Gandalf is an asshole.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Green Scar said:
Well wasn't Gimli basically comic relief in the films? :lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, which was sort of a bummer for me
I totally understand why they did it and it was a good adaptation I suppose, but I really liked Gimly in the books
 
elrechazao said:
Although judging by this thread, some who read it might just come up with "why didn't earendil just fly teh ring to mount doom in his spaceship lolz!? after reading it...
Click to expand...


:lol :lol That made my day.
 
EmCeeGramr said:
Well, he could walk out of his tower and kill you.

Since multiple characters in the books refer the idea of Sauron traveling to places, Gollum talks about seeing his hand with a missing finger, and he took on the form of the Necromancer in Mirkwood.

The eye was a magical symbol, not Sauron's form.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the movies, not the book; I do not remember if it was ever implied that Sauron was more than just the eye in the movies, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

Staccat0 said:
I always felt that Legolas in the films kind of made Aragorn and Gimly look like chumps in comparison. Sort of bugged me back in the day.
Click to expand...
This bothered me too, Legolas is ridiculous compared to everyone else, including all the other elves.
 
legolas_l.jpg
 
fireside said:
I'm talking about the movies, not the book; I do not remember if it was ever implied that Sauron was more than just the eye in the movies, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they ignored that in the movies and decided to make the Eye the actual form of Sauron. They even added a line for Saruman about how Sauron wasn't able to take physical form (which contradicts some of Tolkien's writings and I believe some lines in the books which specifically say that he had regained form/shape in Mirkwood).

Jackson either actually thought that the Eye was Sauron's form, or that it was just cooler and less confusing to audiences. Especially since the books are rather vague on whether or not a physical "eye" is actually floating above Bara-dur or if it's a just a metaphor for Sauron's power and attention.

It was a way of "showing" Sauron to movie audiences who would have wanted to see him, I guess. Even though one of most important aspects of Sauron's character is that despite being the one the books are named after, The Lord of the Rings himself, he never directly appears but instead acts through influence and making his presence felt.
 
CassSept said:
Actually New Testament would kinda make less sense after reading Old Testament, because God suddenly changes from bloodthirsty almighty being that punishes everything against him to loving treehugger telling you to turn the other cheek.
Tolkien is at least consistent with his works.
Click to expand...

The only thing that changes between the two testaments is the timing and whose being addressed. One was present judgement, the other future judgement. God is plenty bloodthirsty (If that what you want to call it) in New Testament.

Jangaroo said:
Gimli got the best lines in the film.
Click to expand...

I was actually surprised that in the movie copied the book in their little killing contest.

Although not the funniest lines, I think Gandalf has the best ones.
 
Gandalf was pretty manipulative. Look at the Hobbit - he sends the group of Dwarves + Bilbo into terrible danger and says "very amusing for me, very profitable for you, if you ever get over it".

So, he basically sets events into motion because he finds it funny to meddle with mortals.

The bastard!
 
EmCeeGramr said:
Jackson either actually thought that the Eye was Sauron's form, or that it was just cooler and less confusing to audiences. Especially since the books are rather vague on whether or not a physical "eye" is actually floating above Bara-dur or if it's a just a metaphor for Sauron's power and attention.
Click to expand...
Jackson mentions somewhere in all the making of/commentaries that he knew it was mainly meant as a metaphor, but they needed to be a physical thing to work in the movie. There are a number of elements in the books that don't have a clear visual representation that they struggled with, like the seeing stones, the ring world, the wraiths, etc.

Yeah, Gandalf is a total dick, but I think it's mainly because he isn't human, and is operating from a different perspective no matter how much he might like humans/hobbits/etc.
 
Snaku said:
That's right, Gandalf Stormcrow is an asshole. He sent an innocent bright-eyed hobbit on a perilous journey that ultimately cost the poor bastard its life. For what? He could have sent Frodo & the Ring on an eagle(s) and ended the threat of Sauron in a matter of days. So what was the point of dragging it out?

Oh.

He's just another contemptible charlatan using the poor and ignorant for political gain.

Laugh it up asshole.
Click to expand...
f44ubt.jpg
 
Aaron said:
Yeah, Gandalf is a total dick, but I think it's mainly because he isn't human, and is operating from a different perspective no matter how much he might like humans/hobbits/etc.
Click to expand...

From Saruman's perspective, he wasn't a big enough jerk. Gandalf was an old softie apparently in wizard terms!
 
If Jackson had made it so that Sauron had a physical form sitting in Barad-Dur, the audience would have bitched when he never showed up during RotK.
 
WTF, the Nazgul would have eaten the eagles for lunch in a prolonged fight. The eagles were barely able to hold their own for a short time. This is a pretty bullshit argument.
 
Rekubot said:
If Jackson had made it so that Sauron had a physical form sitting in Barad-Dur, the audience would have bitched when he never showed up during RotK.
Click to expand...

Originally, Sauron was supposed to be the troll that fought with Aragorn, but they changed it when they didn't give him a physical form. He was in his Annatar (Lord of Gifts) form.

Annatar.jpg
 
John Dunbar said:
Originally, Sauron was supposed to be the troll that fought with Aragorn, but they changed it when they didn't give him a physical form. He was in his Annatar (Lord of Gifts) form.

Annatar.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought they actually filmed Aragorn fighting Sauron in his armor from the beginning of the trilogy and then digitally inserted the troll instead in editing.
 
DrForester said:
I thought they actually filmed Aragorn fighting Sauron in his armor from the beginning of the trilogy and then digitally inserted the troll instead in editing.
Click to expand...

Oops, you're right. Annatar wasn't actually used.
 
JGS said:
From Saruman's perspective, he wasn't a big enough jerk. Gandalf was an old softie apparently in wizard terms!
Click to expand...
I feel that Saruman's mistake was actually he became too human, with his vanity striving against his jealousy of humans in their ability to create life. Same sort of complex you see in movies with angels falling from grace.
 
Yeah he looks like the kind of guy who'd say "You shall not pass" while standing in front of the only bathroom for 100 miles
 
movie_club said:
So I have never read tolkien. Do i start with the hobbit or similarion?
Click to expand...
Hobbit > lotr > silmarillion

That's the order you should read them imo, not the order of how good they are. Silmarillion is my favorite, but it's not for everyone.
 
movie_club said:
So I have never read tolkien. Do i start with the hobbit or similarion?
Click to expand...

Hobbit -> LoTR -> Silmarillion, at least that's how I did it. You could argue reading The Hobbit later but I think the Silmarillion should definitely be read after LoTR.

Aaron said:
Jackson mentions somewhere in all the making of/commentaries that he knew it was mainly meant as a metaphor, but they needed to be a physical thing to work in the movie. There are a number of elements in the books that don't have a clear visual representation that they struggled with, like the seeing stones, the ring world, the wraiths, etc.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I thought I read that he (or another writer) eventually admitted that the design stemmed from a misunderstanding of the book.
 
Puddles said:
WTF, the Nazgul would have eaten the eagles for lunch in a prolonged fight. The eagles were barely able to hold their own for a short time. This is a pretty bullshit argument.
Click to expand...

IIRC, in the books they were a bit smaller than the flying mounts, but more numerous. I think they held their own, too.
 
Iv recently just started to read the fellowship of the ring, im not very far into it at all. Would anyone recomend stopping to read The Hobbit first if i can find it or should i just carry on without. It was my intention to read The Hobbit at some point, but was going to read the LOTR first just bacuse i already have them.
 
baylon452 said:
Iv recently just started to read the fellowship of the ring, im not very far into it at all. Would anyone recomend stopping to read The Hobbit first if i can find it or should i just carry on without. It was my intention to read The Hobbit at some point, but was going to read the LOTR first just bacuse i already have them.
Click to expand...


I don't think it really matters much. Just try to get through the fist half of Fellowship, which is one of the most boring things I have ever read, then it gets good.
 
It doesn't matter whether you read Hobbit or LotR first. Though preferable way is Hobbit -> LotR, there isn't really that much of a difference.
However, you should definitely read at least LotR before delving into Silmarillion.
 
DrForester said:
I don't think it really matters much. Just try to get through the fist half of Fellowship, which is one of the most boring things I have ever read, then it gets good.
Click to expand...

Oh i know about the Fellowship. This must be my 5th time of trying to read it over the years. Im determined to stick with it one day though :lol
 
movie_club said:
So I have never read tolkien. Do i start with the hobbit or similarion?
Click to expand...
If you never want to actually get into the books, start with the Similarion. It's very dry reading.

The Hobbit's the easiest to get into. Follow that with the LotR novels. Then if you feel sufficiently nerdy, go for the Similarion after that.
 
industrian said:
I've still not seen the full trilogy yet.
Click to expand...
I've only seen the first one. I should get back to the rest sometime, though I'm waiting for the Bluray set with the extras
 
Jexhius said:
As people have pointed out, the Eagles would be toast. But that isn't the main problem with them. In the movies, we've never seen them before, they literally appear out of nowhere to save the day in a Deus Ex Machina fashion.
Click to expand...


The eagles are introduced in the Hobbit as are plainly both unpredictable and distrusting of people and Hobbits. They behave according to their own whims and can't be predicted or ordered around.

They're giant magical Eagles, not policemen.
 
DrForester said:
I thought they actually filmed Aragorn fighting Sauron in his armor from the beginning of the trilogy and then digitally inserted the troll instead in editing.
Click to expand...
Why the heck did they do away with such a potentially epic scene? D:
 
Shanadeus said:
Meh, it'd make the movie more enjoyable and epic.
Click to expand...
It would have been ridiculous.

"Hay I've got them all surrounded and shit, I think I'll stroll out there and have a leisurely sword fight"??
 
Shanadeus said:
Meh, it'd make the movie more enjoyable and epic.
Click to expand...

No, it would have crammed an unnecessary "Hollywood" moment into an already epic movie. I mean, if we can't call a 9-10 hour long movie experience with an entire war, elves, dragons, undead spirits, magic rings, wizards and war-fighting oliphants "epic" than I'm afraid the word has lost all meaning...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ian McKellen has been asked to return as Gandalf in Serkis' The Search for Gollum
48
2K
AJUMP23 replied
Is time literally moving faster or is it an age thing?
2
75
3K
MastAndo replied
Is it worth buying an A.I.?
6
523
Mihos replied
Debate, Is Dragon Ball Z an RPG adapted to television?
26
1K
CoreyFlawless replied
Where Is James Bond? Trapped in an Ugly Stalemate With Amazon
2
94
5K
Tams replied
Top Bottom