av_nefardec
-
Posts
4.772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by av_nefardec
-
-
Well the primary reason they haven't been put up yet is that not all of them are in such a state that we can release publicly. For instance, somethings are just temporary or preliminary versions of others that we need to finalize and solidify so that we don't have to later change it and confuse the casual fan.
-
Sorry there's not going to be a next time
But this is relatively short compared to the books, no?
-
Would you truly be happier without ME being made into a movie? Or a game? or a illustration?
Well not happier without the movie, but I'm not much happier with the movie. I'm very dissapointed in the games so far, as they portray a limited view of his writing. I think even though it's impossible to be "pure" we need to always strive towards it. And with the great majority of illustrations, they're for the most part quite rooted in the literature. There are some, though, that really mess things up, and I have little love for the thought that went into that process, but if I analyze and judge it as a piece of art by itself, and it's more than satisfactory, then often that overcomes the purism problem.
So the producers/creators of Braveheart, Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Jurrasic Park and about every movie that's based on history or a book ever made is arrogant and wrong.Well nothing is black and white, right or wrong - and in this case, the LotR movies are just more wrong than others. But yes, I would argue that there were several things done for Braveheart and Jurassic Park that were bordering on arrogance.
This doesn't limit itself to LotR movies - I am a staunch opponent of anything that promotes mass-conformity.
But I think you're overestimating my particular beliefs here.
I LIkE the movies, and even though it is a bit arrogant of the producers to change something that was perfectly written by Tolkien, nothing is completely perfect and things like this must be tolerated and you have to move on and focus on the good things. Forgive - but never forget is usually my way of thinking. I look at the movies as original artwork AND as an adaptation of Tolkien's work.
They are truly remarkable movies, in scope, ambition, and in execution.
They are also pretty good adaptations, and the extended versions have all been better IMO.
But some things are just inexcusable from the purist standpoint, and a lot of these things I don't think really made the movie better, because I have such a vivid mental projection of the books already.
Truthfully, though, this is just my opinion, and it has to do with my ideology on a lot of other things - there's no reason to try and "persuade" me one way or another
. That's not what this is about - I just wanted to make a point, you can take it or leave it. -
Ahh! Finduilas! *hits his head on desk*
@Black Op - Aldarion the Mariner
(one of my favorite Unfinished Tale too!
)What are the names of the seven original locations of the palantiri?
-
Yep, that's what I was looking for -
Wife of Denethor II ...
hmm I can't recall
I'm going to have to rack my brain for this one (or perhaps even check the books ) -
You're missing the point of my posts.
As a game, we HAVE to add things that aren't explicitly described in the books.
But if there is something that is explicitly described in the books, then we don't CHANGE it.
So Quellion's Hunting Lodge, for example, is necessary and proper because Tolkien tells us that dwarves lived deep under the mountains, so they couldn't farm. So it's a reasonable inference to create the dwarven hunting lodge, because it's rooted in the books. We're not changing anything Tolkien wrote because of this.
But the movie, on the other hand, takes what Tolkien wrote and TWISTS it for commercial purposes! Take, for example Faramir's character and Osgiliath in the movie. Had the hobbits actually gone to Osgiliath in the book, they would have been 2 or more days too late to destroy the ring. Eomer's absence from helm's deep and subsequent substitution for Erkenbrand also are guilty of this. And I don't even have to mention the army of the Galadhrim being added to helm's deep - which is never even hinted at in the text, and we know that during the time of Helm's deep, Celeborn, Galadriel, and their army of Galadhrim was siegeing Dol Guldur, not defending helm's deep. That's inexcusable.
And all that I am saying is that these sorts of blatant changes are irreconcilable and can be attributed to the greed and arrogance of the producers at new line cinema.
Now, on the other hand, lots of additions or deletions in the movies were very reasonable. Take for example, the deletion of Tom Bombadil. Though he can be attributed to the success of the quest of mt. doom, he's an anomaly in Tolkien's world, as Tolkien noted himself in a letter to Naomi Mitchison in 1954. Similarly, things like the massive damage effect done by Sauron in the prologue to the first movie are excusable, because the might of Sauron is hinted at in the text. Also, the specific details of the armor, environment, weapons, architecture, etc, even if a lot of it wasn't specifically described in the book was BASED on the book and rooted in the text, so it has merit.
It's things that they deliberately change contrary to Tolkien's writing that are wrong, and that's all I am saying.
-
@Black_Op - And the other two names I was looking for were Silpion and Malinalda.
@Aldaron - Ahh, I was wondering what that 2 was there for
Thought you meant "Secondly, who was the king of Nargothrond" or something.Answer to your latest - Angmar.
What were the three divisions of Arnor?
-
Carboxyl
-
Just make sure not to advertise TLA as a game
As a Tolkien fan community is fine, though.
-
If you say adding things to the movie and taking them out is bad just to please an audience or make them more entertaining, then isn't this whole game doing the same thing?
No, we do not CHANGE things from the books. That is where the movies are wrong.
As a game, we must add and remove things but the things we add are based on the text, and the things we remove are relatively unimportant or physical impossibilities.
But what IS in the game is pure tolkien. We change nothing from what it says in the books. This is where the movies are different than TLA and also where they are wrong.
Coexist = "To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place; To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy: ?recognize and accept, as every President in the nuclear age has, that this means coexisting with the Soviet Union? (McGeorge Bundy)."Yes, the movies do not live in peace with one another - hence this discussion.
@Black_Op - My point is not that the movies aren't good. That's not what I care about, they are good movies. The problem is that the producers CHANGED things directly stated in the book, and confused a generation of fans just for their personal profit! That's arrogant and wrong IMO.
-
Why, good ol' Finrod Felagund, of course.
Give two different names for each of the two trees of valinor.
-
Yes, and some units will also gain new skills as they gain levels.
-
medius
-
No they can't "coexist" - the book exists OVER the movie at all times. It's not like they are equal.
It's only an interpretation you say - but is changing faramir's character an interpretation? Is adding elves at helm's deep an interpretation? No - it's just plain wrong.
And that's arrogance, IMO.
-
Tol Brandir
@Black_Op - you got 2 of the 3 correct. Eomer was the Marshal of the Eastmark, becoming so at 26 years old.
What does Felagund mean, and what language is it?
-
Hey, thanks for reposting this.
I do remember your corrections, but the only image I could find was the one I posted.
*downloads this one*
Frumpus is currently working on a massive geneaology project, so you'll see something more impressive when that's done.
But I recall no passage detailing the specific race of Elenwë - do you know where I could find it?
-
it's just that Tolkien didn't necessarily know how to write a movie.
But what existed first, the movie or the books?
The books are what is important here.
It's not like Tolkien had to write the books with a movie in mind, and he certainly didn't. So it is arrogant then for the movies to have the attitude that the book needs to be "fixed" or something to fit it for a form that it wasn't originally meant to be fit into.
-
Well maybe Gothmog could take Sauron, but you have to remember Sauron was Morgoth's second-in-command, and for a reason.
Besides that Sauron had a virtual army at his command.
Sauron did not control the Balrog of Moria. The balrog of moria, like Sauron, was ultimately controlled by Morgoth and the "original" evil.
-
1 - TLA has it.
2 - TLA has it.
3 - The team considers it grass "Fluff", but trees and forests can hide units (as well as some buildings)
4 - Yeah, we are discussing more multiplayer modes in this thread.
I never claimed you were 'copying' empires, I just wanted to point out that what might be a good idea for that game might not be a good idea for TLA, because we are adapting a body of literature here.
-
Basing it upon that if everyone wanted me dead for no reason they could take my right to life away.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
And luckily, that day is far away because the constitution like you said, is filled with checks and balances that limit the powers of the government and stop it from growing out of control (well that's debatable these days
).I'm not saying it's right or wrong that the government has this power to create things like welfare, I'm just saying it's perfectly valid in terms of the constitution.
-
Just letting you guys know that with this post, we are at 2073 posts on the TLA forums!
That's a third of the posts we had on the old forums, but in much less of the time it took to get 2073 posts on the old forums!
So great job guys, thanks for making these forums into a community.
-
waning
-
Could I also not say that it is not my general welfare and happiness to have my money used for others when I would prefer to discern who it goes to if at all???
Well YOU as an individual are but a 1/280000000th of the general welfare. Just because it is you that is unhappy does not mean that the general public is unhappy.
The more people we have as a whole that can contribute to society strongly makes the country's economy as a whole stronger.
-
Well it was OK for me - I read it at seven years of age.
In Tolkien's letters, it's stated that the Hobbit was read to nursery children
But the movie wouldn't have to be childish - I was just saying that the complexity level of the story is low enough to be made into a pretty good action movie.
LOTR Movie Based Designs?
in General TLA Discussion
Posted
The beard was actually pretty accurate to the book.
I think they made him look a bit too much like a tree though, and as a result you get a lot of casual fans thinking that ents ARE trees, etc.
In the book, Tolkien describes treebeard has having smooth brown skin on his arms (and seven toes!
), and he describes the skin on the rest of the body as being similar to bark, but not the actual stuff.
In the book, unlike in the movie, Merry and Pippin do not mistake him for a tree by climbing him or anything. I think Tolkien meant the ents more as giants that have tree like features, than as trees who have giant like features. I mean, "ent" means "giant" in Anglo-Saxon, of which Tolkien was a professor of
But the beard looked great