ring-wraith at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This sword can cause injury to this wraith. The reason-the sword was forged to kill the W-K who happens to be the Lord of the Ringwraiths. 3. The sword of Elendil. In the book, this sword is carried by Aragorn. In the Prancing Pony, Gandald leaves a message to Frodo. With this message, Frodo is made aware of a friend of Gandalf. The friend of Gandalf will ride with a broken sword-the very same sword that Aragorn carries. With this sword reforged at Rivendell, Aragorn is able to fight his battles and prove his claim to the throne. 4. The Mirror of Galadriel. Sam sees the events that will transpire in the Shire later in the book. (Saruman will attempt to destroy the Shire.) 5. Amon Hen. At this hill, Frodo is able to see the armies of the enemy massing for war in the north-west of Middle Earth. In the movie, we only see the tower and given no indication that Sauron is calling upon allies. His only ally would appear to be from the movies Saruman.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Perhaps Sauron will be given more depth later on, but the bottom line still is that he's an "Incarnation of Evil" sort of enemy, all the bad things of the world put together. He needs a backstory as much as a tiger needs pajamas. We already see he has been fought once before, and knowledge has been lost. It's obvious that wasn't the first time this happened...
As for Gollum/Smeagol, his role in "Fellowship" was negligible. I trust we'll learn more in "Towers" and "Return", especially since the latter relies a lot on the character. Knowing too much too early is bad in the movie business.
Which I guess makes it a good idea not to have Gandalf write that message and reveal Aragorn's identity too early. The initial run from the Shire to Rivendell was IMHO cut to proper length and intensity this way.
I can't help but agree about Merri's sword, though. But how that much exposition could be worked into the story is a big problem.
The fact that Frodo didn't see armies massing doesn't worry me much. And he did see the ransacking of the Shire, in sufficient detail IMHO. It remains to be seen how the end of "Return" will be done - it's a bit anticlimatic the way it's written, but I hope it will be beefed up by some superfluous battle scenes or something, rather than by cutting out important bits...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Whoop whoop! Saw it last night, absolutely loved it. Plus, I got to experience it not only after having read the book, but also through my girlfriend's reactions - she hasn't. OK, there were a few fright moments that had her leaping out of her seat that to me seemed absolutely telegraphed - that cave troll and the pillar - but apart from those near-heart-attacks she enjoyed it too. She was sad when Gandalf and Boromit died.
As for the changes, none seemed too bad. I suspect they'll bring up how Gollum got the ring in part 2, since it is all part of his character. I agree with Timo's assessment of Sauron, it's not like his motives were ever really delved into in the books anyway. As for Merry's knife, the whole thing about it turning out to be a blade designed to kill the Witch-King was clumsily done in the book anyway - far too much of a coincidence.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Yes, and Eowyn inflicted the mortal wound with her plain sword. Of course, it shattered instantly whereas Merry's sword slowly melted. Eowyn also got more hurt by the contact through the sword than Merry, but this could also be attributed to the tougher fibre of hobbits.
Targetemployee, maybe you should add some spoiler-warnings about the last two books, there are some who haven't read them.
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Er.. Nimrod, you just did the same thing yourself!
I can't really talk, though, I spoiled it a bit on my brother and his gf, who haven't read the books. I told them, in a roundabout way, that $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gandalf comes back. It was just that they were complaining about Gandalf being killed off. As for me, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it couldn't have been made better. They left all the right bits out, and details like the time between Bilbo's disappearance and the beginning of Frodo's journey didn't alter the plot drastically.
I thought it was quite violent, in a powerfully effective way, for the rating it was given. I must go see it again.
BTW what do you think will be left out from the second book? The Ents would be prime candidates, in my opinion (I don't like the idea, seems too childish to me), although they play quite a major part in the book, with Merry and Pippin etc.
[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jernau Morat Gurgeh ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
They can hardly leave the Ents out; they play a major part. I hope they manage to keep the whole Rohan bit straight, it gets a bit confusing at times who's going where. I notice that no mention was made in the first film of Shadowfax. . .
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
About Merry's sword - it's a coincidence I was reading up the Complete Guide to M-E by Robert Foster etc. and was flicking back and forth and I realised that there is no problem with omiting the Barrow-Wight scene. Merry's sword is now 'an Elven sword' given to him by Aragorn.
Spoilers ahead
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
That should do.
The fact that Merry's sword was a Barrow knife - doesn't really matter. Neither does it about any weapon - like Eowyns. The fact is or was that the prophecy was that no 'man' could kill the Witch-King/Head Nazg�l. It was a hobbit and a woman. It wasn't the sorwd being of Arnor - it did indeed have magics these could have originally been Elvish in origin anyway... cast about it - by whom is lost in time - but as mentioned above this seemed to only change the way the sword perished. They BOTH came under the Black-breath (Merry and Eowyn). Eowyn was particularly susceptible - says in the complete guide - because she had spent many a year doting on Th�oden. Plus she was enamoured with Aragorn and was overly concerned about him going the paths of the DEAD... plus she had to conceal her identity - she was already suffering before she took on the Witch-King. It comes down to Merry being a Hobbit and Eowyn being a Woman.
I'd LOVE to see (it'll never happen) some other stories of Middle-Earth being done by PJ... maybe a DVD extra!?! I'd love to see events such as the War after Sauron revealed the one ring - and Ost-in-Edhil was lost and nearly all of Eriador was lost until help came from N�menor - see "Unfinished Tales" Or maybe I hope PJ shows some of the events that take place after the destruction of the one ring - the Attacks on L�rien from Dol Guldur, The Ents wiping out the Orcs from giving up on L�rien and trying to invade Rohan. The Battle of the Dale, where Easterlings invade the northern lands and The Dwarves of Erebor and the men of Esgaroth and the Dale take them on - after a 3 day seige of the Lonely mountain. ALSO Galadriel and Celeborn crossing the Anduin and cleansing Dol Guldur and Mirkwood - helped by Thranduil - and eventually renaming Mirkwood - Eryn Lasgalen (The forest of Greenleaves)! (All mentioned in the Appendices!)
I wonder if we'll see Osgiliath or Pelagir or Dol Amroth!?!
Anyone reckon that they should maybe turn a part of the Silmarillion into a movie!?! Maybe Beren and Luthien!?!
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
I just miss the Galadriel-stuff before the fellowship departed for Gondor. But it was such an emotional and personal meeting (esp for poor Gimli) so it would perhaps not win over the big crowd who just wants the action...
I was thinking, the swords of the movie, particulary Sting, of which we got a good look, seems to be actual tempered-steel quality swords. A very celtic, flowing design, Sting was.
Are there any sword-buffs here? I occasionally check out the big swordmakers on the web, like the remade Conan-collection and such. The pieces in LOTR looks very high-class, especially Narsil, Aragorn's to-be. Very cool hilt-solution, leaving a stretch of the handle without leather-grip.
I haven't checked the places but I'm sure the big swordmakers will pretty soon make a special LOTR-section on their websites.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I understand that they did hire very high class swordsmiths and armourers for this movie, even the extras armour was well done. I'm going to search for the armourer and if I find anything I'll let you know.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
At this site there is an interview with Peter Jackson and he says that John Howe oversaw the weaponry and battle screens. He is somesort of expert in medieval re-enactments.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I have heard that, uh, Smeagol's finding of the ring was given more time in one cut of the intro, which may be restored for the DVD. Though, frankly, I thought the introduction was getting near the limits timewise as it was.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Thanks a bunch, Grokca! That site got a lot of questions answered even aside from the armour and weapons.
I found out a big swordmaker's guild are getting a contract from New Line Cinema to make functional steel replicas of the unique gear from LOTR to paying customers.
So far they got Sting (Frodo's), Glamdring (Gandalf's) and the sword of the witchking, the mightiest of the nine ringwraiths. I'm looking forward to Narsil/And�ril, it looked detailed...
Minor Nitpick: According to the books and the Encyclopedia of Arda, Gandalf's Glamdring, which he found in a troll-stash in "The Hobbit", together with Bilbo, was originally an elven sword just like Sting and had runes in a central line throughout the blade. These haven't been depicted in either the cartoon 1977 movie-version nor the new ones, so they probably won't incorporate it at all. No big D, just a note.
Also, Sting was only meant to glow pale blue on the "edges" of the blade, whereas the entire blade of Glamdring was to shine white in a pinch. This was modified (entire sting-blade glows in movie, no Glamdring-glow whatsoevah") so that the audience will "get a fuc*ing clue". I'm all for it, better not take any chances with people's attention spans. :-)
[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: G.K Nimrod ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Really liked the swords, I don't suppose that the inlay on the hilt of Sting is mithril? I also liked the mountings of each of the swords, they seem to convey the essence of the swords. I also liked the way the Witchking's sword has that old, tarnished, pitted look, seems fitting for the badguy's sword. Thanks for the site, but I don't think I can talk my wife into letting me buy one, at $199 american for the cheapest one my wife would have a fit.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
As for the ACTUAL props - they were all crafted by blacksmiths in New Zealand...
In a doco I was watching it had a close up of Arwen and Legolas' swords... they indeed had runes running along the blade... we never got a good enough view - up close of Glamdring to see if it did indeed have the runes... and maybe if you're going by a site that sells replicas - maybe they just don't include the runes due to the time involved??
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Andrew, you may just be right, and so you have renewed my hopes! I would've liked to've seen Legolas' swords up-close, they were so awesome, like viking-ninjatos, and with the sloped handles like on the indian gurkha/khukuri-knife, IYKWIM?
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Finally saw it today. It was in my opinion far superior to the books (if only because Tolkein's near obsessive-compulsive attention to detail translates pretty well visually). That and they left out all those songs and poems. THANK GOD, those damn things showed up constantly in the books and you knew you had to read them, even though they slowed the plot. but then, that's just my opinion.
Of course the best part has to be NO AEROSMITH POWER BALLADS just because Liv Tyler's in it. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You don't have to read the songs. When I reread Fellowship a couple months ago, I skipped over them. Granted, I read them when I first read the book, but that was years ago, and I've long forgotten them...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You could just read a summary of the book, too. I'm not sure I see where we're going.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by G.K Nimrod: I found out a big swordmaker's guild are getting a contract from New Line Cinema to make functional steel replicas of the unique gear from LOTR to paying customers.
I hate to disappoint you guys, but the replica LOTR swords that are being produced are far from being “functional.”
The blades are crafted from mere stainless steel and are being constructed with rat-tail tangs. I doubt the swords come sharpened and I shudder to think of how much these replicas weigh.
Granted, the swords look pretty cool, and the replicas would certainly make nice wall hangers, but for historically actuate and functional swords, I’ll stick with Del Tin or Angus Trim.
I can’t speak intelligently about John Howe or the props that were used, but the sword choreography as seen in the movie was so-so. Lots of obscure angles were used so you cannot quite see what is going on (which is good, in a way), but I did notice some of the usual “edge on edge” blocking and “aim for the sword” combat that is so typical of Hollywood.
All that being said, I really enjoyed the movie and I am certainly looking forward to the future films. Probably the best film I saw in 2001!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Simon: Well, the songs really contribute little to the story, overall. I mean, some of the shorter ones are written in Elvish! Surely reading something like that won't help the story at all, since one wouldn't even understand it...
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Well, some would. :-)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, but those are the people who are the Tolkienesque equivalents of people who speak Klingon. And no-one listens to them, either... :-)
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Although I found the songs tedious to read myself, I would guess that they were included by Tolkien in order to enhance the depth and atmosphere of the book.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Don't forget Tolkien was not only creating a world he was creating a mythology for a country who had lost theirs over the centuries - mostly due to the Norman invasions.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Well, walking down the main street of Stockholm I noticed a little fantasyshop I've ignored my whole life, and they had imported the three LOTR-swords! I got to feel them, they weren't light and cheap at all, but very solid, without feeling clumsy. Wish I'd had room to swing them, Conan-Kata style. ;-)
The Nazg�l sword was big as hell, and the blade looked appropriately worn and tarnished, like in the movie. My favourite was Glamdring, of course, but they were all very sharpened, I used the flat side of my thumbnail to scratch the blade and it made a rather wide white mark.
I don't understand why "mere stainless steel" would be negative to a sword, it must be a fuck of a lot better than aluminum or tin. And wtf are these supposed "rat-tail tangs"???
Sting scared me a bit, because it was as functional as a very big knife would be, especially for stabbing...
They were more expensive here, of course, the equivalent of 335$, 527$ and 575$ for Sting, Glamdring and the Nazg�l blade.
[ March 14, 2002, 09:07: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"...he was creating a mythology for a country who had lost theirs over the centuries - mostly due to the Norman invasions."
Huh?
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
I didn't resurrect this thread so that you could make a comment on a two-month old post, you opportunist bastard!! Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
And, WHY is this in a sci-fi forum?
I mean I have nothing against Lord of the Rings, but come on... this is supposed to be Sci-Fi, not fantasy...
I come from a family which likes to distinguish between the two more than the average man.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Because there isn't really a fantasy forum around here?
Besides, every library I've ever entered has had Science Fiction and Fantasy grouped together. But, if you think this is a travesty, what until I start a thread in here on Jason X.
So, Nim, these were the actual swords used in the movies? It sounds like it was a pretty cool experience. My friend is planning on making his own swords (god help us all). I'll ask him if he knows what's up with stainless steel.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
you dont have to participate in a fantasy thread if you see one (i usually dont, but i dont bitch up and down about how people are discussing a movie i dont have any plans to see yet)
no ones forcing you, and resurrecting month-old threads about things you dont want to talk or read about hardly seems to make sense.
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
No, they weren't the actual ones I'm sure, simply replicas.
I have a sword shop in my town that's selling 'em now.
GLAMDRING! THE FOE HAMMER!
Okay, it's a hammer despite the fact that it is a sword.... ahh well, who said poetics had to be taken literally?
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
I saw "Fellowship" for the third and last time yesterday, it will go off the cinemas in Sweden in a short while, and just because I bothered (love it even more now that I've read Silmarillion), they had added a lovely 3-minute preview, just as the end credits were about to start, showing selected scenes from "The Two Towers", and I just want to say...DAMN!!!
[ May 05, 2002, 23:47: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
United Cutlery?
I hope it's not too much to ask that the forks and knives on the table during the famous scene in the restaurant in 'When Harry met Sally' are their next additions?
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim Pim: I don't understand why "mere stainless steel" would be negative to a sword, it must be a fuck of a lot better than aluminum or tin.
Stainless steel is a poor choice of metal for swords for several reasons: It does not hold an edge very well. It cannot be properly heat treated and tempered. It is a brittle steel with little or no flex. A good sword that has been properly tempered will bend at least 5 inches (if not more) out of line and return true. Try that with a stainless steel sword and you end up with one bent sword.
Real swords throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods were forged from what is typically referred to today as “carbon spring steel.” (That is somewhat of a misnomer, since all steel by definition, has SOME carbon in it.) I do not know all the metallurgical properties of stainless steel, but I do know that it does not contain enough carbon and cannot be properly tempered. The steel is too brittle for real swordplay, and has almost no flexibility.
Real swords were forged from iron, and carbon was added by using charcoal in the forging process. This created a strong flexible steel that would hold an edge very well. A sword undergoes a lot of torque when being using in combat, and contrary to popular belief, the flat of the blade (as opposed to the edge) was used a great deal in parrying and/or blocking. Thus, one can see how a sword would need good flexibility. Additionally, a real sword will rust, and it must constantly be oiled.
quote:Originally posted by Nim Pim: I got to feel them, they weren't light and cheap at all, but very solid, without feeling clumsy.
When it comes to a sword’s weight, light is a GOOD thing. Again, contrary to popular belief, real Medieval and Renaissance swords were quite light. (After all, who would want to fight on the battlefield with a 10-pound longsword?) A “typical” Medieval longsword (about 4 feet in overall length) weighed anywhere from 2 to 3.5 pounds. Anything beyond 3.5 lbs. would certainly have been considered too heavy.
quote:Originally posted by Nim Pim: And wtf are these supposed "rat-tail tangs"???
The tang is the part of the metal blade that extends into the handle. On any good quality “functional” sword, the tang will have actually been forged as part of the blade. A good tang will usually be fairly wide. On poorer quality swords, the tangs are actually welded onto the blade at the point of the shoulder. Often in this case, the tang is nothing more than a thin metal bar, and this type of tang is usually referred to as a “rat-tail-tang.”
I would contend that in the world of swords and swordsmanship: Stainless steel = junk United Cutlery = junk
I think it is safe to say that most (if not all) serious sword enthusiasts would agree with this assessment.
Good quality swords are usually produced by folks such as: Angus Trim Armart of Europe Del Tin …Just to name a select few.
For additional information on swords and swordsmanship on the net, I recommend: Sword Forum International: http://www.swordforum.com The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts: http://www.thearma.org
For additional reading on swords, check out: "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe" by Sydney Anglo "Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques" by John Clements "Swords & Hilt Weapons" by Michael D Cole, et. al. "European Weapons and Armour" by Ewart Oakeshott "Records of the Medieval Sword" by Ewart Oakeshott.
[ June 03, 2002, 18:00: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Neat lesson Commander. Thanks
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
do people still kill each other often with swords?
[ May 16, 2002, 09:50: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by UM . (Member # 239) on :
Well, in Hong Kong, with the Gunfire Acoustic Monitors, sure. The Triads go batty with them. Although, as silenced pistol bypasses them just as easily.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Ah the world that i do not experience. In Providence people mostly kill each other with guns and cars, or kill themselves with drugs and alcohol.
Welp, off to the bar...
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: do people still kill each other often with swords?
Not to my knowledge, but there are organizations that currently study Medieval and/or Renaissance swordsmanship.
I belong to the aforementioned Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (or ARMA, as we call it). Our goal is to “focus on the interpretation and legitimate reconstruction of Medieval and Renaissance combat systems as a modern discipline.” (As quoted from the ARMA website.)
In our training, we use wooden practice swords (called “wasters”), padded sparring swords, and we occasionally do test cutting with “live steel” (real swords). My group usually test cuts cardboard tubes, but I have heard of groups test cutting meat or even a freshly killed deer. We also do a limited amount of basic drillwork with blunt swords as well, but we use extreme caution, as this can be quite dangerous, even with blunts.
[ May 16, 2002, 10:20: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Yeah no shit. But what say you about the current reconstruction of the swords of Conan, then? Jody Samson? And you must admit, as aesthetics go, Glamdring and Narsil are two fine girls, no?
What do you think of that technique of leaving half the handle unpadded, perhaps for better grip with a thick glove? I have never seen it in real sword designs, but it looks real good.
I saw in the 3min-preview of "Two Towers" that Aragorn approached the table of Narsil, and as he didn't have it when killing the Uruk-Hai in "Fellowship", the reforging-scene will be shown. Yay!
[ May 16, 2002, 11:52: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Sure, the LOTR Swords are “aesthetically pleasing” to look at. I even said so in a previous post in this thread. However, as “aesthetically pleasing” as a Ferrari might be, it would have little appeal to someone whose primary interest is off road driving.
Likewise, I have little interest in fantasy swords. If it is not a “functional” sword, and/or if it is not based on some real historical model, then I really have little or no interest. To be quite blunt, my interest lies only in “true” Historical European Swordsmanship as a martial art, and thus, if it isn’t a “real” and “functional” sword, then I could really care less.
To provide a little more information about stainless steel; I talked with my Dad-in-law recently, who is NOT into swordsmanship, but he DOES work in manufacturing. He told me that in addition to a lower carbon content, stainless steel contains nickel and chromium, and this is what makes the steel “stainless” by preventing oxidation and rust. At the same time, however, this causes the metal to be more brittle than “carbon spring steel,” and it prevents proper tempering and heat treatment.
quote:Originally posted by Nim Pim: What do you think of that technique of leaving half the handle unpadded, perhaps for better grip with a thick glove? I have never seen it in real sword designs, but it looks real good.
I believe that there may be some historical examples of this, although in all honesty, I am not quite sure. Actually, finding handles still intact on historical medieval swords is a rarity, since the wood and leather have rotted away in most cases. Personally, I would prefer to have the entire handle wrapped (in leather, or even with cording), as I feel that this would provide a better grip. Whether you are using gloves or bare hands, it has been my experience that a leather wrapped or corded handle yields a much better grip than wood alone.
All of this being said, please do not misconstrue my statements, as I do not mean to be totally against the purchase of these swords. If you like these swords, and you wish to have some nice “wall-hangers,” then by all means, go for it! It is only my intention to let it be known that these swords are NOT to be considered “real” swords with any kind of practical functionality. Though granted, you could probably inflict fatal injuries to someone (that was un-armored) with these swords, there is no way that they would hold up to the rigors of day to day combat, or even basic drill-work for that matter.
[ June 03, 2002, 17:52: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
They should make a model of He-Man's sword. I'd buy that. Or the sword from Thundercats.
Posted by thoughtychops (Member # 480) on :
Especially if it could be split in two, like it was with the toys. that would be radical, buddy.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
I want the Conan-codpiece as well, from "C0nan Teh De5tr0y3r", et's r0XX0RR!!!
Commander Dan: "...a leather-wrapped or corded handle yields a much better grip than wood alone".
But the naked piece of handle wasn't wood but steel, like the models suggest. Though I believe you about the properties of leather!
In the case of Nars�l there, it makes for a different grip. When I held the lowest hand close to the end of the handle, it felt great.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
