Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

just saw LOTR3

vansmack2000 said:
I got a question, the high army general who said he couldnt be killed by a man, yet a woman and a hobbit can??! Did i miss something or is it that simple?

Welcome to the world of fantasy. I'm not certain, from the books, of the type of magic used to make this possible, but in fantasy novels (or in a rpg such as D&D which I played for about 12 years), the exact wording of any type of contengency you place in a spell must be carefully selected. The powers that be often find it grealy amusing to twist the exact wording of your spell to make it useless, or even dangers to you. One of the reasons powerful magic is dangerous, as I was talking about in the previous post with Gandolf. When I used to run a D&D game, I've killed players because of poorly worded wish or contgengency spells.

vansmack2000 said:
I starting thinkin how they explain all the fighting in detail in the book, how many different ways can Orge #5211 swing his club and kill someone..hmmm

Orge #5211, was a specialized breed of ogres specially breed and trained for 93 generations in the slave pits of Mordor. He can swing his clubd and kill someone in 1728 different ways. This is considerably better than the averge ogre of course.
 
Ok... one last question... about the ring itself.

I thought it would give the bearer of the ring power? All it did was turn them invisible. Where was all the power? I mean, Gollum didn't really have any power despite having the ring all that time or else he would not have been so ugly and disfigured.

Still I think Gandalph should have used more magic. I mean, many many lives were lost because of his insistence of fighting with a sword.
 
AAP, only those with great power already can wield the ring. I got the impression from the novels that it more or less amplifies the power one already possesses. Of course only Sauron can use it to its fullest extent. It is more a less a keyed magic, tied to a specific individual. Bear in mind it does give ANYONE who uses it an exceptionally long life, and the power to turn invisiable. That has more potential than you realize. Also, had Bilbo not had it, they would not have slain the dragon in The Hobbit, although he did play a rather minor part.

As for Gandolf, me personally, I would have said to hell with it, used more magic and took the risk. However, Gandolf knew they were going to win anyway, and the manner of aid that was on the way, and chose not to risk himself. While Gandolf was of course on the side of good, he, like most powerful wizards, is of course somewhat self-serving, and not willing to risk himself for the sake of a few mortals. Gandolf almost fits the archtype of the dark hero.
 
Three things I didn't like was how they didn't explain why the Palantier was at the base of the tower( wyrmtongue threw it out of Sauramon's tower). The second was the way Denethor committed suicide, I think Jackson could have made it closer to the book by having him hold the Palantier while self immolating. The reason Denethor despaired was the palantier deceived him. Finally, I didn't like how the ghosts were portrayed as "scrubbing bubbles." In the book they were released after the defeat of the Corsairs and it was actually the southern armies that manned the black fleet but adding the defeat of the black fleet probably would have added another 10-20 minutes of movie time to explain it properly.

Was it just me or did the idea of a frontal charge against the oliphaunts was a stupid idea as opposed to a flanking maneuver. Likewise, in the book their only weakness was their eyes.

ROTK was the least faithful to Tolkien's trilogy but still a very well done movie.
 
I got a question, the high army general who said he couldnt be killed by a man, yet a woman and a hobbit can??! Did i miss something or is it that simple?

It really is that simple. One of the underlying themes of the story is that the "smallest person" can change the world. In this instance, a woman who was not allowed to fight was the only warrior who could defeat such a mighty opponent.
 
Someone tell me what the "message" was that the red haired dude was going to deliver by riding across the field with about 30 men to face a city full of enemies? WTF was he thinking? Why did he do this?

1. He did it to win his father's love and prove he was equal to his brother.

2. It was about fulfilling his obligation to his lord and following orders regardless of the forseen outcome. Tolkien fought in WWI and that can be seen throughout the story. This could be compared to the suicidal frontal assaults against trenches defended by machine guns. You also see the strong bonds created by shared adversity which comes directly from his WWI experiences.
 
JavaGuru said:
Three things I didn't like was how they didn't explain why the Palantier was at the base of the tower( wyrmtongue threw it out of Sauramon's tower). The second was the way Denethor committed suicide, I think Jackson could have made it closer to the book by having him hold the Palantier while self immolating. The reason Denethor despaired was the palantier deceived him. Finally, I didn't like how the ghosts were portrayed as "scrubbing bubbles." In the book they were released after the defeat of the Corsairs and it was actually the southern armies that manned the black fleet but adding the defeat of the black fleet probably would have added another 10-20 minutes of movie time to explain it properly.

Was it just me or did the idea of a frontal charge against the oliphaunts was a stupid idea as opposed to a flanking maneuver. Likewise, in the book their only weakness was their eyes.

ROTK was the least faithful to Tolkien's trilogy but still a very well done movie.


Christopher Lee refused to appear at the premieres of ROTK because he's not in it. The scene with Saruman fighting Grima was cut out because of time concerns. It will be on the extended dvd next year.
 
Top Bottom