That reminds me....

[Al]

Lissa said:

In regard to the endings...

Did anyone else feel like it was a curtain call when the boys all came to Frodo's bedside?

Just a comment I've been dying to make.

Definitely. I also love the King-cam after Aragorn's coronation, where each of the more minor characters are approached as Aragorn walks down the aisle and they take a small bow to the camera.

[Hucklebubba]

DocD83 said:

...weakening the trolls...

Speaking of weakening the trolls, maybe you can answer another one of my nitpickings.

In RotK, during the siege of Minas Tirith, a somewhat smallish troll takes an overhead swipe at Aragorn, and he parries it. Now, in my way of thinking, regardless of the troll's alleged runtiness, that blow, parried or not, should've buried Aragorn in the ground up to his chin.

[bladestarr]

Chock that one up to a combination of the power of that particular legendary sword, and the fact that the True King is wielding it. Also, it was in the script. ;D

[Oblivion]

Yeah, like in the first film Boromir had a full arrow quiver on his, sharp tips all in the wrong direction, and was still able to kick orc ass for quite a time! Remember the war tales of old, then these kind of feats begins to make sense.

[DocD83]

Now, in my way of thinking, regardless of the troll's alleged runtiness, that blow, parried or not, should've buried Aragorn in the ground up to his chin.

I've only seen the movie once (and probably not again until the EE comes out) and I don't recall that particular troll incident, but the point behind a parry is that a relatively small amount of effort on your part can make even incredibly powerful blows miss. That's because you're putting in a force component 90 degrees from the direction of the force exerted by the attacker (and the reaction force he expects), and usually they aren't prepared or physically able to resist this new component. Besides if you do it right, even if the swing is undeflected, the reaction would push you out of the way.

That was probably way more complicated than anyone wants.

[Magill]

In Tolkein's world, the wizards are analogous to angels. Remember he was a very devout Catholic and wrote the Lord of the Rings as a big Christian fable. Anyways, due to free will and all, wizards (or angels) can help assist the residents of Middle Earth but can't directly intervene. If you look closely at the books or the movies, Gandalf's powers are more along the lines of inspiring people. I really noticed this in ROTK. For example, when the Nazgul first arrive at Minas Tirith, a lot of soldiers get (rightly so, IMHO), really scared and start to flee. Then Gandalf arrives, tells them to hold their post, and they magically (pun intended) become filled with valor.

I know some people theorize that Gandalf's inspiring powers come from the elf ring he wears (Narya?), which is the ring of fire (queue Johnny Cash). A lot of his powers (making his staff glow in Moria, fighting the Balrog, his fireworks, really bright lights at Helm's Deep and Pellenor Fields, "firing up" the hearts of soldiers) all have to do with fire.

Also, when Gandalf was still Grey, he was a bit worried about announcing his presence. I remember in FOTR (the book), when he makes a fire on the top of Caradhras, he says something like "might as well make a big sign that says 'Gandalf is here'".

[Head Mutant]

Magill said:

In Tolkein's world, the wizards are analogous to angels. Remember he was a very devout Catholic and wrote the Lord of the Rings as a big Christian fable.

Actually, Tolkein has made a point, numerous times, that his LOTR books were neither social commentary or allegory. His Christianity surely influenced his themes of good vs. evil, the corruption of men by power and greed, friendship, redemption, mercy, and even carrying burdens... but his desire was more for a complete fantasy-historical tale that mirrored his beliefs and worldview rather than creating direct analogies between various characters/symbols and ideals/concepts in the real world.

Of course, a generation or three of english majors ingrained with an overwhelming desire to see heavy-handed symbolism in everything has drowned out Tolkein's protest, and so... if you want to see a tree so badly in an empty field, you're going to see it, even if it's not really there. This isn't to say there aren't connections or even unintentional analogies, but I think it's important to take Tolkein at his word here for this particular series.

[PoolMan]

A friend of mine who's quite Silmarillian-friendly once explained it to me that there was one "master" god in the Middle-Earth universe (like a Judeo-Christian god), who was supported by a group of lesser gods, something like the Greek pantheon. There's the figure of Melkor, a fallen Valar who turns evil, and if that doesn't ring "Satan" to you, I don't know what will.

I agree that Tolkien's public statements always protested analogies to WWII and major religions, but the parallels ARE there, and it's apparent even to someone who's not actively looking for it.

Or, I could be talking out of my ass. ;D

[bladestarr]

Look at what Tolkein concentrated on in the books. He spent the vast majority of the time talking about the little characters, the people and their interactions. If he was trying to make a specifically Christian statement, there would be an obvious Christ-figure in the books, one who sacrifices himself to save all of the others. While there are a few moments where it seems like someone has met that criterion, after awhile we discover that they didn't really sacrifice themselves at all (i.e. Gandalf and the Balrog, Frodo and Shelob). So in the end, there is no Christ-figure, and if he was trying to make an allegory, there would be at least some sacrifice somewhere, wouldn't there?

[PoolMan]

Really? Gandalf being "taken by death" and resurrected to come back and save everybody doesn't seem a little too martyr-like for you?

Hm.

[bladestarr]

I did not say there were no martyrs, or that there were no resurrections, I said there were no Christ-figures. Perhaps I should clarify the definition of a christ-figure as I know it: One who sacrifices himself to save others through their belief in him, for he is no longer there to assist them in the material realm.

Maybe my definition of a Christ-figure is too specific? Anyways, that is how I see the definition, and by that definition, no character is a Christ-figure, because ultimately, they are all there to help out in one way or another, and in the Christ story, Jesus cannot help people in the material realm, all he can do is give them strength of will to do what they must and save their souls if necessary after they die, but he cannot intervene in material concerns.

[Magill]

Note that I said it was a fable, not an allegory. If it was an allegory, then yes, there would have to be a 1:1 relation for everything in it. But one can have a Christian fable without a Christ figure. Plenty of the characters have attributes that could be called Christian or Christ-like.

Edited to add--did anyone else think the crown of Gondor looked really cheesy? I guess I was expecting something not as angular (more along the lines of what the elves wear). Instead, it looks more dwarvish. But then, if dwarves are master miners, maybe they're master smiths? I'm really rambling now. Sorry.

[bladestarr]

I'm going to step back now, I just remembered one crucial law of human nature:

It is never good to bring up religion in a discussion between many fanatical intelligent independent thinkers. ;D

[PoolMan]

Magill said:

did anyone else think the crown of Gondor looked really cheesy?

I did, initially, but I watched Fellowship again, and you can see the resemblance between Aragorn's crown and the helmets of the Gondorian soldiers of Isildur's time. Seriously, the detail is amazing. It's not a copy of the helmets, but they look like they might have been crafted by the same hands.

As for all the Christ figure talk, I'm really just playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). I just think it's impossible to be a devout Christian who survived the first Great War and not write some of both into your massive war epic.

[DocD83]

Instead, it looks more dwarvish. But then, if dwarves are master miners, maybe they're master smiths?

They are master smiths. Remember the prolouge in fellowship: "Seven were gifted to the dwarf-lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls." I don't think dwarves made much of anything for humans, but humans in LotR always struck me as being somewhat dwarvish and somewhat elvish, so their design is a mix as well.