a few ques.

[Jeli Baggins]

Well, don't you just love it when annoying hobbits ask annoying questions? Yes I have a few....<P>In the FotR, what does Arwen mean when she says, "The Shadow does not hold sway yet. Not over you, not over me." It's just a little confusing. <P>In TTT,<BR>1) Why is Gollum singing the poem that the Barrow Weights sing? The "Cold be heart and hand and bone...." <BR>2) If it's raining at Helm's Deep, wouldn't all the torches go out? Maybe it's just a mistake or I'm not suppose to notice it....<BR>3) Why does Theoden call Gandalf Stormcrow? And Hama calls him Greyheme, which I'm pretty sure is another name for him. Wait perhaps Stormcrow is another name, because Aragorn has a lot of names too. Hey maybe I need to find my answer to this elsewhere, some of you guys get mad when stupid questions are asked. Sorry if I offended anyone! I'll probably have lots more later.... *nervously bows and backs out of the forum*

[Inderjit Sanghera]

3-Doesn't Theoden call Gandalf 'Stormcrow' in the books? Or that may have been Wormtounge.

[Annúntindomeiel]

From the FotR, Arwen means that Sauron doesn't have total control over Middle-Earth yet...<BR>And from #3 Stormcrow was rude to call Gandalf. Because Saruman had a hold of Gandalf he was the one talking... right?

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I think 'stormcrow' means bringer of woe. And Saruman was only talking in the movie, with that whole exorcism thing.

[Iarwain]

1- I noticed that too, its really creepy, but I loved the poem.<P>2- Of course they wouldn't go out, they're gas torches. <P>3- Inderjit is right. Theoden calls him stormcrow, Wormtounge lathspell, and Hama Greyhame. Gandalf has a lot of names in rohan. Of course, he has many more : Tharkun, Olorin, Mithrandir and Incanus.<P>Iarwain

[Dark Shadow]

1) Maybe Gollum ran into a Barrow Wight and it taught him the song Or maybe, PJ just thought it'd work for Gollum.

[Jeli Baggins]

Thanks fellow Middle-earth dwellers. Those things make more sense now. And alas! I was not yelled at! Now my head can stop spinning.... for now.

[Rose Cotton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 1) Why is Gollum singing the poem that the Barrow Weights sing? The "Cold be heart and hand and bone...." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OMG! I've been trying to figure out for a long time where that song came from. I had a feeling it was Tolkien. I must say it fits Gollum very well.

[mollecon]

The fact that Gollum speaks a poem that originally belonged elsewhere have a lot to do with how the movies was made from the beginning. Basically, the 3 scriptwriters started out with making a very stripped down version of the story, ridding it of all 'unnecessary' side stories & anything else that swayed the story away from the straight line. Then, <I>after</I> doing that they started putting all the details back - but not necessarily where they originally belonged! Cos the above example of Gollum reciting something that originally belonged elsewhere is certainly not the only example of this in the movies. It was done this way to make it possible to make a good movie version of the story & at the same time keep the Tolkien 'touch' in the story. You can find an explanation of this on the commentary track of the extended version DVD - the one with the 3 script writers, of course.<p>[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: mollecon ]

[doug*platypus]

It was done this way because they are <B>butchers!</B> I would rather have had little snippets like the Barrow-Wight spell or the chapter titles (Riddles in the Dark, A Long-Expected Party) left out than disjointed and bastardised. If they seriously thought that the way to appease Tolkien fans would be to carve up the book willy-nilly and throw dialogue around so light-heartedly, then they were deluded from day one.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> appease Tolkien fans <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He should have realised that appeasement never works ...

[Laialthriel]

Well said Saucepan Man.

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If they seriously thought that the way to appease Tolkien fans would be to carve up the book willy-nilly and throw dialogue around so light-heartedly, then they were deluded from day one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am partially in agreement, like when it comes to this particular rhyme by Gollum. But I hardly see where it is such a serious breach as you make it out to be. Do you seriously upset by phrases like Gandalf's "riddles in the dark"? No offense meant of course, just curious. I hardly think it was either out of context or inappropriate. It does not ruin the story or do anything other than acknowledge a portion of the books. I also do not think it was to "appease" Tolkein fans. It was an indirect way of taking more from the novels. It seems as though if they needed a line, and something previously unused from the novel fits, then they used it. I'd rather hear Gollum recite that song under his breath in a psychotic way, than something made from scratch. Appease... yeah. "Hey Fran, I know how to appease those uncouth Tolkeinites, put in that Barrow Wight song...you know the one..." <p>[ February 05, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[HCIsland]

I really don't think appeasement was too much of the equation here. I think it was simply they liked the song and thought it sounded good here.<P>H.C.

[doug*platypus]

Good point, appeasement of bookpeople is not the only reasoning. The use of excerpts such as the chapter titles also lends credibility to the film. In the same way, if you write a fan fiction, you might introduce a cameo by one of Tolkien's characters, or descent from them, or reference to one of the places, to bring your story in line with Tolkien's. Or if you were really clever and subtle (as the three-headed PJ/PB/FW writing team is not), you would use similar tones of narrative, and Tolkieny words like "doom", "smote", "beheld", etc. and just leave it at that. If the filmmakers had taken the same approach to dialogue as they had to costumes (using minute detail to build up a complete picture) the films would have been better off for it.<P>Honestly, yes, the Chapter Title ploy bothers me. Don't get me wrong, that shot of Gandalf in front of the fireplace is brilliant, even if he is a bit too wasted. And Riddles in the Dark is probably the example of chapter title use that works the best. But it seems to me like a token effort, and it is used too blatantly and too often. Shortcut to Mushrooms, Strider (although very neatly done and almost imperceptible), Knife in the Dark, A Long-Expected Party, The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm... they're all just soundbites. This is NOT the way to write good dialogue. I appreciate the chapter titles on the DVD more (such as A Knife in the Dark), and I'd rather see them referred to subtly rather than blatantly. Such as the shot of the sign of the prancing pony - much better than if Merry had said, "Well, here we are AT THE SIGN OF THE PRANCING PONY," which is what most of the other references amount to.

[Nuranar]

I shan't get into the debate about <I>how</I> the script was written (although I enjoy reading it), but I must say I agree the most with <B>Tar-Palantir</B>:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It was an indirect way of taking more from the novels. It seems as though if they needed a line, and something previously unused from the novel fits, then they used it. I'd rather hear Gollum recite that song under his breath in a psychotic way, than something made from scratch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Now the question that has not been fully addressed:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2) If it's raining at Helm's Deep, wouldn't all the torches go out?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I confess up front that I have little or no experience with torches. However, I have gathered from reading that the wood is soaked or daubed with some kind of fuel such as oil. In other words, the torches aren't merely burning up their own wood. I think flames fed on something that burns that readily would not quickly extinguish in the rain.<P>Even if there is none or but little oil on the torches (or if my theory on the strength of the flame is faulty), it would take a lot of rain to put a torch out - this I know from personal experience. I have kept a campfire from going out in the rain, and the bigger the flame the harder it is to put it out. (Actually, the biggest problem we had was with the firepit flooding - we had to bail it out! )

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is NOT the way to write good dialogue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree. And I also think that if there is to be some kind of filler, it's best that it spring somewhat from Tolkein's Pen (pencil?). The really nasty one to me was Elrond's "Nine companions...you shall be 'The Fellowship of the Ring'" ***cringe - shudder***. I like also the thought of more "Tolkeiny" words, it would certainly affect positively the 'flavor' of the film, but what do you think the effect would be on unread moviegoers? I think too much of it would wither the wider popularity (not necessarily a good or bad thing), in fact I still have to read some sentences two and three times, more in the Sil., to get the inflection, pacing right.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The really nasty one to me was Elrond's "Nine companions...you shall be 'The Fellowship of the Ring'" ***cringe - shudder***. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I find this one a funny one because, you're right, it was over the top, but I think the writers knew this as they immediately defused with Pippin's, "Great, where are we going?".<P>H.C.