Horses in TT and RotK

[Fimbrethil]

It occurs to me that dear ole Tolkien was VERY particular about the names and lineage of many of his horses. First to appear is Bill. Bill has very little in the way of lineage, beyond having a strong connection with Sam.

Then we meet Hasufel and Arod, the mounts of fallen riders of Rohan. Along the way we also meet the famous Shadowfax (discussed elsewhere in this board), and Snowmane, both of the Mearas breed of horses. Snowmane is not of Shadowfax's stature, but is still a Mearas, still will only suffer the King to ride upon his back. And both of them are said to be descendants of freolaf (sp), in turn a descendant of one of the Valar's horse (who I forget the name of...Orome was it?)

BUT

In wandering through the movie desktop wall papers, I come across a horse called Brego

Huh? Aragorns horse is called Brego?

What?

I look in LOTR again, and the only other horse I come across is Roheryn, Aragorns own horse, brought from the north by the Dunedain at the beginning of RotK.


Hmmm, Brego appears to be a king of rohan who finishes building Edoras.

Bizzare.

[Mithlond]

Yeah, i dunno why they made the change for..then again i dunno why they make alot of the changes in the films..some i can understand, but others...

In the film Brego is the horse of Theodred, the son of Theoden, after Theodred dies Brego goes with Aragorn.

[Fimbrethil]

That is....odd. I understand a lot of changes that PJ makes, but that one...is.....just plain weird. Why bring Theodred into it at all, his death is barely mentioned.

hmmm.

Oh well. Using Hasufel or Roheryn would make more sense....but bleugh.

[PRH]

Brego isn't actually Aragorn's regular horse in the movie. Read below and I'll explain what happens:

SPOILERS!!








You've been warned: Brego is (as Mithlond says) Theodred's horse. It is very spooked by the battle in which Theodred is (mortally?) wounded (the reason I question 'mortally' is because it may actually be Wormtongue that brings about Theodred's death). When the Rohirrim are preparing to move out, Aragorn takes pity on Brego and sets him free. Then Aragorn is wounded in the fight with the orcs on wargs and looses his horse (or it is killed). Aragorn is left for dead. Brego to the rescue!

Now what chapter in TTT was that?

[Ariana Undomiel]

Who knows? Cool idea but it does differ from the book. We shall just have to wait and see if PJ can gracefully get away with that alteration.

- Ariana

[Fimbrethil]

Okay, whatever I was expecting...it wasn't that. That makes NO sense!


*confused sarah*

Aw well, Like you Ariana, I look forward to seeing how they pull that off.

[Beruthiel]

From the released stills I've seen thus far, Shadowfax looks magnificent, every bit a Mearas. They certainly found a wonderful horse to portray the steed of the White Rider!

[Mrs. Maggott]

I guess this would be the appropriate thread to place this, but perhaps not. Anyway, Mr. Jackson is supposed to be famed for his visual images. Well, he failed badly with the horses in TTT. Aside from Shadowfax and Snowmane (whom he could hardly fail to present as noted in the book), the rest of the horses could be found on the dusty streets of any tin-horn cow town in old time B western.

To begin with, most of the horses of Rohan were gray; there were a few black horses, but most of these were stolen by Mordor. Well, I can understand that Mr. Jackson couldn't come up with that many gray horses, but for heaven's sake, did the steed ridden by the dead Prince Theodred (who eventually saves the almost-dead Aragorn) have to be so utterly nondescript? What color is he? Why, he's a brown horse. Gee! How exciting! How unusual! Furthermore, he's not a beautiful bay, with rich red-brown coat, black mane and tail and white stockings or a white blaze to set off a noble head. Nor was he a chestnut with a body the color of flame and white markings like the wonderful Secretariat. Nah, none of that. He is just another "brown" horse. I've seen more beautiful animals in the local riding stable!

If that's the best New Zealand can produce (color wise - I'm sure he was a fine horse), then they should stick to sheep! And as for "visuals", well Mr. Jackson certainly missed the boat (or saddle) on this one! :rolleyes:

[Ariana Undomiel]

Should we really give a care what color Aragorn's horse is? I mean the really important horses are the ones ridden by Gandalf and Theoden because those are the ones that are truly talked about the most. Also, there are not that many horses out there that are trained as movie horses so you probably can't get to picky on colors. Asfoloth was white. That is accurate. Shadowfax is white. That is accurate. I have not yet seen any scenes with Theoden on Snowmane, but it he will probably be white as well. Besides, Brego is a beautiful horse from what I have seen. In fact, I read in an article that Viggo Mortensen was sooo impressed by his horse that he bought it.

- Ariana

[Talimon]

MM, since you have apparently already seen TTT, could you be so kind to offer the rest of us your opinions on the movie? What is that? You already have?

[PRH]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Shadowfax is white. That is accurate.
He's actually supposed to be Silver. But I'm very glad them made him white. The White Rider needs a white horse. Describing him as a rich silver that shines is all well and good for the book, but the visual image of the white-clad Gandalf on the all white horse is better cinematically.

I wonder if they'll do anything with the color grading to make Shadowfax look not just white (like we've seen in stills) but etheral glowing fantasy white. That would be real cool and a good move to further set Shadowfax apart as the greatest horse on ME.

Besides, Brego is a beautiful horse from what I have seen. I agree.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
MM, since you have apparently already seen TTT, could you be so kind to offer the rest of us your opinions on the movie? What is that? You already have?

My, my! When did it become "politically incorrect" to criticize Mr. Jackson or his work?

And as for TTT, I noted that there were quite a few " "official books" out there which "give away" not only plot but pictures from the film itself. Ergo, finding something like this - and commenting thereon - is not only possible, but acceptable.

As for not having (as someone said someplace) the right to criticize Mr. Jackson, I believe mine comes from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution - unless Mr. Jackson has "reinterpreted" that document as well...

And the d****d horse is brown, period. Good horse, he may be, but John Wayne picked better looking "good" horses and he never presented himself as a "great" director.

[Talimon]

No one is questioning your "right" to criticize PJ (and if they are they shouldn't be). I am merely questioning how valid your opinions on the whole of PJ's "vision" may be when you are using a movie guide as your primary source. And I certainly shouldn't mention how all this criticism leading up to the films release is really bolstering your objectivity. Though, as I commented elsewhere, some apparently don't value thier objectivity too high to begin with.

[Fimbrethil]

Why, he's a brown horse. Gee! How exciting!

:D And here was me being worried about a silly thing like him existing at all in TTT ;):rolleyes:

Well, I like the name they chose for the new horse. Although it isn't as cool as Roheryn or Hasufel, it has some interesting historical connections to Theoden/dreds ancestors. Which is a nice touch.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am sorry, but somehow I was very disappointed in the horses pictured in TTT, books and trailers. I knew they wouldn't be able to obtain that many gray horses (as you know, Tolkien had the Riders of Rohan mounted on grays), but for Theodred at least (since he was the Prince), I had hoped for a more "striking looking" animal! I am sure the horse that was used was a "fine horse", but he sure wasn't much to look at at least color-wise. He probably had perfect confirmation, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he was little different from all the other horses that were shown....all brown....sigh.

A nice shiny black or chestnut or a gleaming bay or SOMETHING that "takes the eye" would have been "visually" much more credible. And this is especially true as Jackson's "visuals" appear to be something constantly cited as either an excuse or a sop for deviations from the story line. Here was an opportunity for Jackson to produce a rather stunning "visual effect"! He did well with Shadowfax and Snowmane, couldn't he have found one more good looking horse in New Zealand? That's all that I am saying.

[Fimbrethil]

I got it the first time!! Seriously :D

I make a lot of light hearted comments, although they tend to amuse no one but me :)

Perhaps, the idea here is that the horse is battle-weary, down trodden, feeling mediocre?

After all, we have the humble hobbits carrying the ring into mordor. The film seems to focus on the ordinary doing the extraordianry.

Brego appears to be a horse in need of recovery, a horse under duress. Not a permenant steed for Aragorn to ride to victory on. More like a small hero, in a time of great names, famous swords, and legends riding from the grass.


Yanno. I don't even like the idea of Brego being in the film, yet I am defending his appearance?

HELP ME!


Am I forever doomed to play the devils advocate to Mrs. Ms views. Or is that only Talimons role :D Me wanna share :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have absolutely nothing against Brego being in the film (and I wish that italics wouldn't make the whole d****d thing jump that way! I was better off with my technoboob caps!). I just wanted a better "visual" if you will. I am an artist and love horses. Asfolath was beautiful. From what I can see, Shadowfax and Snowmane are beautiful. I would just like to know - battle weary or not - why (here we go again - it's like warp drive!) Brego can't be beautiful - or at least of a color that distinguishes him from the rest of the "herd"! But as far as Brego is concerned, Mr. Jackson has deviated so far from the original story, that it is like a whole new story and I have no problems whatever he does with it.

However, I would like to make a "positive" point, if you will allow it, from the point of view of Jackson's "new" story: in making Aragorn what he is - and especially the wounds, injuries and assaults upon his body - Jackson has made the character considerably more erotic than he was in the book. Tolkien's Aragorn is a mythic being who, though occasionally showing moments of emotion (at the leavetaking of the Fellowship from Rivendell and Gandalf's "death") and doubt (at Parth Galen), is usually quite "mythically" perfect. Indeed, his chivalry and skill is so perfect that we are told he isn't even scratched at the battle before the gates at Helm's Deep! That kind of "perfection" coupled with the quite formal relationship with Arwen in the book, do not a screen hero make - or at least one with which the ordinary non-Tolkiopath audience would empathize.

Jackson has taken Aragorn and made him conflicted and fallible enough to be interesting. Furthermore, he has given the character to an actor who admirably plays good guys and bad guys and bad good guys and good bad guys (Bilbo B. has nothing on old Mrs. M. for confusing rhetoric!)! He then gives the audience a believeable (meaning erotic) "romance" which he then spices up with a "love triangle". Indeed, the site I visited talked about "low-key courtship - for heaven's sake! - between Eowyn and Aragorn. Finally, Jackson dots the "i" and crosses the "t" in "erotic by making Aragorn "suffer" physically and mentally. These are all key ingredients for turning a nice enough looking fellow into a "hunk" of a film hero. Is it Tolkien? He....ck, no. Is it yummy cinema? Ask the ladies! Therefore, as Jackson has decided to go down this road, we might as well go along for the ride - and leave the book at home!

(But the horse should have been something other than brown!) :mad:

[Ariana Undomiel]

But the horse should have been something other than brown!

Don't you think that you are taking your purist notions a little too far? I too am an artist and I find nothing wrong with Aragorn riding a brown horse. It really suits his whole current image better. Perhaps when he comes into his glory as a king he will have a different horse. I dunno.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

It has nothing to do with "purist"! At this point, any connection to the original story - living or dead - is purely co-oincidental (that's a very old radio disclaimer they used when they put on dramas!).

Anyway, for me it was a matter of taste. Almost every horse except the three previously named is brown! I would have just liked to see some other color, say black or gray or chestnut or bay or whatever! When all the horses look alike, then the "identity" of your horse hero gets kinda lost, don't you think? :rolleyes:

[Phee]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It has nothing to do with "purist"!

Well, I doubt anyone but a purist would really care what colour the horse is.


Anyway, for me it was a matter of taste. Almost every horse except the three previously named is brown! I would have just liked to see some other color, say black or gray or chestnut or bay or whatever! When all the horses look alike, then the "identity" of your horse hero gets kinda lost, don't you think? :rolleyes:

Well, having only seen a few still shots, and what's in the trailers, I'm afraid I'm unable to post the exact ratio of brown:grey:black horses that are used in the entire movie at this point in time. ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, I doubt anyone but a purist would really care what colour the horse is. <quote Phee>

My Dear Phee: a purist would have complained about the horse being there, not what color he was! "Brego" is not in the book, nor is anything else being shown at this point in the film.

As for what appears to be a "nonsense" complaint to some of Mr. Jackson's defenders, let me remind you that the Director's "visuals" have been used to excuse flagrant disregard of the story because they "look good". Well, certainly this was a "missed opportunity" to make something else "look good". If "visuals" can be a point of defense, why then can they not also be a point of criticism?:confused:

[Phee]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If "visuals" can be a point of defense, why then can they not also be a point of criticism?:confused:

Of course they can be. My point is that I'm gonna wait until after I've seen the movie before I make any judgements about the "visuals" in it. Perhaps the photo you saw of Brego which incensed you so was just a bad photo. Perhaps when you see the creature in action he'll turn out to be a fine looking horse. No sense in getting all worked up over it until you've seen the movie. If then you still have the same opinion, then more power to you.

BTW, it's one of my pet peeves when people who don't know me call me "my dear", so if you could refrain from that in future, that'd be much appreciated. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

To whom it may concern:

To begin with, I use the term "Dear" as one would use it in a letter: Dear Mr. Smith. I put the "my" in front of it to make it less formal under the circumstances that apparently prevail on the forum. However, I will happily acquiesce to your request if the situation were to arise again.

Secondly, I am hardly "incensed" by anything in this matter! It's a movie for heaven's sake and isn't worth writing about except that the discourse on the forum is itself interesting and intellectually stimulating - usually.

Furthermore, I have noted in my posts that the horse is probably a fine animal, but the photos I have seen in the book and trailers show it to be "brown", very ordinary and certainly no "stand out" as far as looks go. The entire issue was an aesthetic point referable to Jackson's famed "visuals", nothing more. I should think that not bringing up the point that this part of the film is so far-fetched as to belong to another plot line altogether would have been considered a plus on the part of his defenders. Apparently not, however!

[Phee]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
To begin with, I use the term "Dear" as one would use it in a letter: Dear Mr. Smith. I put the "my" in front of it to make it less formal under the circumstances that apparently prevail on the forum. However, I will happily acquiesce to your request if the situation were to arise again.

Well then my apologies for taking it the wrong way. I typically view the term as being condescending, but evidently that's not the tone in which you meant it.


Secondly, I am hardly "incensed" by anything in this matter!

OK, alright, so perhaps I should have said you had a "vehement dislike" for the horse instead of using the term "incensed". Either way my point is simply that you're obviously not the horse's biggest fan. No point arguing semantics.


Furthermore, I have noted in my posts that the horse is probably a fine animal, but the photos I have seen in the book and trailers show it to be "brown", very ordinary and certainly no "stand out" as far as looks go.

And all I said was perhaps it wasn't a great photo and the animal will look better on the big screen. Perhaps they could have used a more spectacular horse...perhaps it'll turn out to look just fine. I'm not gonna form my opinion until I've seen it in action though.


I should think that not bringing up the point that this part of the film is so far-fetched as to belong to another plot line altogether would have been considered a plus on the part of his defenders. Apparently not, however!

Just because some people may not view PJ as the Anti-Christ, doesn't mean we view him as God either. It's a valid point that it's a scene they made up. I'm just not gonna say whether it's a move for the better or for the worse until I see how it fits in with the rest of the movie. Maybe the scene will suck the big one, maybe it won't suck in the slightest.

Again, I come back to the same point..I'm just reserving my judgement until after I've seen the movie so I actually know what it is I'm commenting on.