Oh no hes gone for a cheasy ending (spoilers)

[Ruinel]

Why thank you...

I'm thinking Aragorn could come out blazing like this...
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies...sfiring_v1.gif
And I'm trying to work something like this into the last movie, but I'm not sure if it will be Grima or Saruman...
[edited]

[azalea]

Ruinel: Please stop spamming and putting inappropriately violent content in your posts. I have had to edit several of them.

Everyone: The subject is Speculation about the spoiler posted by Sween. Stay on topic, please.

[Sween]

Originally posted by azalea
Ruinel: Please stop spamming and putting inappropriately violent content in your posts. I have had to edit several of them.

Everyone: The subject is Speculation about the spoiler posted by Sween. Stay on topic, please.

people that take my threads off topic deserve to be........well would say killed but im a peace loving man at heart so ill just say get a smacked bottom.

Right bk on topic. How can this be true i mean no one thats read the books could possiably think this is a good idea

[Ruinel]

Sorry... I thought we were providing productive suggestions to enhance and improve the ending of Tolkien's work to submit to PJ.




Ok, not really. I'm being a sarcastic {Old English: bicce}, b/c I was ticked off. I admit it!
(Seriously, though, I didn't think they were that violent. )


Sween: in answer to your question. Obviously, he has read the books and dismissed them.

[Wayfarer]

It's been expressed here by Ruinel that Sauron would never appear on the battlefield himself. Oh really? Gee, how was it that Isildur came by the ring in the first place? I can hear the response now, "b-b-but Sauron woulda learned his lesson from THAT war and would never, ever, ever show up on a battlefield again." Seems to me that without a ring to cut off his finger, he would feel pretty indestructable. Also, if the ring WAS going to be on the battlefield, seems to me that Sauron would be no different than Gollum, he'd want to be there to claim it himself after its wearer was killed.

Am I the only person that finds it appearant that BB is nothing but a poseur? He obviously has such a limited understaning of Tolkien that I find myself wondering what he's doing on this forum, and and on the very verge of deciding his posts aren't worth replying to.

That said.

Sauron was a manipulator. He was a manuverer. He was a strategist. A chessplayer, a puppetmaster.
He was a coward.

Never once did he willingly engage in open combat himself. He faced Felagund, but only to strip the company of their disguise, and then when he had them surrounded by an entire fortress of orcs and werewolves. He sent every wolf on the island, from least to greatest, to die at huan's jaws before he faced the hound of valinor himself, was defeated, and surrendered. When the Valar came, he surrendered again, and then fled. When Ar-Pharazon came to wrest middle earth from his grasp, and his armies fled, Sauron surrendered and worked to manipulate things back to his advantage. At the last alliance of elves and men, he waited seven years, seven long years while his armies were slaughtered, until he had no hope left, and even then he did not fight himself until his enemies had come to his very door and had no choice.

Think about it.

Seems to me that without a ring to cut off his finger, he would feel pretty indestructable.

Now. Is this, or is this not, the height of stupidity, folks? Come on, Breathalizer, even someone as obviously halfwitted as you. No, scratch that, because I like the halfwits, even someone as obviously dimwitted as you should be able to grasp the simple fact that Sauron Lost Most of His Power With the Ring. There. One sentance, with nice, small words that you can understand. Want me to say it again?

Sauron was never powerful or strong on the battlefield. He was wise, yes, and crafty, a necromancer who had undead warriors to fight for him. He didn't need to fight.
With the loss of the ring, and so much of his power divested in the control of his forces, the dark lord was personally weaker at this time in history than any time before. He would NOT face the enemy that he feared himself.

[Edited to remove speculation on Breathalizer's heritage, mental health, education, and possible conjugal relationship with Peter Jackson]

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Am I the only person that finds it appearant that BB is nothing but a poseur?

The only reason you are asking this is because you didn't wade through the posts that ran off on tangents (ok, spams, I'm bad about that, sorry!).

Sauron was a manipulator. He was a manuverer. He was a strategist. A chessplayer, a puppetmaster.
He was a coward.

Sing it brother!

[Edited to remove speculation on Breathalizer's heritage, mental health, education, and possible conjugal relationship with Peter Jackson]

I said that too... but I got a whoopin' for it.

[Elfhelm]

I have no guess as to why BB would defend a possible decision by Jackson. I was pretty surprised to see him jump in on the thread. He must be preparing his case for the entire next year and a half of argument. It's like he takes delight in mocking other members. The worst thing to do is play his game.

I can say, without stuttering (which is a politically incorrect insult to all people with speech impediments), and without repeatedly saying "very", that Sauron does not belong on the battlefield. He's the sort of leader who would fly down to the battlefield after the combat to gloat, all decked out like a real soldier. But during confrontations he stays in his dark little hidingplace scowling and talking tough.

[Wayfarer]

]:-D

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by azalea
Ruinel: Please stop spamming and putting inappropriately violent content in your posts. I have had to edit several of them.

Everyone: The subject is Speculation about the spoiler posted by Sween. Stay on topic, please.

Ok. I'm going to explain why I went so far off, but it really was on topic. I had a point to make.

First, BB is claiming that these endings that have been rumored are 'improvements' to Tolkien's story. Something I find quite offensive. BB has belittled and name called those he calls 'purists'. Yet, no one edits his posts. I'm not complaining because I am quite capable of taking care of myself. I can certainly give it back if he can dish it out. All the posts I made with changes to Tolkien's story are there to make a point.

That point is this: the writer has a vision; he/she tells a story. If you take on a classic work, such as LotR, you should not alter it's fundamental core story and characters. By making these alterations and not holding true to the story, whether or not your intentions are good or not, you ruin it! And all you have that resembles the real story (the book) is a title, and the names of the characters and places! CASE CLOSED!!!!

And just for the record, my butt is sore from being the only one gettin' spanked in this thread. hint, hint!!!!!!

This spoiler is for azalea. Please do not read it Lizra, you will be offended, guaranteed. Anyone else is free to read at your own risk!:

BTW: I can't believe you edited the story about Aragorn blowing Sauron's teeth out of the back of his skull with two .45's. That was pure art!

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Well, I tend to be on the fence on this issue. I agree on one hand that the evil of Sauron was at its scariest best when it was only insinuated, not actually present. As we all know, in the LOTR trilogy, he never makes an appearance, unless you count the Palantir and the shadow or specter of him at the end when the ring is destroyed.

However, in the movie, I think the fact that they actually showed him in the Last Alliance locked them in to having to show him in the conclusion. It would just seem odd if you never saw him again. I just hope they do it with some style and class. I was happy with the prologue, so I'll be optimistic and say it will be good, if this rumor is really true.

I think we must remember that it is far easier to insinuate things in a book than it is in a movie. It is very easy for us armchair critics to take shots, but another story altogether to actually make a complete trilogy of movies.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
However, in the movie, I think the fact that they actually showed him in the Last Alliance locked them in to having to show him in the conclusion. It would just seem odd if you never saw him again. I just hope they do it with some style and class. I was happy with the prologue, so I'll be optimistic and say it will be good, if this rumor is really true.

I have to disagree. PJ is not locked into showing Sauron.

As I stated earlier, it was ok to show him in the war that ended the second age. He had the Ruling Ring (a.k.a. the One Ring). The battle lasted for 7 years not days, not months... years. Sauron does not show himself until he is pressed to it by the advancements of Gil-galad and Elendil. Had they not gotten that far, surely Sauron would have been happy to sit back and have his battle plan played out by others, for as long as it took and for as many lives as it took. As long as his was safely tucked away behind his fortress walls.

He's not the type, as has also been pointed out by others, to don his armour and ride out with the troops at the beginning of the battle. He is a coward. The worst type of evil. And furthermore, he does not have his full power: he still does not have the One Ring! It is not in his character to risk himself in battle unless he has no choice.

Example: Hitler. I don't recall any battles in which he lead his troops against the Allies. Anyone? Anyone? I'm not a history buff, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dreran the Green]

I'm pretty sure he didn't. We have been studying the Holocaust for countless months and my teacher is OBSESSED with history. Like, REALLY obsessed.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Ruinel:

I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly regarding the nature of Sauron. But we have already departed from the books forever, unfortunately.

You have swayed me a little. Now, I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing. I'll have to think about it for a while.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I think we must remember that it is far easier to insinuate things in a book than it is in a movie. It is very easy for us armchair critics to take shots, but another story altogether to actually make a complete trilogy of movies.

Agreed, that it is difficult to bring a book like LotR to the big screen. And agreed, that it is easier to sit back and criticise. And agreed that the movie as beautiful cinematography and impressive props, etc., etc.....

My beef here is not that PJ did his best, for we can see that his heart was in the wrong place. It was that there are too many changes that were done to appeal to a target audience. It would have been better for him to have stayed true to Tolkien's works and have faith that his movie would have been a success, not turn his loyalty to Hollywood.

And my second beef is with BB for saying that PJ improved upon Tolkien! For that, I can never forgive his insolence!!!! With BB, war we shall have and hatred undying!!!

Originally posted by Balrog of Morgoth
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly regarding the nature of Sauron.

One down.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
My beef here is not that PJ did his best, for we can see that his heart was in the wrong place. It was that there are too many changes that were done to appeal to a target audience. It would have been better for him to have stayed true to Tolkien's works and have faith that his movie would have been a success, not turn his loyalty to Hollywood.

How in the world can you say Peter Jackson's heart was in the wrong place? Have you ever listened to any PJ interviews? Have you listened to his DVD narrative? Do you know ANYTHING about Peter Jackson?!?!?

People quickly forget that in 1998 it was felt that LOTR was "The Unmakeable Movie." The conventional wisdom was that the story was too long, the details too complex, the characters too "hokey", and the action too plodding for commerical -- let alone critical -- success. As a huge LOTR fan, I read about this project with a high degree of skepticism. I didn't see how in the world PJ could do anything but disappoint all Tolkien fans as Bakshi had done years earlier.

The reality is that film making is an art AND a big business. A set of films that gave you the visual treat of Gandalf versus the Balrog costs a lot of money. 280 million to be exact. Look at the situation Jackson faced. The fate of an entire movie studio rested on his shoulders. It could be argued that he had more riding on his shoulders than any director in film history.

Now that the film series has achieved Star Wars-like cult status, it's easy to say, "oh PJ should have followed the books more literally." It's bold of you to sit in your ivory Tolkien towers and ignore the facts for your own selfish interests.

The reality is that Jackson has pulled off a modern film miracle and gave Tolkien fans everywhere more than most (except perhaps for the most selfish and niave) could have ever hoped to see on film.

[Cirdan]

If you believe that conventional wisdom was that the characters were too hokey, then I can only conclude that "huge Tolkien fan" could only mean you are morbidly obese.

It is the fact that PJ proved he was able to bring the story to the screen in many scenes that makes the pointless or pandering changwes all the more irritating. If he had completely bungled the job then the details or the original story wouldn't matter much. Many of the minor changes do make the film work. Others are just cynical marketing, change for the sake of change, or adding a personal touch that is, at times, incompatible with the source material. Tolkien fans(even regular sized ones) have waited years for this and know it will not be done again for a very long time, if ever, so let them have their disappointments.

I'm wondering if there is a change so abominable that you wouldn't defend it, just for the sport of it. PJ is not above reproach just because of the magnitude of the work he has done and the success he has had. It's not valid to say, it's a perfect work becasue he worked hard and made lots of money.

I like the movies but my enthusiasm wains as the story deviates more from the fantasy aspect of the tale toward the action and adventure aspect.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The reality is that film making is an art AND a big business.

And a big business it is... and that is where PJ's heart is. And rightfully so. After all... would he ever work again in glitter city if he didn't fully submit himself to Hollywood's whims as well as demands? No, he would not. And you said it, not me....

It's bold of you to sit in your ivory Tolkien towers and ignore the facts for your own selfish interests.

I have no selfish interests. I have nothing to gain or lose. Your post is flaming.

And now, you're just boring the crap out of me. bub-bye.

[Cirdan]

Oscar Wilde once said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about", but then OW never met BB.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Never once did he willingly engage in open combat himself. He faced Felagund, but only to strip the company of their disguise, and then when he had them surrounded by an entire fortress of orcs and werewolves. He sent every wolf on the island, from least to greatest, to die at huan's jaws before he faced the hound of valinor himself, was defeated, and surrendered. When the Valar came, he surrendered again, and then fled. When Ar-Pharazon came to wrest middle earth from his grasp, and his armies fled, Sauron surrendered and worked to manipulate things back to his advantage. At the last alliance of elves and men, he waited seven years, seven long years while his armies were slaughtered, until he had no hope left, and even then he did not fight himself until his enemies had come to his very door and had no choice.

Y'know, Sauron's starting to sound like someone from history...

[b]No, scratch that, because I like the halfwits, even someone as obviously dimwitted as you should be able to grasp the simple fact that Sauron Lost Most of His Power With the Ring.

Hey! I'M dimwitted! -points to title! Are you implying I'm related to BB?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
How in the world can you say Peter Jackson's heart was in the wrong place? Have you ever listened to any PJ interviews? Have you listened to his DVD narrative? Do you know ANYTHING about Peter Jackson?!?!?

People quickly forget that in 1998 it was felt that LOTR was "The Unmakeable Movie." The conventional wisdom was that the story was too long, the details too complex, the characters too "hokey", and the action too plodding for commerical -- let alone critical -- success. As a huge LOTR fan, I read about this project with a high degree of skepticism. I didn't see how in the world PJ could do anything but disappoint all Tolkien fans as Bakshi had done years earlier.

The reality is that film making is an art AND a big business. A set of films that gave you the visual treat of Gandalf versus the Balrog costs a lot of money. 280 million to be exact. Look at the situation Jackson faced. The fate of an entire movie studio rested on his shoulders. It could be argued that he had more riding on his shoulders than any director in film history.

Now that the film series has achieved Star Wars-like cult status, it's easy to say, "oh PJ should have followed the books more literally." It's bold of you to sit in your ivory Tolkien towers and ignore the facts for your own selfish interests.

The reality is that Jackson has pulled off a modern film miracle and gave Tolkien fans everywhere more than most (except perhaps for the most selfish and niave) could have ever hoped to see on film.

-shakes head- You are really laughable.

I'm wondering if there is a change so abominable that you wouldn't defend it, just for the sport of it.

He said he would turn against PJ if Arwen killed the Witch-king. I'm beginning to strongly doubt it, though...