Aegnor/Andreth (which I haven't read--yet)

You've got something to look forward to then

I'm rereading LotR these days (it's taking me some weeks), and one scene in particular got to me more than I think it has done at previous readings. Frodo has been stung by Shelob, and Sam sees him lying lifeless, and is torn between his duty to his master (to stay with him regardless), and his duty to the quest (to leave him and take the Ring to Mordor).
He's arguing with himself, and finally making a decision. It's such a moving sequence of the story.

It turns out that even though he later changes his mind and makes the opposite decision, it's very important that he makes the first one when he does.

And equally important that he changes it later.

There just isn't time for that kind of inner argument and consideration in an action-based movie - you need a book for that ...

But I was just wondering, alot of time we focus on the negative, what were your most favorite parts of the books/movies?

Hard to say. and have about moved me to tears. I can't figure out for the life of me if they're my favorites or the worst.

I do have a few favorite parts in FotR the movie -- the wizard duel between Gandalf and Saruman, and then the Flight to the Ford. In TTT the movie, I think I like the part where Eowyn and Aragorn spar I don't really like ROTK because it's heartbreaking, but never mind that since I was trying to focus on the positive here.

I really like the battle scenes of TT and ROTK. They're usually the parts i watch when i actually have time to watch anything. the whole movie is just wayyyy too long.

My favorite battle scene of TT is when Gimli and Legolas are like counting how many orcs they've killed. I just find their friendship hilarious. My favorite battle scene of ROTK is when Eowyn's battling the Witch King and she's like "I am no man." and stabs him in the face. It was cool. My friend though doesn't like that scene and calls it cheesy but i still like it.

Also if anyone hasn't scene the extended edition or the deleted scenes of ROTk there's this scene calls Aragorn's Age where he tells eowyn (and ultimatly the viewers) what his age is. It's a really cute and funny scene though Eowyn sounds a little weird....I'd explain more of the scene but don't want to ruin it for anyone....

[...] and in RotK where Frodo tells Sam to go back to the Shire. I mean, that wasn't true to his character at all.

Well, although it wasn't true to the book. In the books he was also a little wimpy and slightly annoying. So, in a way, although he didn't reject Sam, this described his character better. I don't know why but I never liked Frodo.

I love that part in TTT too sillygoose, especially in the EEs where you can really see them start out as sort of rivals, then become friends.

Favorite scenes...

FotR: Absolute total favorite ever, possibly in all three movies is when they introduce Strider at Bree. It is how I picture perfectly, Strider's feet on the table, hood up, smoking his pipe and his mud-stained boots. It's one of those parts that gives me goose-bumps it's so perfect.

I also like pretty much the whole Moria sequence, from Balin's tomb to the Balrog. Gandalf fighting the Balrog is amazing (I love the design for the Balrog)

I'll have to think some more for my TTT and RotK ones though.

Sillygoose: I do love the scene with Eowyn and the Witch King, but I just don't think they got it right. That's my favorite part in all the books, but the movie just didn't match up. I do love the scene with her and Theoden after it though, I think it's really beautiful and sad

Did anyone else notice we (Finally!) have a date for Born of Hope (A fan film about Arathorn and Gilraen)? December 1st is the official date! I have my calendar marked.

Well, although it wasn't true to the book. In the books he was also a little wimpy and slightly annoying. So, in a way, although he didn't reject Sam, this described his character better. I don't know why but I never liked Frodo.

If you don't mind me talking a little here... In contrast, I never liked Sam I'm probably bound to get people saying "WHAT??" to me here. But I just liked Frodo better. I guess it began because I thought Sam was way too overprotective, being nothing more than a servant at the beginning. In ROTK, it turns more touching because he's obviously more than a servant; and yes, I think he turns out to be the hero in the end. I think I may perhaps be more like Frodo in one respect; that is, the one on where he pities what the ring did to Gollum.
I still think Frodo is much stronger in character in the book. The movies dramatized the personalities and thus made them weaker. (Well, with the exception of Sam, I think!)

FotR: Absolute total favorite ever, possibly in all three movies is when they introduce Strider at Bree. It is how I picture perfectly, Strider's feet on the table, hood up, smoking his pipe and his mud-stained boots. It's one of those parts that gives me goose-bumps it's so perfect.

Ah, I do like that one too. I kept feeling like I should laugh while I watched FotR for the first time because it all seemed so perfect! And when I first saw Frodo, I almost freaked out because he had happened to be on the front cover of my copy of the book FOTR, but I didn't know that that was the actor for the movie. So were Saruman, Galadriel and Sam in fact!

I'm not a Middle-Earth expert by any stretch, nor have I read everything that Tolkien put out about it, but I have a question or two from you folks because you guys appear to have read everything on the topic there is to read.

Regarding the Balrog which Gandalf battles at Khazad-dum, I found it interesting when I read the Silmarillion many years ago that dozens of the things were created by Melkor (or was it Morgoth? I get the two names confused ) and that a number were slain by Elves over the years of the First Age. By the end of the Sil it's clear that most of them were destroyed but some remained, and one of them turned up in Moria when the Dwarves got a little too greedy with the digging. Just based upon the passages in Fellowship of the Rings (and perhaps helped out a bit by seeing this behemoth on the silver screen) this was one mean mama and I'm not sure how the ancient Elves were even able to kill any at all. Gandalf even has trouble with the thing!

My question is was the Balrog working for Sauron? Or was it an independent creature as it was created by Sauron's former master (and thus wouldn't really owe Sauron any fealty)? And since Balrogs originally walked around the surface how did this thing get down there in the first place? I mean one could say it happened during the Sundering but from what I've seen of maps the Misty Mountains appear to have been largely unaltered from the First Age (while most of the western area of M-E seemed to have dropped off into the ocean). Did Tolkien ever hint that there were more?

Shadowlander, it's been a while since I studied this, but I'll do the best to answer your questions. First, Tolkien was never quite sure how many balrogs there were. They were really one of his first creations, and originally there were hundreds of them - Tuor in Gondolin himself slew five with his axe. Decades later Tolkien suggested that only 3-7 ever existed, which would be a major inconsistency within the legendarium. The simple answer? No-one knows. Some reasons that the elves might be able to kill them more easily is that the High Elves originally had the light of Valinor, and so were elevated to nearly maia-like power. When the War of Wrath came, of course the balrogs and dragons could not withstand the Valar, and so some hid deep in the earth. Gandalf, a maia himself and so of the same order as a balrog and Sauron (but on a different side, of course), would naturally struggle with such a foe, though the elves had much faded.

Now as to your second question, the balrog might have been stirred by Sauron's increasing power, but probably was not under Sauron's command. Balrogs were technically creatures of Morgoth, not Sauron, and there is no canonical reference to balrogs being controlled by Sauron.

Excellent questions, Shadowlander! I'm digging up some info now. But first ...

Mel that artist conception of the story of Aldarion and Erendis is lovely! (And the artist, Murrauddin, is one of the many talented artists featured in the upcoming issue of Silver Leaves. )

narnian_at_heart (not to be confused with Narnian at Heart ), Éowyn is my favourite female character in The LotR as well. Her strength, yet her sadness from the tragedies and sorrow that has befallen her young years, is very poignant. I can relate to her more than Arwen or Galadriel.

sillygoose, I was privileged to have seen The Lord of the Rings musical a few times. We had the debut in Ontario and ... WOW! Here is a shot of some of the cast. And here is a summary of its history.

Yes, "Lothlórien" is a lovely song, but, hobbit that I am, my favourite of all the musical is Sam and Frodo's "Now and For Always", sung on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. *tries to find a link* Aha, here 'tis. That verse that Frodo sings about Sam ("the bravest of them all") grabs my heart everytime. *sniffs and sobs* I do recall more verses in the actual performance, but those two are the best. Btw, the subtle, whispery, sneaky voice you hear right at the end is none other than Gollum (Michael Therriault) and deserved a massive award for his brilliant performance. Another song I loved, especially the last couple of lines, was Gimli's Lament for Moria, a short and powerful song of the memories of Moria in the days of its glory. To me, though, the man who played Gimli doesn't sound overly like a dwarf when he sings.

Varnafinde, your post makes me eager to get hold of Volume 10 of the HoMe series! Thanks for that.

Lady Galadriel, a big welcome to NarniaWeb and I'm glad you're joining in the discussion.

Just note this: Peter Jackson added in "the element of self-doubt" to increase dramatic tension. That's also why Faramir, Galadriel and Gandalf all have "darker elements" added to them. Besides, the element of self-doubt in Aragorn paves the way for Arwen's increased role; she has to convince him, if I remember correctly.

Yes, to be sure PJ changed the character arcs for dramatic tension, but the thing is this changed Tolkien's beloved and noble characters! What for? For a modern-day audience who doesn't even know what a true hero is? *calms herself down* And that's exactly one of the things that bothered me so much about Aragorn's change: no one should ever have to convince the true Aragorn of who he is or what his destiny is. Good grief! (That 'good grief' is to PJ, not to you. )

I think the movies are more realistic. It certainly sounds heroic for Aragorn to suddenly appear a kingly figure when they pass by the Argonath. But that never happens in real life , in other words, we never turn around to find someone we know suddenly appearing tall and great and shining and heroic, and then the next moment they're just themselves again. So it makes Aragorn appear human when he simply taps Frodo on the shoulder and says "The Argonath."

But Aragorn is not pure human; he's The Dúnadan; the heir of the throne of Gondor; of Númenórean ancestry! Sections like this in the book, where Aragorn reveals himself, remind me of Christ's transfiguration, to a small extent (although I think I've mentioned this before ).

The others I can forgive, because otherwise Faramir etc. come across as not human and the power of the ring's temptation is severely undermined.

Same defence for Faramir. Sam said in the book that Faramir reminded him of "Gandalf, of wizards"! And Faramir's response was that possibly Sam discerned from far away the air of Númenor. (Love that line!) Faramir was of a strong and heroic caliber, which is why he said that not if he found [the Ring] on the highway would he take it! That is one strong character, sadly demeaned/lessened in the movie.

In a different vein, I can understand why you all feel differently (like someone stating that Viggo had a horrible line about never wanting the kingship). My stomach turned when I saw Frodo reject Sam, and that could also be taken as more "realistic". I didn't have much time to grow attached to the books before I saw the movies (like I actually did with Narnia), but the LotR characters are certainly much stronger in the books.

The term 'realistic' keeps coming up, but why does a formerly noble and heroic character have to be brought down to being 'realistic? Partly what endears folk to JRRT's epic tales is the fact that the most beloved characters rise above modern-day 'realism' and are true heroes, whom we long to emulate.

But I was just wondering, alot of time we focus on the negative, what were your most favorite parts of the books/movies?

True enough, Eru, which yet again proves our great love and loyalty for the original material. Why would anyone change this is beyond me? Anyway, good question and I'll get to the parts of the movies I love in another post (for I do love so much of them), as this post is already way too long ... again. But since I can't shut up, I will just say this though: I agree wholeheartedly with these parts that Mel loved, plus add to that the Lighting of the Beacons and the Dwarrowdelf scene. Of course, more than half of that love is the score that Shore put to these sections: absolutely brilliant!

FotR: Absolute total favorite ever, possibly in all three movies is when they introduce Strider at Bree. It is how I picture perfectly, Strider's feet on the table, hood up, smoking his pipe and his mud-stained boots. It's one of those parts that gives me goose-bumps it's so perfect.

Oh yes! Especially I like the part where we just see his attentive eyes lit up by the light of his glowing pipe.

I still think Frodo is much stronger in character in the book. The movies dramatized the personalities and thus made them weaker

Exactly!

Now, to Shadowlander's post: firstly, "Morgoth" was the name given to Melkor by Fëanor when he learned of the theft of the Silmarils and the murder of Finwë, his father.

As for the Balrogs, I've once again found Tolkien Gateway a help in this regard. *pause* And I see that as I've been writing this epistle, Phosphorus has said well what I am finding in my "Balrogic" readings, so I will leave it at that. *wouldn't be surprised if Phosphorus helped write the entry at T.G.*

*doesn't have time to proof-read everything so plucks up her courage and clicks "Submit"*

Lady Galadriel, a big welcome to NarniaWeb and I'm glad you're joining in the discussion.

Thanks! I've been meaning to get in on the fun for quite some time and just finally got around to it!

Yes, to be sure PJ changed the character arcs for dramatic tension, but the thing is this changed Tolkien's beloved and noble characters! What for? For a modern-day audience who doesn't even know what a true hero is? *calms herself down* And that's exactly one of the things that bothered me so much about Aragorn's change: no one should ever have to convince the true Aragorn of who he is or what his destiny is. Good grief! (That 'good grief' is to PJ, not to you. )

I do have a question...are you a book purist? Um, did I say that the added plot point of Aragorn's weakness carves the way for Arwen?

But Aragorn is not pure human; he's The Dúnadan; the heir of the throne of Gondor; of Númenórean ancestry! Sections like this in the book, where Aragorn reveals himself, remind me of Christ's transfiguration, to a small extent (although I think I've mentioned this before ).

Not pure human. I'm a little confused. Is a Dunadan something other than a human, like in the way that a Dwarf is not human or else subhuman? Or are you saying that because Aragorn is so heroic he is not just a mere human like us?

The term 'realistic' keeps coming up, but why does a formerly noble and heroic character have to be brought down to being 'realistic? Partly what endears folk to JRRT's epic tales is the fact that the most beloved characters rise above modern-day 'realism' and are true heroes, whom we long to emulate.

Frodo and Sam were normal folk, and they became heroes in the end. Isn't what really endears people to characters is if they find something in common with them? At least, that is how it is with me. If a character has no weakness at all, he/she is too much like God or something, if you catch my drift?

So do you want to see Aragorn turn into a blazing white figure when he sees the Argonath and suddenly become powerful? (I'm truly sorry if that's not how the book describes it; it's what it conjures up in my head.) I can see something like this happening with Elves, because they're not human. (*thinks of Arwen who is, yes, in the movie*)

The point I'm trying to make: Why watch a movie that has infallible characters? After all, it's obvious they're going to win.

NOTE: I'm writing frankly, but that's just because I'm in a hurry at the moment, so Please don't take anything wrong *gives a shudder*. As for Aragorn, I will research his book past more and maybe reread the books (Because I am still fairly new to Middle-Earth) because the movies are what I last saw, so they are more fresh in my mind than the books. (I read the books a year ago so they're more foggy in my mind than the movies I just saw a few months ago.) I would welcome hearing more of your opinion on the questions I've asked. I certainly understand that you have a much different point of view than I do!

BTW -- That Balrog stuff is quite interesting. I'm going to keep up with that because I never thought of any of those questions!

Aragorn was completely human, in a way; and he wasn't, all at the same time. He did have elven blood, because of his line, but I really don't think that made him any less human... and he was Númenórean, which did elevate him higher than a normal human, persay. He would live longer, he could foresee the future (b/c of his elven ancestors), he had the power of healing.. yes all these things. But I don't think that didn't make him *not* human, get what I mean? He may be what you can call an elite form of the race, but that didn't exempt him from normal human behavior or feelings.

I do think as well that that Elven blood does have effects you could say, like Tolkien writes in the book.

Aye, that's my two cents and I have run out of time to add a couple more. Maybe later.

Aragorn was completely human, in a way; and he wasn't, all at the same time. He did have elven blood, because of his line, but I really don't think that made him any less human...

Oh yes you're right! *smacks self on forehead* How in Middle-earth did I forget that? I can see an Elf turning all white and powerful!

He did have elven blood, because of his line

How in Middle-earth did I forget that? I can see an Elf turning all white and powerful!

Arwen and Aragorn are first cousins more than thirty times removed.

Thanks for the info on Balrogs Phos and Jo! I seem to recall in the Sil one battle where Morgoth deployed dozens of these things onto the field and casualties were grievous for both sides. For some reason I want to say it was Angmar, thereabouts.

Footnote...if any of you have seen the old Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings film (circa the late 1970's) in the battle between the Balrog and Gandalf the Balrog actually destroys Glamdring when their swords clash. Much as I like that version I found that to be beyond criminal.

Now as to your second question, the balrog might have been stirred by Sauron's increasing power, but probably was not under Sauron's command. Balrogs were technically creatures of Morgoth, not Sauron, and there is no canonical reference to balrogs being controlled by Sauron.

So the Balrog would be, more or less, Sauron's.....peer?