The Writing on the Ring

[Foe-Hammer]

Another change. I hate mentioning it because there are those that will fixate on it and we'll have never ending threads on the subject.

When Frodo got the ring out of the trunk, Gandalfs seal was unbroken, meaning Frodo never used the ring. In the book, Frodo used the ring many times in that 17 years.

[Greenleaf]

I'm not sure if I would be considered a “purest”, but I did feel that delaying the appearance of the righting was very effective, it kept the audience on the edge of their seats, and although it may not have been true to the book, it definitely added to the movie. I must admit (to my shame) that I didn’t note the unbroken seal. I think it probably slipped by most people unnoticed since Frodo’s use of the ring in Gandalf’s absence was not addressed.

[Greymantle]

"I invite the purists to respond as to whether even in these minor cases, e.g. the delay in the writing appearance on the ring--not mentioned in the book--but very dramatic in the movie, was worthwhile."

I'm afraid that, as always, I go with #1. Not all the purists automatically disagree with every unnecessary change, but I do.
Beyond that, I do have a reasoning, in this case. The delay in the appearance of the writing, while dramatically effective, contributes further to the alteration of Gandalf's character. Throughout the movie we see more emotion and thought in him than are not easily apparent in the book. His thought process is very visible in a way it is not in the books-- we see him considering things at Bag End, for example. Furthermore, decisions are continually made for him (i.e. Elrond in Rivendell, Frodo at the Gates of Moria); in the books, it is truly Gandalf who is the mover of events.
Gandalf does want to be sure of the Ring by putting it in fire, that much we know from the Council of Elrond. However, at Bag End, he is true Mithrandir-- apparently all-wise and completely self-assured. The delay in the wording makes Gandalf doubt-- visibly. We see him worried and concerned in a way that is not very much in line with his character. If this were the only place, it'd be one thing... but he does it many times (such as "Is it secret?" etc.). Sort of getting me here?

[Thorin]

Nope, doesn't make sense...PJ contradicted himself. Grey's right.

Gandalf searches through Gondor's records and reads Isildur's record of the ring. "It is cool to the touch though having been in the fire" (Okay, not an exact quote)

Then Gandalf goes to Shire and tells Frodo, "Put it in your hand, it is quite cool" (Okay, another not exactly accurate quote) The fact that Gandalf is so non-chalante about it, and the fact that it IS indeed cool to the touch shows that Gandalf knew it was the one ring. A lot of sense that would have made if Gandalf would have had doubts about the ring before he makes Frodo touch it!

Gandalf: Here Frodo, put it in your hand, it is quite cool
Frodo: (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gandalf: Whoops! Silly me! I guess I was wrong! Here, put your hand in this bucket of water!

Then after this faithful and true test, he puts this stupid, doubtful look on his face like "Gee, maybe there are two rings in ME that stay cool in the fire. I guess I went all the way to Gondor and avidly searched the archives for nothing. What does Isildur know anyway?"

It does make Gandalf seem not in control of anything like he is in the book. There were many things that were un-Gandalf in the movie, that shouldn't be denied. (Though many still do) Even still, Ian did do a pretty good job.

[ReadWryt]

Here's where Ed gets really picky. Ever since the first time I saw the scene where Frodo is looking at the recently "fired" ring and they showed the projection of the letters moving across his face, it really ticked me off. Not because of any Tolkein related reason, just because that wouldn't happen.

I do 3D animation. I have played with all manner of lighting and Ray Tracing effects and even slaved away for 6 hours to get just the right reflection of Mount Doom in a rendering of the Ring, and I know that having the red flaming letters project out like that was just hokey (as in a bunch of hokum!).

...but then, as stated in other threads, I am a picky bastard...

[Greenwood]

Greymantle

A well written and and well reasoned position. (You slipped a little at the end though with your snide "Are you getting me here." :) ).

One point where I disagree with both you and Thorin is that Gandalf knew Frodo's ring was The Ring.

To quote from FOTR:

(Gandalf speaking) " 'Your ring is shown to be that One Ring by the fire-writing alone, apart from any other evidence.'

" 'And when did you discover that?' asked Frodo, interrupting.

" 'Just now in this room, of course,' answered the wizard sharply. 'But I expected to find it. I have come back from dark journeys and long search to make that final test. It is the last proof, and all is now only too clear. ...."

Gandalf believed Frodo's ring was The Ring, but did not know it for sure. Otherwise why make the fire test? Obviously he hoped he was wrong and that somehow his reasoning and piecing together of the Ring's history had led him to a false conclusion. I thought the scene in the film did a good job of conveying that visually and briefly. I did think that Gandalf's telling Frodo here "take it, it is cool" (or words to that effect) would strike people as strange, but I always thought the same thing when I read it in the book. I thought this was a place where the movie was confusing by adhering too closely to the book.

Thorin

As stated above I think your problem about the ring possibly being hot goes back to the book and is not an invention of the movie.

[Foe-Hammer]

someone on the board always asks "how many rings were there?"
If I remember right....
We have accounted for the 9, and the three, and the 7.

This might be a question for the other writings, but with just what I remember from the 4 books, it never made any sense for gandalf to act that way. If he knew all the rings were accounted for except the ruling ring, the frodos ring was the ruling ring. There was no reason for that whole exercise.

Now, if he though that somehow one of the 7 was found, then the book and the movie make sense.

please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Foe-Hammer]

I suppose.

So gandalf knew that all magical rings could be tossed in a fire and not be hot to the touch. He was relieved when there was no markings and it must be a different ring, but then the makings appear and he knows it is the one ruling ring.

Is that about right?

[Thrakerzog]

Foe-Hammer,
Not a quote from the book, just a little signature for fun. :)

Thorin,
I can not believe you are so blind to your belief as to not see any truth.

Why would Gandalf have put the ring in the fire at all if he was as confident as you seem to think he was?!?!?

Greymantle,
You, once again, are stating your beliefs as facts.
Your opinion:
Throughout the movie we see more emotion and thought in him than are easily apparent in the book.
The fact you base on it:
We see him worried and concerned in a way that is not very much in line with his character.

I am sorry you are such an unemotional person as to not be able to pick up these things. The Miara are very powerful, but it is very obvious they are not all knowing and without question of which action to take.

ReadWryt,
You are indeed very picky. But that might just be another magic property of the ring - to project the words when glowing.
Of course, I have no reference for this, as there is none at all, but what are we looking for here, perfect truth that we can not find, or a reasonable explanation?

[Pops]

I'd like to share my thinking on the movie/ring/Gandalf subject for all of those upset/confused about Gandalf's (movie) reaction to the delayed lettering on the ring by putting yourself in Gandalf's shoes:

You, after much research, are very sure that this ring is indeed THE ring. The ring missing for hundreds of years. The ring that could bring Sauron back to full power and destroy ME as you know it. You are so sure, in fact, that you place it in the fire and remove it...knowing that it will be cool to the touch, place it in Frodo's hand. You also know that writing will appear on the ring. Now, Frodo is holding he ring in his hand, OBVIOUSLY cool judging by Frodo's reaction (or lack thereof)...and no lettering appears. Knowing that it makes you invisible and knowing that the ring is indeed cool to the touch after a firebath, I think a WTF look upon the face of Gandalf is warranted...wouldn't you get that same look after expecting the effect (shiny red words) from the cause (tossed into the fire) and not receiving it immediately?

Gandalf is by no means a flawless character in the book. In fact he berates himself and shows self-doubt on more than one occasion. Examples: He states, in one way or another, that he should have seen the signs that Saruman was being corrupted. He admits himself foolish to trust Butterbur to relay the message to Frodo and that he, himself should have delivered the ill tidings to Bag End.

I think PJ is using this same self-doubt, not exhibited in the movie thru the Butterburr incident, in the ring/fire scene in debate.

[Greenwood]

1. makes you invisible
2. stays cool in the fire



Harad

I will grant you these two possibilities. I know of nothing in LOTR to support them, but neither do I know of anything that positively refutes them (but see below). However, given that Tolkien never stated that magic rings do not get warm in a fire, I think it is fair for a reader to question why Gandalf knew the ring would be cool.

In conflict to the idea that The Ring would not get hot is Isildur's account of the taking of the ring that Gandalf finds in the library of Minas Tirirth. In it he states that he was burned by the heat of the ring when he retrieved it and that the writing faded as the ring "cooled". This was the very reason for the fire test. (Isildur also states that the ring appeared to shrink as it cooled and as he held it. An effect nicely shown in the film. This is one of the places where I thought the film showed an amazing attention to the details of the book.)

[Foe-Hammer]

Pops,

That's it! I am convinced!

[Pops]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Pops,

That's it! I am convinced!

ok, I come from a group of forums (that I host and is non-Tolkien topical, just general forums) and we reek of sarcasm in every post. So, being new to this forum and seeing that it is obviously different to what I am accustomed to, I must ask:

sarcastic or serious?

I hope serious. That would mean I added something of value to the conversation. :)

[Foe-Hammer]

Pops,
No sarcasm. I totally agree and your explanation makes the most sense.

[Pops]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Pops,
No sarcasm. I totally agree and your explanation makes the most sense.

YAY!! I have fulfilled my daily quota for saying something that makes sense.

[Foe-Hammer]

ROFLMAO!

[Pops]

*awaits the arrival of Grond*

back on subject of writing on the ring. I found these kickarse bookmark at Barnes and Noble (one of which Grond has). The bookmark itself is a picture of "Strider" or the Black Riders. The neat part is that tied to the the tassle on the bookmark is a ring that has the actual writing (to the 'T') on it. GREAT pickup for only 2 bucks. Anyone else seen these?

[Pops]

Originally posted by Harad


Pops:
I put on my NPW hat (yes I got one) for this reply: But that's the point. There is no justification for the delay. The WTF look is because Gandalf realizes that the logic of Rings in Middle Earth is violated by the delay shown in the movie.

Therefore (taking off the hat) I subscribe to the other explanation that Gandalf was momentarily relieved and thought that this wasnt The One Ring, but his relief was shortlived.

But what's to prove that there isn't a delay in the letters showing up? The book seems to show that there is indeed a delay:

...and removed the ring to the hearth with the tongs, and at once picket it up. Frodo gasped.

"It is quite cool,' said Gandalf. 'Take it!' Frodo received it on his shringing palm: it seemed to have become thicker and heavier than ever.

Hold it up!' said Gandalf. 'And look closely!'

As Frodo did so, he now saw fine lines, finer than the finest pen-strokes, running along the ring, outside and inside: lines of fire that seemed to form the letters of a flowing script. The shone piercingly bright, and yet remote, as if out of a great depth"

As you can see, it states 'he now saw' implying that he did not see them until that moment. he did not see the letters as it was taken out of the fire, rather saw them only after the ring was in his hand. I'm not saying you are wrong, just wanted to give you more to think about.

Now granted, that excerpt shows no doubt on the part of Gandalf, but as I stated earlier it may have been added to make up for the self-doubt offered in the book that was omitted from the film.

[Pops]

Which brings me back to the point I made in another thread. That's the beauty of literature. it leaves a lot of interpretation to the reader.

I like to think of myself as more of a purist than others...same as my father. I believe Tolkien's works are the bible of the fantasy/sci-fi genre. I also however, try to entertain the fact that the film and the literary work are two separate entities, as are the film industry and the literary industry. I don't always suceed in this, but I try. What works in one, may not work in another.

With that being said, I'll focus on the movie and your quote of:

The WTF look is because Gandalf realizes that the logic of Rings in Middle Earth is violated by the delay shown in the movie.

I'm not sure I follow: you're saying that because the director/screenwriter/producer Peter Jackson violates the logic of the Rings of Middle Earth by the delay in the movie, that the character Gandalf gives us the WTF look?

Or are you saying that, in the movie, Gandalf expects the ring to immediately show letters, but doesn't, thus breaking the logic of the rings...so he gives the 'look'. If this second scenario is true, then how is it different from my interpretation of it:

I think a WTF look upon the face of Gandalf is warranted...wouldn't you get that same look after expecting the effect (shiny red words) from the cause (tossed into the fire) and not receiving it immediately?

[Greymantle]

Lol, looks like someone moved it to the Hall of Fire... though that seems strange to me. Seeing as it's not M-e related, it really should have been put in Stuff and Bother.
Though I can see why you posted it here. There are many members of the Forum who never leave the NLC board.

[Pops]

Didn't notice...what forum was it posted under? I haven't seen any moderators around here in the past few minutes, so I don't know if they axed it or not

[Pops]

Nope, it's still there...

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1559

[Greymantle]

It's not hunger for power... it's simply a moderating decision. It's the mod's right and their job, and they obviously decided that thread should be put in a different board. You may not agree (neither do I!)... but that really doesn't matter. It's not that big of a deal.

[ReadWryt]

RW:
I dont buy that either. Glowing letters in a darkened room will reflect off a reflecting surface. Think of neon signs in shiny sunglasses. If youre right, then you deserve to be King NPW.


Heeeey, snappy answer! I like the nice optical physics terminology you used and the fact that you didn't resort to mud slinging!!

Yeah, yer right. That must be why, when someone turns on the backlight of their digital watch or Celular Phone it projects the letters onto their face. Gee, if projection of images had been that easy all along then I suppose that all that work with the Zoetrope was wasted! I mean, assuming that the cuvature of the ring warranted the amount of enlargement of the projected letters, and the amount of light being generated by the letters would have to be quite bright because of the Inverse Square Law and it's ramifications in the attenuation when calculated over the distance from the surface of the ring outward, and presuming that the mere reflectivity of the ring would project letters resting imediately on it's convex surface, then what happened to the HUGE letters that should have been all over the ceiling and walls behind him?

It's a wash, the Ring would never have done that, but I understand why P.J. did it and I wasn't saying he shouldn't have, just that it wouldn't have worked that way. It's like when spaceships make noise in a vacuum or when someone fires 7 shots from a 6 shooter. It's good drama, even if not accurate, and makes for excitement. But don't...ever...confuse Reflection with Projection. World of difference...

[ReadWryt]

No arbitrariness at all. It just seemed like a thread celebrating the New Year that contained only a vague reference to the movies in one post didn't need to be in the Movie section. *Shrug*

Harad,

You want numbers? Let me crank up my Luminare Program today and I'll work up the candle power needed. I'll have to guess at the amount of light being cast by the Fire Place and reverse engineer it from there, but I should be able to come up with three sets of numbers. One best case and a worst case on each side of it. Sometimes it's nice to have friends in low places in A.V. for special events, one gets access to the most interesting software...Tee Hee!

[Tar-Palantir]

While Readwryt and Harad sling numbers on reflectivity and projection back and forth :) , I'll add my two cents about Gandalf's reaction:

I don't have the text in front of me, but weren't there many "lesser" rings made besides the 20 "great" rings? Gandalf had read Isildur's account about the Ring, so he knew how to identify it - by heating it and reading the writing. He knew it wasn't one of the other "great" rings because it had no gem. So, my interpretation of that scene (in the book) was that Gandalf was trying to prove that it was in fact THE Ring and not a lesser ring - although I think he already knew the answer. In fact, he spoke of throwing it into Frodo's fire as being the "final test".

I took his reaction in the movie (until the writing showed up) as a mixture of doubt and relief; "doubt" because he was sure that it was the One Ring and "relief" because it seemed (at that very moment) NOT to be.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Gandalf was trying to prove that it was in fact THE Ring and not a lesser ring - although I think he already knew the answer. In fact, he spoke of throwing it into Frodo's fire as being the "final test".

I took his reaction in the movie (until the writing showed up) as a mixture of doubt and relief; "doubt" because he was sure that it was the One Ring and "relief" because it seemed (at that very moment) NOT to be.


I think we should call it for what it is....A misinterpreted scene that once again strays from the plot and character of Gandalf. Gandalf's doubt was because he thought he was wrong and the ring was not the one ring. His relief came after Frodo confirmed the writing. In other words he was relieved that he was correct. It seems pretty obvious to me by the smirk that comes on his face to remove the stunned look. It contradicts his previous actions and cockiness that prove he knew it was the ring, regardless of the fire test. The test seemed more for Frodo and just a confirmation of what he already knew. What Gandalf should have said to Frodo when he said I don't see anything was, "Then, my dear Frodo, you are not looking hard enough, show me the ring!"

Everyone tries to "navel gaze" into PJ's errors and find a reasonable justification as to why he blew another scene. Call it for what it is...just like the Bilbo/monster scene in Rivendell, it was an oversight and false director's interpetation of JRR's book.....:rolleyes:

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Thorin



I think we should call it for what it is....A misinterpreted scene that once again strays from the plot and character of Gandalf. Gandalf's doubt was because he thought he was wrong and the ring was not the one ring. His relief came after Frodo confirmed the writing. In other words he was relieved that he was correct. It seems pretty obvious to me by the smirk that comes on his face to remove the stunned look. It contradicts his previous actions and cockiness that prove he knew it was the ring, regardless of the fire test. The test seemed more for Frodo and just a confirmation of what he already knew. What Gandalf should have said to Frodo when he said I don't see anything was, "Then, my dear Frodo, you are not looking hard enough, show me the ring."

Everyone tries to "navel gaze" into PJ's errors and find a reasonable justification as to why he blew another scene. Call it for what it is...just like the Bilbo/monster scene in Rivendell, it was an oversight and false director's interpetation of JRR's book.....:rolleyes:

Amazing how differently we interpreted Gandalf's facial expressions, ain't it? To me, it looked like he was going to have a heart-attack after the writing on the Ring showed up.

Thorin, because you quoted part of my previous post, I'll assume that you're accusing me of "navel-gazing". I always thought that navel-gazing applied to someone who was self-centered, so I'm not sure how that fits here. And anyway, I'm not trying to "justify" anything - just trying to relate my interpretation of that scene. Why are you in attack mode here?

I've seen the infantile mud-slinging that goes on in parts of this forum and I have yet to see where it's had any result except to tick off the people involved (and some who aren't involved, since it's a real pain to get through some of the excellent threads posted here that get filled up by this garbage).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Thorin, because you quoted part of my previous post, I'll assume that you're accusing me of "navel-gazing". I always thought that navel-gazing applied to someone who was self-centered, so I'm not sure how that fits here.

I've seen the infantile mud-slinging that goes on in parts of this forum and I have yet to see where it's had any result except to tick off the people involved (and some who aren't involved, since it's a real pain to get through some of the excellent threads posted here that get filled up by this garbage).

Please don't take the "navel gazing" comment personally Tar, there has been much of it on this forum and that is mostly what I was commenting on. To me, I always thought navel gazing meant , "seeing the world in everything", or "seeing so much into nothing".

I don't feel my post was anything close to the mud-slinging on this forum you refer to. If I offended you I apologize.

Harad,
It seemed to me like Gandalf's heart attack face came when he was so sure the ring was the one. He gave it to Frodo and walked smugly away, expecting his thoughts to be confirmed. When Frodo said the writing wasn't there, he stopped and had the doubtful/heart attack face you speak about. Then when Frodo does see the writing, Gandalf relaxes. How is that supposed to make any sense if Gandalf was hoping the ring wasn't the one ring. His reactions should have been exactly opposite: Relief that there was no writing, then doubt/fear/heart attack when the writing was confirmed, thus confirming that the ring was indeed the one....I didn't see that at all. That's why it doesn't make sense to me.

[PRH]

Foe:

When Frodo got the ring out of the trunk, Gandalfs seal was unbroken, meaning Frodo never used the ring. In the book, Frodo used the ring many times in that 17 years.

I don't have the book handy at the moment but I don't remember anything suggesting Frodo had used the ring before the incident in Bombadil's house. I know he always carried it with him though...

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Harad
Thorin:
I am off to see it again! :p
Was Gandalf's (Ian M) face relieved because the ring was confirmed to be the Ring, or was it resigned to something which he already feared to be true? A moment before the writing was evident, he was about to relieved/jubilant that it wasnt the Ring.

Lets take a poll!

Harad:

As I said before, I'll take door #2 - that Gandalf was relieved before the writing showed up and had the constipated look afterwards :p

Thorin:

If I got the meaning of "navel-gazing" wrong (but, I don't think so), it wouldn't be the first time I've butchered the use of a phrase :)

[Grond]

A few things.

First, Pops, yes I've seen the bookmarks, my son gave me one for Christmas (grins).

Secondly, I don't have my books in front of me but I am not sure that Gandalf was positive all of the dwarf rings were accounted for. Three were known to be in Sauron's possession. The other four were assumed to have been consumed in dragon's fire.. but is that stated anywhere? I have never read where any of the lesser Rings conferred invisibility so it seems to me that it either had to be one of the Dwarf Rings or the One Ring.

Thirdly, I am a purist and would really have to be a nit picking weenie to have found error with the portrayal of that scene. Gandalf was not a god while on ME. He was a man. A man who could bump his head in a hobbit hole, a man who could know doubt about whether the Ring was the One or not. A man who could be scared about the implications of finding the One Ring again. My only problem with the scene is the delayed appearance of the writing but even that doesn't bother me much.

So, this purists must not be so pure.:D

And to my other purist friends, Thorin and Greymantle. I am not softening. We all have differences of opinion as to what may be changed and yet remain true to the spirit of the author. I feel the portrayal did not stray far enough from that spirit to warrant criticism.:)

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Harad
Tar-Palantir,

Now you really hurt my feelings.

I think you are agreeing with me (or I am agreeing with you). Yet, you post a sticking-out-your-tongue smiley face.

What gives? :D :o :p :confused:

I am agreeing with you - I picked the wrong Smiley :(

[Foe-Hammer]

PRH,

I can't find it right now, but there was mention of him using it at certain times and I'm sure I'm not mistaking frodo for bilbo. At any case the ring had a powerful effect of frodo. So much so that when gandalf asked for it, it became heavy and before he knew it, he had put it back in his pocket. There were other indications that he had used it. Perhapes someone more versed can confirm this.

[Tar-Steve]

I think to experience "good preservation" you only have to possess the ring. (Gollum and Bilbo weren't wearing it all the time.)

Man, I can't wait to see this scene again so I can study Gandalf's face! I gotta admit the (for me, unexpected) delay of the writing got my attention as a viewer ... got a reaction from me.

I really didn't have any problems with this scene like some of you guys did. I wish it had gone a LITTLE slower with some more tenseness added to it but that's just a personal preference thing due to it being one of my favorite chapters. Finding out that THE Dark Lord personally wants your head in a suitcase is heavy stuff and I wish we could have watched that set in to Frodo a little differently. But like I said, more of a personal preference than a criticism.

Oh yeah, I gave my daughter the Strider bookmark with the ring hanging off it in her stocking. (And a TLOTR boxed set to use uit with.)

[Foe-Hammer]

IMO, I think Tolkien wanted us to think that Frodo had been using the ring. Otherwise, why did he write the scene at the Prancing Pony the way he did? It's not like him to just say that Frodo wondered how the ring got on his finger if it was the first time he had ever used it.

[aragil]

Well, there was that incident at Bombadil's. But I totally agree with you Foe- neither of those scenes seemed to give the sense that it was the first time Frodo had used the ring. In the book he pops it on at Bombadil's house mainly out of annoyance- hardly the sort of thing he would do for the first time after Gandalf's warning to not use it.

[aragil]

Well, if the Will was in the trunk with the envelope, then ring might have used its Big Red Enigma to read it!

[Foe-Hammer]

I forgot about TB house. Yes he put it on because he wanted to make sure it was the magic ring.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Grond
...Secondly, I don't have my books in front of me but I am not sure that Gandalf was positive all of the dwarf rings were accounted for. Three were known to be in Sauron's possession. The other four were assumed to have been consumed in dragon's fire.. but is that stated anywhere? I have never read where any of the lesser Rings conferred invisibility so it seems to me that it either had to be one of the Dwarf Rings or the One Ring...Alas, I must retract this statement for in the Council of Elrond, Gandalf spoke, "...The Nine, the Seven, and the Three had each their proper gem. Not so the One. It was round and unadorned, as it were one of the lesser rings; but its maker set marks upon it that the skilled, maybe, could still see and read." So he must have thought it was either the Ruling Ring or one of the lesser Rings.

Concerning Frodo using the Ring, from Three is Company, Gandalf said, "...don't use it!" That is really the only insinutation I find which might indicate that Frodo had used it before. He definately kept it on his person, as everytime Gandalf asks him to bring it out, Frodo pulls it out of his pocket. (it was attached to a chain that hung from his belt.) I always thought that he had used it during the 17 years, but can't be sure.

Of course, I'm quoting the book and this is the movie forum, so I don't know whether these questions are to justify what happened in the movie or how the book was interpreted in making the movie. If this is just about the movie portrayal, please ignore this post. ;)

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Grond
Alas, I must retract this statement for in the Council of Elrond, Gandalf spoke, "...The Nine, the Seven, and the Three had each their proper gem. Not so the One. It was round and unadorned, as it were one of the lesser rings; but its maker set marks upon it that the skilled, maybe, could still see and read." So he must have thought it was either the Ruling Ring or one of the lesser Rings.

Thanks Grond! I thought I was going nuts and I didn't have the text in front of me.

[PRH]

I really don't find anything to indicate that Frodo ever used the ring before Bombadil's house. He probably put it on at that point just out of shock and curiousity that maybe it actually wasn't the One ring after all.

Gandalf states the one of mortal race who obtains one of the rings of power acquires unnatural long life. 'Obtains' does not necessarily imply 'uses.' The ring knows who it's current owner is and therefore whom to grant the preservation of life to.

I think if Frodo had been using the ring during the 17 year interim, he wouldn't have offered it to Gandalf at Bag End or lent it to Tom Bombadil or offered it to Aragorn at the Council of Elrond or to Galadriel in Lothlorien. Only after carrying it for a long time did he finally develop such an attachment to it that he couldn't freely give it up at Sammath Naur. If he had been using it ever since he acquired it he would've been strongly attached to it by the time he set out from the Shire (sure he was shocked when Gandalf tossed it into the fire, but I think the 4 subsequent offerings of the ring to others would superceed this).

[Grond]

Just a difference of opinion PRH. I feel that if he carried it on a chain attached to his belt and hid in his pocket, it had to be there for a reason. If he had no intention of using it, why not, as PJ portrayed it, leave it sealed in the envelope. An easy answer for me, he used it just as his cousin Bilbo used it, to escape undesired contact with people he didn't want to talk to. Why wouldn't he emulate his mentor?

All of this is purely speculation and I'm sure that you can lay out as many arguments that he didn't use the Ring.... but I keep coming back to it actually being on his person in the books, indicating that it was handy.... for a reason.

You also stated, "Only after carrying it for a long time did he finally develop such an attachment to it that he couldn't freely give it up at Sammath Naur. If he had been using it ever since he acquired it he would've been strongly attached to it by the time he set out from the Shire (sure he was shocked when Gandalf tossed it into the fire, but I think the 4 subsequent offerings of the ring to others would superceed this)."

The long time you speak of was only an additional nine months and during that nine months he only used it seven or so times. (Once at Tom's, Bree, Weathertop, Amon Hen, again at the River, at Shelob's lair?, and at Sammath Naur.

[aragil]

Let's not forget the first post-script of Gandalf's letter to Frodo, received at the Prancing Pony:

"Don't use IT again!!"

Unless Gandalf had a premonition that Frodo would use it at the house of Bombadil, this implies that Frodo has used it, and made Gandalf aware of the fact. Perhaps Frodo spilled the beans the night before their conversation in "The Shadow from the Past"?

[PRH]

I think Frodo always kept it on her person because that was his idea of keeping it safe - always knowing exactly where it was and being able to guard it personally.

Grond
The long time you speak of was only an additional nine months and during that nine months he only used it seven or so times. (Once at Tom's, Bree, Weathertop, Amon Hen, again at the River, at Shelob's lair?, and at Sammath Naur.

I didn't mean to say he was carrying it for a long time - I meant a long way. But, using it seven times (six actually - he didn't use it at Shelob's) is infinitely more than zero. I think the reason he was so willing to give it up earlier in the quest and not at the very end was because he had finally developed a relationship with it which was kindled by actually using it as of late.

Nevertheless, we'll probably never know. Tolkien seems to have left the matter very ambiguous. I wonder why.

[PRH]

aragil:
Let's not forget the first post-script of Gandalf's letter to Frodo, received at the Prancing Pony: "Don't use IT again!"


hmm...you may have something there. I always interpreted that as a premonition by Gandalf's of Frodo using IT along the way - Tom's and Bree (though probably not specific knowledge of exactly when and where he'd use it). But yet I concede, you may very well have something.

[Foe-Hammer]

Because Gandalf was the one to notice that Frodo was rather well preserved and he also told him not to use it again, that implies that the ring must be used to have the effect of longevitiy.
But I still remember a part where Frodo is described as using the ring to avoid people.

[aragil]

If anybody has their books handy they should skim "A Conspiracy Unmasked". There's the bit where Merry says he actually saw Bilbo use the ring, and then the bit where he states that they've been watching Frodo very carefully lately. Perhaps he mentions seeing Frodo used it, or Frodo might admit to only having used it to avoid unwelcome guests?

[PRH]

I don't remember any instance describing Frodo having used the ring as Bilbo did to avoid people.

[Foe-Hammer]

aragil,

That could very well be the part that I am thinking about, in which case I would be mistaken and PRH would be right.

[bilbofan]

Gandalf: Here Frodo, put it in your hand, it is quite cool
Frodo: (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gandalf: Whoops! Silly me! I guess I was wrong! Here, put your hand in this bucket of water!


You had me in stitches there. Could you do more of that kind of stuff?

:cool: :cool:

[Grond]

In the Mirror of Galadriel chapter in The Fellowship of the Rings, Galadriel says something to the effect, "you have used it only thrice since you have known what you carry...". That would seem to indicate that he had indeed used it sometime before. My quote is not exact but close and I will amplify when I get back in town on Sunday PM. Until then, one of you others please look it up and give me your take. It occurs when Galadriel reveals her Ring to Frodo or somewhere very close to that passage. The unmistakeable inference by Galadriel is that Frodo has used the Ring on occassion before Gandalf's test.:)

[Greenwood]

Grond

I will also have to check the exact wording when I get home, but your version certainly sounds right. However, I do not think it unmistakeably implies that Frodo used the Ring before Gandalf's fire test. It seems to me a simple statement that he has used it three times since learning of its power. I will have to check the book, but isn't there some discussion in the chapter "A Conspiracy Unmasked" about Frodo not being as careful as Bilbo and Pippin and Merry discovering the existence of a magic ring. I have to go reread the chapter.

[Grond]

The exact quote from Galadriel is located in FotR, The Mirror of Galadriel, and states, "'You have not tried' she said, 'Only thrice have you set the Ring upon your finger since you knew what you possessed..." I take this as a clear implication that the Ring was used by Frodo before he knew what he possessed, but it is definately not definative!;)

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

Until Gandalf returned, there was no reason for Frodo not to use the ring, just as Bilbo had done for the years he owned it. Great job finding that bit about the three times. I think that makes it pretty clear.

[Grond]

Harad, I agree and disagree.
That statement may be read any number of ways. I think the full quote makes almost as good a case for Frodo having used the Ring. It reads, From the Shadow of the Past"...As long as you never used it, I did not think that the Ring would have any lasting effect on you, not for evil, not at any rate for a long time. And you must remember that nine years ago, when last I saw you, I still knew little for certain."Seeing the full quote, it could be read as saying as long as you never used it, but now nine years later after you have been using it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it, like Galadriel's statement leaves many possibilities.... well possible. :)

[Ged]

Well, I'm new to this thread, but I've got to say that some of you guys take the biscuit!

I expected some so-called "purists" to take exception to parts of the film but to squabble like this about this particular scene amazes me.

This is a film, guys. That's F.I.L.M. When Tolkien himself sold the film rights in the sixties he didn't and couldn't have stipulated how any future film was going to be made. Peter Jackson could have done TERRIBLE things with the movie (casting, say, Sean Connery as Gandalf springs to mind) but the simple fact is he didn't. He has made a worthy, exciting and moving visualisation of all that he felt was good about the book.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that few of you self-titled experts on Tolkien would match up to old PJ if it came to who knew more about Middle-Earth!

As for the envelope: it was better than having Gandalf pick it up. The scene where he almost touches the ring on the floor, then sits in front of the fire muttering "my precious, my precious" is absolutely marvellous. It really illustrates Gandalf's temptation.

Well that's my two-pennorth for now. Nothing like feeding the flames! Looking forward to your responses.

[Thrakerzog]

Quote from Readwryt:
Yeah, yer right. That must be why, when someone turns on the backlight of their digital watch or Celular Phone it projects the letters onto their face. Gee, if projection of images had been that easy all along then I suppose that all that work with the Zoetrope was wasted! I mean, assuming that the cuvature of the ring warranted the amount of enlargement of the projected letters, and the amount of light being generated by the letters would have to be quite bright because of the Inverse Square Law and it's ramifications in the attenuation when calculated over the distance from the surface of the ring outward, and presuming that the mere reflectivity of the ring would project letters resting imediately on it's convex surface, then what happened to the HUGE letters that should have been all over the ceiling and walls behind him?

It's a wash, the Ring would never have done that, but I understand why P.J. did it and I wasn't saying he shouldn't have, just that it wouldn't have worked that way. It's like when spaceships make noise in a vacuum or when someone fires 7 shots from a 6 shooter. It's good drama, even if not accurate, and makes for excitement. But don't...ever...confuse Reflection with Projection. World of difference...

Readwryt,
It is amazing how you can apply so much science to what is the single most potently magical item in all of the books - The One Ring.

I am impressed with your amazing ability to explain how a MAGIC item can't work the way it does in the movie because of how it violates the laws of SCIENCE.

Because you have deemed yourself able to justify how magic does and does not work using your scientific abilities, please tell me a few things:

1. Please explain SCIENTIFICALLY how the ring made the wearer invisible?
I just want to know what rules of physics applied there, as I'm at a lose to find any. Obviously, it can't be all MAGIC, as you don't allow for that. It must have scientific logic, just as the glowing words must, so what is the scientific logic here? When will I be able to buy a ring that makes me invisible?

2. Please explain SCIENTIFICALLY how the ring turned the wearer to evil?
It is just a piece of metal, after all, so surly there must be a scientific explanation as to why those that held it for great lengths of time became corrupt and twisted, as Gollum did. Lead poisoning perhaps? Tell me, I must know.

3. Please explain SCIENTIFICALLY how the ring could only be destroyed in Mount Doom?
Surely, what ever it's made of, the Elves of Rivendale could have found a substance to destroy or at least break ANY piece of simple metal... So what SCIENTIFIC properties of this ring made that impossible?

/end of sarcasm

Readwryt,
Your attempt to criticize the magic of Middle-Earth because it does not conform to modern science is disgusting. Never in any posts have I seen anyone so totally try to rip the magic out of the world as you have. I think Tolkien would be horrified at your trying to apply scientific logic to the magic's of his world as you have done.
Yes, I know you will say you only did it to Peter Jackson's movie, but you fail to see the forest beyond the trees.
To call into question one persons view of the magic is to call into question all of the magic as I have shown above.
To demand that one bit of magic be explained scientifically is to demand that all of the magic be explained scientifically.

You can not pick your little battles in a macrocosm and ignore the rest of the magic and how it might work throughout the rest of the story.

What was the exact substance on the doors of Moria which would glow only in the moonlight?
Oh yeah, it was MAGIC. It seems magic has been lost to you.

[Grond]

Thrakerzog, everyone on this forum has a right to an opinion, even ReadWryt and Greymantle. ReadWryt's response was directed at another poster (who's posts have been deleted) who was attacking other posters with logic. ReadWryt was simply responding in kind. Trying to match logic and physics with the arguments of the since disappeared poster.

On the whole, ReadWryt and Greymantle have been steadfast and fair in their defense of their opinions. You may not agree with them and you don't have to either. But I find your sig to be totally at odds with a friendly forum where ideas are discussed. Your arguments are logical and well stated, trying to stick a personal attack in your sig shows no class.

BTW, I agree with your logical explanation of magic. I disagree with your sarcastic tone with ReadWryt.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Grond
directed at another poster (who's posts have been deleted) who was attacking other posters with logic.

attacking people with logic hmmmmmmmm only on a fanatical site for fantasy can that be condemned :D

[Thrakerzog]

Here's where Ed gets really picky. Ever since the first time I saw the scene where Frodo is looking at the recently "fired" ring and they showed the projection of the letters moving across his face, it really ticked me off. Not because of any Tolkein related reason, just because that wouldn't happen.

I do 3D animation. I have played with all manner of lighting and Ray Tracing effects and even slaved away for 6 hours to get just the right reflection of Mount Doom in a rendering of the Ring, and I know that having the red flaming letters project out like that was just hokey (as in a bunch of hokum!).

...but then, as stated in other threads, I am a picky bastard...

Grond,
Reread the thread. This is Readwryt's first post to it, and does not have any reference to anyone else. It is a CLEAR example that what I said was right on mark.
What I said applies as equally to the one I quoted previously as it does to this post.

That which I previously quoted simply builds on this threads application of SCIENCE to MAGIC.

Simply, you are wrong about what he meant in his second post. He meant only to support what he said in his original post - that his 3D animation background tells him, and thus, us all, that light can not be projected the way it was.

As for sarcasm, in the very first post Readwryt every addressed me, the very first thing he did was point out a word I had misspelled (note that in the same message he lashed out at me for misspelling a word, he misspelled "allways").
So if I am sarcastic with him, so be it. He deserves it (and for more reasons then just that).

Graymantle and Readwryt have been steadfast in their defense of their opinions. But they have not been fair or open at all. This was made painfully clear in the "Orcs from Pods" thread (and others like it). Grond, re-read my second to last post to that thread - here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1431&perpage=15&pagenumber=11) (it is the one to Gawain)

The entire reason they fought that battle was to make PJ look bad, but in the end, they were arguing a point that only sought to twist and make wrong Tolkiens work.

My signature is right on the mark. They do not care about Tolkiens works, they only care about slamming PJ. And they call themselves purists while they do it.

That is wrong.

Btw, why do you criticize me for using sarcasm, yet in the very same post defend Readwryt's use of sarcasm? Little one sided don't ya think? :rolleyes:

[Thrakerzog]

I only bring out the "sword of righteous justice" when the "sword of blatant deception" is used by those that would have us believe magic wasn't a part of the Tolkien world. :D

[Grond]

Thrak.... you missed my point. Harad had posted a response which has disappeared because he is no longer a user here. RW had responded in kind. You no longer see the post he responded to. I agree with you that one cannot view magic though a system of standard logic aka on a real Earth scientific basis. Yet I will say that I feel magic in and of itself operates on a logical platform, even JRRT's magic. For example, it is logical that if you recite a fire spell, you will ignite a fire. The logic of the doing is understood, the logic of how it occurs may not be.

I wasn't trying to start an argument with you, simply point out that RW was responding to a post that you can't see anymore. I still find your sig to be offensive. Sorry, but that's my opinion. You may safely say that both RW and Greymantle and Thorin, for that matter, are all entrenched in their views, as am I. The only real difference is that I am willing to view a movie as a different platform from the book. The purist's purist feels that any distortion of the works is unwarranted and unacceptable.

BTW, I don't find the fact that you call them zealots to be offensive. Rather your characterization that they always do this or they always do that. Those assertions are untrue. RW plans to buy the DVD as do the others. I think all three have admitted enjoying the movies as a movie, but continue to voice their opposition to the portrayal of a "true vision" of Middle-earth, expecially since Director Jackson has said he was making a movie that would be pure "Middle-earth" and not compromise the integrity of the works. The director should never have made such a statement as that statement means one thing to you and another thing to others. Thrak, my post was not an attack on you, simply a request to temper your comments. Of course, you can tell me to "Go to hell". That's your right, but it doesn't add to the overall appeal rating of the forum. I know. I've been involved in such altercations and attacks, both as a recipient of attacks and as the attacker. It is something that once done, is hard to be undone and my reputation has sufferred for it. Peace.:)

Squeeky, are you Thraz's pet mouse?

[Grond]

I was just joking Squeeky. You seem so cute......:) :) :)

[markrob]

I am by no means in disagreement with the claims of PJ saying he would be 100% true to the book in his movie. If these quotes were in a thread months ago, I have missed them. I would like to request proof of them so I can see them myself. Again, I do not doubt they are out there I just want to see some of them. I have also seen quotes where he claims that he could not do the movie without his interpretations coming into play at some point.

Did he contridict (sp) himself?? Who knows. It would be hard for anybody to say before production that they would "try" to stay true to the book and 2yrs and 300mil dollars later be able to hold to that statement. If any director could his name would be God, dont ya think? And let me reiterate that I am not doubting the quotes, just want to see them and for you to realize the impossible standard you are holding him to.

BTW, I miss Harad and his views, he was not the ultimate bad poster in all this, Joseph on the other hand...... :rolleyes:

[Harad]

I cant say anything bad about Harad. Sometimes he went overboard but as you know, tyranny in the pursuit of virtue is not a crime.

[Grond]

markrob, I may have misstated. What PJ said was that he was a purist and tried to remain "true to the spirit" of the book. He even went so far as to state that he took the book with him everyday on the set and read the book to gain the essence or something to that effect. His quotes may be found on www.theonering.com. I also am not saying that I found his quotes to be untrue, to me. But he should have known by making these comments that he can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time. He would have been wiser to have said he was making a movie which required departure from the designs of the author but would try to capture the world of Middle-earth as best he could given the limitations of a movie.

At least, that is my humble opinion. You may take acception to it. You have before and I'm sure you will again. That is what makes the forum so interesting, the varied and differing opinions represented herein. Even Harads. :)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
I cant say anything bad about Harad. Sometimes he went overboard but as you know, tyranny in the pursuit of virtue is not a crime. Sounds like an interesting title of a new thread. It would make for lively debate.:)
Would not a similar analogy be that "oppression in the name of justice is not a crime?'

[Greenwood]

What PJ said was that he was a purist and tried to remain "true to the spirit" of the book.

Grond

I think the problem is that many of us, just as much Tolkien fans as Greymantle, ReadWryt and Thorin, have seen the film and feel that Jackson did a remarkable job keeping "true to the spirit" of the book. I, personally, have no problem with others disagreeing and feeling that the final product was not "true to the spirit" of the book, in their opinion. It is when they go all over the forum screaming that Jackson is "a big, fat liar" as some sort of proven fact that some of us take exception. I personally get very peeved when people defend those statements by saying that they know how Tolkien would feel about the question and that Tolkien would support them. I get down right angry when Thorin questions whether someone is really a Tolkien fan when they have the temerity to disagree with Thorin's views! As for Thrakerzog's swipe at ReadWryt, I sympathize with him since ReadWryt has a tendency to wander around the forums, periodically throwing little gratuitous swipes at the movie and Jackson. He even does it on the book sections of the forum where we have been told that movie comments are not supposed to be made. I realize others also put movie comments in the book sections, but ReadWryt is "one of the moderator guys" as all his posts remind us and should show a little more respect for the rules of the forum than your average member.

[Harad]

"one of the moderator guys" as all his posts remind us and should show a little more respect

Likewise one should be able to offer small criticisms of the movie OR THE BOOK without being subject to the NPW tag. An NPW is one who disparages the entire work of art for nit-picking reasons. On the third hand, someone can profess an overall admiration for the opus, and still not be forced to bow to its PERFECTION.

[Eonwe]

stop being wishy washy, pick a side! :)

Welcome baaaaack!

[lilhobo]

ok who let Harad the White Elephant roam around the forums again??? :(

at least he s a Junior member and not a senior "membrain" :D

[Harad]

Not fair squeek. There's quite a bit of eloquence in the use of smilies.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, I find it amusing that I get called names for holding steadfastly to certain feelings about Tolkien and his works, and yet I find folks are now defending the improbablilities in the movies by claiming them as "the magic of Middle-earth". I suppose this explains other things like Bilbo casting no shadow on Gandalf when he is standing directly between the Wizard and the Fireplace in Bag End as well. It's not bad film making, it's just the Magic man...it's just the magic. :D

[Harad]

Finally some serious criticism of the movie.

[Thrakerzog]

Readwryt,
Nobody has said the movie was perfect. I and several others, including Greenwood, have pointed out errors in the movie.

But to compare the writing on the ring to the shadow is indeed like comparing Apples to Oranges in the most extreme scense.

Basically, all you are doing is using your very common and over used "tactic" of clouding the discussion with more inane insults of the movie (as you do in most every post you make).

This debate "tactic" of yours is little more then a tacit attempt to shift the focus of the reader from what is obviously a true statment to another "error" that you can dwell on and confuse the debate with.

Readwryt, you are 200% wrong.
The shadows are not "just the magic" as you state. They are most likely a filming error (would have to see again to be sure).
But it is "just the magic" with regard to the writing on the ring.

Your rediculus attempts to confuse the topic by throwing out random "insults" of the movie shows that you have virutally no debate skills Readwryt. Please TRY not to confuse the topic again, it only makes you look silly.

I could debate both sides of this argument FAR better then you are doing with your side. Your scientific reasoning on a MAGIC item is a joke of a debate tactic. Your attempts to shift the topic are even more laughable.

Wooooooooooooooosh

[Greenwood]

Every movie ever made had continuity errors in it if you look hard enough. They are fun to look for but they are irrelevant and ignored unless they rise to the level of a character who is supposedly in 1940 looking at the time on his digital watch. One of the funnier ones in recent years was Bruce Willis in one of the Die Hard movies, set in a Washington, DC aiport, using a pay phone that had the Pacific Bell logo all over it. Given that placing trademark plugs in movies is big business, this gaffe was rightly pointed at and laughed at. So far all the continuity errors I have seen attributed to LOTR are trivial. Some haven't even been correct, such as the claim I saw on this Forum weeks ago that Bill the Pony is not with the Fellowship on their journey until they reach Moria, or that he appears and disappears. He is in fact in every long shot of the Fellowship traveling.

Countless movies set in the past have jet contrails in the sky if you look for them. So what. I agree with Thrakerzog. ReadWryt likes to wander around the forum dropping little random insults of Peter Jackson and the movie and pretend it is a form of serious discussion.

[ReadWryt]

I fail to see how the projected letter crossing Frodo's face is any less erroneous then the lack of a shadow on Gandalf. The only difference is that one was planned and the other was probably an oversight, otherwise they are both incorrect optics. It's as annoying to me as when I see a Science Fiction movie and the images that are supposedly being displayed on the flat video screen in front of them are projected onto their faces. Had someone claimed it was a Film making Style I could have accepted that, but now this has become rediculous in that it's being poffered off as "Magic", which if you want to talk about bad debating tactics lets talk about just chalking something up to being Magic or an act of God...how does one support or refute something like THAT?

[Thrakerzog]

Readwryt,
Incorrect optics then MUST include Bilbo disappearing when he puts the ring on in the Shire. And later Frodo.
Someone disappearing is just as much an optical gaf as the shadow or the writing on the ring, I'd even say it is a much greater screw up actually... Well, by your logic anyway.
I mean, instead of just a shadow missing, the entire damn hobbit is missing!?!?

As well, the Ring Wraiths on Weather Top were obviously having a serious bad "optics" day! They were glowing!!
Oh yeah, the rune's on the doors of Moria, what a botch up by PJ that was!!! They where GLOWING! In the MOON LIGHT!?!? How wrong is THAT!? I get chills when I think about those doors...

-----

Readwryt, you can not dictate what is correct and incorrect based solely on your liking it or not.
You didn't LIKE the writing on his face, that's fine!
But it's ludicrous to say the use of the writing is wrong because it wasn't optically correct when it's in a movie full of "optical" inconsistencies that are MAGIC.

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
I mean, instead of just a shadow missing, the entire damn hobbit is missing!?!?

Worse, the hobbit is missing, but there IS a shadow...

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
You didn't LIKE the writing on his face, that's fine!
But it's ludicrous to say the use of the writing is wrong because it wasn't optically correct when it's in a movie full of "optical" inconsistencies that are MAGIC.
The major difference between all the optical incisistencies (sp?) you mention and the letters of the ring being projected on Frodo's face, is that all the former cases are known cases of magic mentioned in the book. It might be true that one of the magical properties of the ring was that it would project its writing when illuminated, but my guess is that if this was the case, it would have been mentioned somewhere.

Working in optics myself, I had a similar, though less vehement reaction as RW. Mine was actually like: Huh that's impos.. hmm, coming to think of it, that was nicely done. (I had more problems with the 'glowing' elves, as that was not how I imagined them, but that's an interpretation thing...)

[Ged]

I also find ReadWyrt's comments largely infantile, purile and gratuitous.

The writing on Frodo's face is a stunning visual effect in a film. Of course it is not technically explainable, but I suspect that if JRR HAD described this phenonema in the books ReadWyrt wouldn't be complaining about it. So again, what he is whinging about is PJ's visualisation/interpretation.

Question for you ReadWyrt (and if you don't answer you will dissapoint me): how did Legolas walk on the snow on Caradhras without sinking in? He is presumably the same or similar weight to the others, and has the same general shape and surface area of feet. The pressure of his body on the snow would therefore be the same. He ought therefore to sink in.

You see, the genuine lovers of Tolkien accept this sort of "unexplainable" with good grace. What you are doing is effectively criticising Tolkien himself, not the film.

[Thrakerzog]

Bill the Pony & Ged,
I was gently leading Readwryt to the conclusion you have both so eloquently pointed out for him. Good job at spotting his zealotry even before I brought him full circle to admitting it!

I think together, both of you have made it painfully clear that, as Ged said, “if JRR HAD described this phenomena in the books ReadWyrt wouldn't be complaining about it. So again, what he is whining about is PJ's visualization/interpretation.”

Thank you for finding my point of these posts. The only thing Readwryt does on these boards is criticize for the sole purpose of making PJ look bad. It is a shame that so much energy is wasted when I think Readwryt could really be one to add a lot to the discussion if he just let go of the constant bashing.

[JoS Metadi]

I have to agree ReadWryt that in OUR world, the glowing letters wouldn't be projected like that.

We DO know for sure that the lettering is magic (only becomes visible after being heated by fire, despite the ring remaining cool), and perhaps that light is simply a magic side effect. Or maybe it was just a little movie magic to make Elijah Wood's face look more interesting.

Personally, I wouldn't have done it that way, but it's really not a big issue. There are better, more important things to debate about.

JoS Metadi

[ReadWryt]

Ged,

In answer to your question...because it was written to be thus. Show me the part of the book where the Ring is described as some Magic Lantern and we can talk...

JoS Metadi,

It IS our world...

[Thrakerzog]

Jos Mentadi,
No one is arguing that in OUR world this is possible or not. It's not? So what, who cares. Thats not the point.
Because we arn't talking about this stuff in OUR world.

Readwryt was attempting to dictate what is correct and appropriate use of lighting solely based on what he likes or not.

If someone doesn't LIKE the writing on his face, that's fine!

But it's ludicrous to say the use of the writing is "optically wrong" and thus not possible when it's in a movie full of "optical" inconsistencies that are MAGIC.

[ReadWryt]

No actually, my complaint is that someone thought that The One Ring didn't have ENOUGH defined magical properties and thought that they might improve upon them by inventing yet another...

[Thrakerzog]

Readwryt,
You contradict yourself.

So which is it now:
Are you upset that the writing was used because it wouldn't happen, as stated in your first post thusly:
projection of the letters moving across his face, it really ticked me off. Not because of any Tolkien related reason, just because that wouldn't happen.

Or are you complaining that the Ring already has ENOUGH defined magical properties that no more are needed?

Or (and I'm going with this option) have you realized you where extremely wrong about applying science to a thing of magic and so you switched your reason for hating the scene?

As for the contradiction, it is either an "effect that wouldn't happen" even by magic as you had tried to argue, or is it just more "magical properties" which you don't feel should be added as you suddenly switched to after saying it wasn't magic at all but a gaf?

Anyway, to your post about it IS our world...

No it isn't.
Do you not believe in EVOLUTION? Or at least the Bible theory of the 6 days?!?! Don't tell me you are SOOO lost in Tolkiens world that you believe Elves and Dragons ACTUALLY walked on this earth before just us regular human folk?

Just because Tolkien said Middle-Earth eventually became earth still does not mean it's true.

Tolkien had MAGIC in his STORY, impossible in this real here and now and all throughout the entire history of this world!

[Thrakerzog]

By the way Readwryt,
If ENOUGH defined magical properties is the reason you didn't like the scene, that is FINE by me.
THAT is your opinion. You can have your own opinion on it.

And to debate that, it is my opinion that the writing added to the drama of the moment in a way that just showing the ring with writing on it could not do.

[Ged]

ReadWyrt,

Well, you've missed my point completely. I would be happy to debate further, but I get the impression it would be entirely pointless.

You are entitled to your opinions, so there's no "right and wrong". Just don't feel there's any point in going on with it. Life's too short.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
Anyway, to your post about it IS our world...
No it isn't.
Do you not believe in EVOLUTION? Or at least the Bible theory of the 6 days?!?! Don't tell me you are SOOO lost in Tolkiens world that you believe Elves and Dragons ACTUALLY walked on this earth before just us regular human folk?

Just because Tolkien said Middle-Earth eventually became earth still does not mean it's true.

Tolkien had MAGIC in his STORY, impossible in this real here and now and all throughout the entire history of this world! I just wanted to interject my opinion about this particular content of your post Thrak. (I'm not getting into the argument about the writing on the Ring). How would you know this? The Earth by last count is 4.5 billion years old. Legends of Lemuria and Atlantis and ancient civilizations in South America have abounded for thousands of years. I do no presume to know the Mind of God. We may not be his first experiment. That is not for me to determine. I would never be so bold as to say never (but I just did, Oops!) But.... you get my drift. The laws of science as we know them today, may not have always existed in the same way. Magnetic fields may have been different, other energy types may have been available and used. What we refer to as magic may have been common place for an elder race. Who knows? Certainly not me..... and maybe not you.;)

[Thrakerzog]

Grond,

Because you quoted me, I'll assume you mean me instead of Ged...?

Anyway, lets give that there was the possibility of their being some magic past for this planet, which, of course, is only for the fun of it.
Then how did JRR Tolkien know of it and who had what abilities?

An immortal perhaps? But wouldn't he still be alive then?
Or do you think his fans got too zelotes so he staged his death and now lives in Argentina as Ramon Dandofar? ;)

Possibly even lurking on this board?!:eek:

[ReadWryt]

Actaully, I believe that where Tolkien's writings on Middle-earth is concerned there is a continuity that permiates the myriad tales. I believe that as a Mythology it is a nice one, though not my favorite, and that there are absolutes which make themselves evident without beating you over the head. I believe that in a world that contains this much continuity and completeness there really is no need to go about believing that you can improve on it, as Mr. Jackson has done in many cases, and that when dealing with fiction there are indeed many oportunities for interpretation to let one read into it that which the author did not insert overtly, but that such interpretation is an artifact of our inherant knee jerk need to relate different or changing situations to previously experienced ones.

I will grant you that this may be the case with this particular scene, and that Mr. Jackson was merely inserting his interpretation as a representation of the events as he percieved them upon reading them. My bullheadedness has made me loose sight of the one most important statement that the Filmaker has made to date and that is that "This is my interpretation of The Lord of the Rings", which should indeed have been the FIRST thing I thought of in this matter.

To apply real physics to this tale as I would some Science Fiction movie was patently wrong though, I will grant you that. It really has nothing to do with Peter Jackson or New Line Cinema or any of the people involved with this film in particular, just my own pickyness and critical eye. To have made so much about so little, I see why one would call me a Zealot for my steadfast defense of such a silly and wrongly accused matter when all we were really discussing in the first place was My opinion about SOMEONES interpretation of art and my erronious attempt to apply logic to something that has so many variables dealing with taste and experience, which is about like writing a treatise on the abbhorant optical physics in a Piccaso Painting...foolhardy at best, stubornly wrongheaded at worst and in this I fear I have tended toward the latter more then the former.

[JoS Metadi]

ReadWryt,

No, it's not in our world. Our world is a plain mundane place with no magic, no wonderful creatures, no dark evil Lords who reincarnate every couple thousand years, etc.

Thrak,

Read was dictating what the lighting would be if it were simple ordinary light in our world, and he is correct. However, I agree with you that the LotR is NOT in our world, and that we already know for absolutely certain that the lettering is magic (straight out of the book).

I stated that I wouldn't have done it that way because I think it detracts from the viewers ability to suspend disbelief, but I am not arguing that it was "wrong" to show it that way.

JoS Metadi ( <-- look, no "n")

[Grond]

Originally posted by Thrakerzog
Grond,
Because you quoted me, I'll assume you mean me instead of Ged...?
Anyway, lets give that there was the possibility of their being some magic past for this planet, which, of course, is only for the fun of it.
Then how did JRR Tolkien know of it and who had what abilities?
An immortal perhaps? But wouldn't he still be alive then?
Or do you think his fans got too zelotes so he staged his death and now lives in Argentina as Ramon Dandofar? ;)
Possibly even lurking on this board?!:eek: I've corrected my post because I was speaking of you Thrak. And no, I'm not saying that Middle-earth is actually our world. Neither am I saying that the stuff of which Mythologies are made from are fiction. JRRT used many different Mythologies in determining his world. I know he read the Icelandic Sagas and other Norse based Mythologies as well. My point is that there is likely some truth in the original mythologies of our world.

From http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html speaking of Atlantis.

"Timaeus and Critias, two of Plato's dialogues, are the only existing written records which specifically refer to Atlantis. The dialogues are conversations between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timeaus, and Critias. Apparently in response to a prior talk by Socrates about ideal societies, Timeaus and Critias agree to entertain Socrates with a tale that is "not a fiction but a true story."

My feeling has always been if it's good enough for Plato, Socrates, Hemocrates, Timeaus, and Critias..... it's good enough for me.:cool:

[Thrakerzog]

JoS Metadi,
No 'n' indeed! How silly of you to have misspelled your own name like that! ;)

I realized what you were saying, I just restated what I meant, to be sure I was clear. I had no intention of accusing you, which I think it might have come off as.

Though I don't necessarily agree that it suspended disbelief, I kind of liked it.
All I know is that I sat there in the theater staring at the letters on his face trying to make out what they said(yes, I know, and no, I can't read Elven). :p

Grond,
HA you corrected it to be Thraz! :p

I see what you are talking about now.
Still don't think there was magic here. :p

Readwryt,
Thank you. :)


IT'S FRIDAY!!!!! WOOOOHOOOO

[ReadWryt]

JoS Metadi,

`Middle-earth', by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Murcury of Eddison). It is just a use of Middle English middel-erde (or erthe), altered from Old English Middangeard: the name for the inhabited lands of Men `between the seas'. And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginatively this `history' is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #165

The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #183

Mine is not an `imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on `Middle-earth' - shich is our habitation. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #183

I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in `space'. However curious, they are alien, and not lovable with the love of blood-kin. {i]Middle-earth[/i] is (by the way & if such note is necessary) not my own invention. It is a modernization or alteration (N[ew] E[nglish] D `a perversion') of an old word for the inhabited world of Men, the [i]oikoumene: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the encircling Seas and (in the northern imagination) between ice of the North and the fire of the South. O. English midden-geard, midaeval E. midden-erd, middle-erd. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet! The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #211