MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Fellowship of the BrickLord of the Rings
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Middle Earth Discussion and Debate
Join to comment
 Group moderator 
This thread is way for the group to have activity without games. Here we can discuss and debate things in Middle Earth. If conversation dies down, we will introduce a new topic. Some rules for this thread:
- Even when debating, keep it civil.
- Make sure what you say adds to the conversation.

To get the ball rolling, the first topic is Tauriel. Do you think the addition of this character was necessary? Discuss.
Permalink
| August 17, 2017, 11:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Micah FBH
This thread is way for the group to have activity without games. Here we can discuss and debate things in Middle Earth. If conversation dies down, we will introduce a new topic. Some rules for this thread:
- Even when debating, keep it civil.
- Make sure what you say adds to the conversation.

To get the ball rolling, the first topic is Tauriel. Do you think the addition of this character was necessary? Discuss.

Interesting question. I think we should remember that in the Hobbit book there is no woman at all (except the mention of Bilbo's mother), so the addition of Tauriel in the movie wasn't all that bad. I think she's a nice character that's not too annoying, but the love story with Kili is just a bit too much for my taste.
Permalink
| August 18, 2017, 8:45 am
Quoting Micah FBH
This thread is way for the group to have activity without games. Here we can discuss and debate things in Middle Earth. If conversation dies down, we will introduce a new topic. Some rules for this thread:
- Even when debating, keep it civil.
- Make sure what you say adds to the conversation.

To get the ball rolling, the first topic is Tauriel. Do you think the addition of this character was necessary? Discuss.

Hello, I'm Wolfos, just thought I'd introduce myself. *rereads thread info* Ah, for a moment I had no clue who she was. xP I think she was a nice addition (along with Legolas if I may add, but I believe that's a new conversation so I'll roll with the current). She allowed for some cool new events that weren't in the books (such as the whole "magical elf powers thing" with Kili). It was also interesting because we had yet to see a female warrior in the LOTR and Hobbit (besides Arwen[I think that's how it's spelled...]), which was a new thing to see which had been in a few of the books. Was she necessary? No. Was she a nice addition? In my opinion, yes.
Permalink
| August 18, 2017, 9:11 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
This thread is way for the group to have activity without games. Here we can discuss and debate things in Middle Earth. If conversation dies down, we will introduce a new topic. Some rules for this thread:
- Even when debating, keep it civil.
- Make sure what you say adds to the conversation.

To get the ball rolling, the first topic is Tauriel. Do you think the addition of this character was necessary? Discuss.

Great idea Micah! So, Tauriel, I don't really think that she was necessary to the film, and it kind of took away from the feel that dwarves and elves aren't friendly towards each other, it also created some fighting within the elves, with legolas getting angry, and then she gets banished by Thranduil. Also, I am not very happy with PJ's choice to bring in a character that in the film is essential to the story, completely out of the appendices... Oh well. Good idea for this convo!
Permalink
| August 18, 2017, 9:35 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Great idea Micah! So, Tauriel, I don't really think that she was necessary to the film, and it kind of took away from the feel that dwarves and elves aren't friendly towards each other, it also created some fighting within the elves, with legolas getting angry, and then she gets banished by Thranduil. Also, I am not very happy with PJ's choice to bring in a character that in the film is essential to the story, completely out of the appendices... Oh well. Good idea for this convo!

I haven't exactly read the LOTR book, but I thought *some* Dwarves and Elves were friendly? Like Legolas and Gimli.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 10:08 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
I haven't exactly read the LOTR book, but I thought *some* Dwarves and Elves were friendly? Like Legolas and Gimli.

Legolas and Gimli had to develop a friendship, while Tauriel, who wasn't even in the books, just kind of automatically liked Kili... :/ I dunno, IMO, Tauriel was kind of a waste of a character to create in the movies.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 11:02 am
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Legolas and Gimli had to develop a friendship, while Tauriel, who wasn't even in the books, just kind of automatically liked Kili... :/ I dunno, IMO, Tauriel was kind of a waste of a character to create in the movies.

Some people (even enemies) can instantly fall for someone because they look nice or have a good air about them. That's probably what happened with Tauriel and Kili.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 12:37 pm
Quoting Silver Wolfos
Some people (even enemies) can instantly fall for someone because they look nice or have a good air about them. That's probably what happened with Tauriel and Kili.


Would be nice if they showed this.

And I don't think there was a love interest between the two.

Let me explain that.

I don't feel the connection was GOOD. it was rather unbelievable. And makes legolas and gimili's friendship less significant.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 2:36 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Legolas and Gimli had to develop a friendship, while Tauriel, who wasn't even in the books, just kind of automatically liked Kili... :/ I dunno, IMO, Tauriel was kind of a waste of a character to create in the movies.

Yeah the Tauriel and Kili thing was over the top and not a good addition. I liked the character herself, but I felt like the thing with Kili took away from her character and made her more of an object than anything else. I was glad to see a female character, but I would have liked to see it done without a romance, especially one as non-believable as Tauriel and Kili.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 3:11 pm
Quoting James Douglas

Would be nice if they showed this.

And I don't think there was a love interest between the two.

Let me explain that.

I don't feel the connection was GOOD. it was rather unbelievable. And makes legolas and gimili's friendship less significant.

I'm pretty sure there was. When Smaug destroyed Lake Town, Kili and Tauriel were on that shore thing. There I believe (at least this is what my sister said) Kili spoke in Elfish to Tauriel, asking her to marry him. Then again when he was, uh, passing to the other side from the Orc dude.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 5:35 pm
Quoting Silver Wolfos
I'm pretty sure there was. When Smaug destroyed Lake Town, Kili and Tauriel were on that shore thing. There I believe (at least this is what my sister said) Kili spoke in Elfish to Tauriel, asking her to marry him. Then again when he was, uh, passing to the other side from the Orc dude.


IT was there, obviously. But I don't feel it was a good connection or believable. It lacked chemistry.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 5:44 pm
That said it has been a while since I seen the movies.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 5:44 pm
Quoting James Douglas
That said it has been a while since I seen the movies.

Oh, THAT'S what you meant. Yeah, it was hit off really fast with those two... I get what you're saying now.
Permalink
| August 19, 2017, 11:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

IT was there, obviously. But I don't feel it was a good connection or believable. It lacked chemistry.

Agreed. They shouldn't have had it at all
Permalink
| August 20, 2017, 2:28 pm
Down with romance in LOTR! Lol.
Permalink
| August 20, 2017, 2:58 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas
Down with romance in LOTR! Lol.

I don't think that's the problem. I mean, we have Beren and Luthien, we have Arwen and Aragorn, Sam and Rosie, Faramir and Eowyn, and none of those are bad. The problem is that Tauriel and Kili was super rushed, had no chemistry and made no sense. I appreciate Tauriel, but the romance was cringy.
Permalink
| August 20, 2017, 6:26 pm
Quoting Micah FBH
I don't think that's the problem. I mean, we have Beren and Luthien, we have Arwen and Aragorn, Sam and Rosie, Faramir and Eowyn, and none of those are bad. The problem is that Tauriel and Kili was super rushed, had no chemistry and made no sense. I appreciate Tauriel, but the romance was cringy.


That was just a joke. :P
Permalink
| August 21, 2017, 7:01 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
To get the ball rolling, the first topic is Tauriel. Do you think the addition of this character was necessary? Discuss.

I was fine with her until she and Legolas chased the dwarves and here and Kili was just... no.
Permalink
| August 21, 2017, 4:57 pm
 Group moderator 
Great idea for a thread dude.

Ugh, Tauriel. Sorry guys, I'm a Tolkien purist. I think she has no place in the hobbit movies as she wasn't in the books.
Permalink
| August 21, 2017, 8:13 pm
Quoting Jonathan Demers
Great idea for a thread dude.

Ugh, Tauriel. Sorry guys, I'm a Tolkien purist. I think she has no place in the hobbit movies as she wasn't in the books.


^this^
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 5:45 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Jonathan Demers
Great idea for a thread dude.

Ugh, Tauriel. Sorry guys, I'm a Tolkien purist. I think she has no place in the hobbit movies as she wasn't in the books.

I'm also not a fan of big changes, that's part of the reason why I like the Hobbit less than LOTR. With Tauriel I would have been totally ok though, if it wasn't for the love story and she had some less screen-time.

As for changes, what do you think about the changes made in LOTR? Like the elves participating in the Battle of Helm's Deep, the Warg Rider Attack or Theoden talking to Eowyn before his death? I think those were nice additions.
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 9:39 am
Quoting Michael Kringe
I'm also not a fan of big changes, that's part of the reason why I like the Hobbit less than LOTR. With Tauriel I would have been totally ok though, if it wasn't for the love story and she had some less screen-time.

As for changes, what do you think about the changes made in LOTR? Like the elves participating in the Battle of Helm's Deep, the Warg Rider Attack or Theoden talking to Eowyn before his death? I think those were nice additions.

Those were definitely nice additions. The Elvin participation was probably my favorite of those three.
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 9:47 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
Those were definitely nice additions. The Elvin participation was probably my favorite of those three.

I would second that. My least favorite change in the movies was the lack of the scouring of the Shire.
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 12:08 pm
Quoting Micah FBH
I would second that. My least favorite change in the movies was the lack of the scouring of the Shire.

They did show a snippet of it in Fellowship. I think it was too gruesome for what they wanted though...
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 1:47 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Kringe
I'm also not a fan of big changes, that's part of the reason why I like the Hobbit less than LOTR. With Tauriel I would have been totally ok though, if it wasn't for the love story and she had some less screen-time.

As for changes, what do you think about the changes made in LOTR? Like the elves participating in the Battle of Helm's Deep, the Warg Rider Attack or Theoden talking to Eowyn before his death? I think those were nice additions.


I'm more willing to accept those changes, as there weren't any major plot additions, like having Azog alive when Tolkien clearly had him killed before the hobbit took place.

I don't really like the elves in Helm's Deep though. The Warg riders is plausible, I guess.


Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 5:43 pm
I don't like how the wolves in the films were not prtotrayed as what they are- one of the armies, semi intelligent creatures.
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 5:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jonathan Demers

I'm more willing to accept those changes, as there weren't any major plot additions, like having Azog alive when Tolkien clearly had him killed before the hobbit took place.

I don't really like the elves in Helm's Deep though. The Warg riders is plausible, I guess.


I agree. The whole Azog-story was just too much. And it wasn't even Thorin who killed him in the books, it was his cousin Dain Ironfoot when he was a very young dwarf. Another thing which made me angry is that some characters like Bard's daughters or Alfrid that weren't even in the book and not really necessary at all had more screentime than major book characters like Beorn. In the book Beorn was one of the main heroes in the battle. He killed Bolg and rescued the dying Thorin. In the movie battle we only get to see him for like 5 seconds.
Permalink
| August 22, 2017, 8:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Kringe

Seconded, but I did like the addition of Bard's family, as well as the dwarves staying with Bard. It made Bard more of a character. But Beorn needed more screen time. He hardly did anything in the movie.
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 1:07 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Micah FBH
Quoting Michael Kringe

Seconded, but I did like the addition of Bard's family, as well as the dwarves staying with Bard. It made Bard more of a character. But Beorn needed more screen time. He hardly did anything in the movie.

I too liked Bards portrayal in the movies. He was very likeable and unselfish. He reminded me a bit of Aragorn in the movies.

As for Beorn, I really love the scene where he meets the dwarves for the first time. Too bad that it wasn't added to the original version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9czF_LUSAc
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 8:11 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Kringe
I too liked Bards portrayal in the movies. He was very likeable and unselfish. He reminded me a bit of Aragorn in the movies.

As for Beorn, I really love the scene where he meets the dwarves for the first time. Too bad that it wasn't added to the original version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9czF_LUSAc

Agreed. Too bad they didn't add that seen in the original movie (one of my favorite in the books). Instead they added a whole bunch of other junk IMO.
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 9:13 am
Quoting Michael Kringe
I agree. The whole Azog-story was just too much. And it wasn't even Thorin who killed him in the books, it was his cousin Dain Ironfoot when he was a very young dwarf. Another thing which made me angry is that some characters like Bard's daughters or Alfrid that weren't even in the book and not really necessary at all had more screentime than major book characters like Beorn. In the book Beorn was one of the main heroes in the battle. He killed Bolg and rescued the dying Thorin. In the movie battle we only get to see him for like 5 seconds.

I think one of the reasons Beorn had such limited screen time was because he was facing drug charges or something.
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jacob Syrups
I think one of the reasons Beorn had such limited screen time was because he was facing drug charges or something.

Oh, of course! Now I remember. I just looked it up. Mikael Persbrandt, the Swedish actor who played him was in trouble with the law. They wanted to let him be 5 months in prison at first, but in the end he only got 75 hours of social work.
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 6:24 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
Seconded, but I did like the addition of Bard's family, as well as the dwarves staying with Bard. It made Bard more of a character. But Beorn needed more screen time. He hardly did anything in the movie.

Ya, Bard was great, I loved Beorn's hall, and I agree, Beorn should have gotten at least 10 more minutes of screen time... He is my favorite character in the Hobbit outside some of the companions of Thorin... :D
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 6:31 pm
From the books, who would be your favourite? Kili or Fili?
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting James Douglas
From the books, who would be your favourite? Kili or Fili?

Hmm, I think in the book they barely differ, but Fili has a more developed character and more lines, so probably Fili.
Permalink
| August 23, 2017, 8:23 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas
From the books, who would be your favourite? Kili or Fili?

Fili is my favorite dwarf.
Permalink
| August 24, 2017, 6:39 pm
Quoting Micah FBH
Fili is my favorite dwarf.


Yeah. I prefer those two over Throin anyway, myself
Permalink
| August 24, 2017, 6:40 pm
Quoting James Douglas
From the books, who would be your favourite? Kili or Fili?

Probably Fili due to him having actual lines (then again it's been a long time since I've read the books...)
Permalink
| August 24, 2017, 11:13 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Jacob Syrups
I think one of the reasons Beorn had such limited screen time was because he was facing drug charges or something.

For drinking a drug that made him turn into a bear. Is this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? :)
Permalink
| August 25, 2017, 5:26 am
Quoting C Stucky
For drinking a drug that made him turn into a bear. Is this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? :)

lol
Permalink
| August 25, 2017, 1:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting C Stucky
For drinking a drug that made him turn into a bear. Is this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? :)

:P
Permalink
| August 25, 2017, 7:38 pm
 Group moderator 
I have one: What do you guys think about the eagles saving the day?

I never thought that was so weird or a bad writing technique, but some people just rant and rail about it. What do you think?
Permalink
| August 27, 2017, 5:07 am
 Group moderator 
This: https://youtu.be/OFHuY3FrR-I?t=25m33s
lol
Permalink
| August 27, 2017, 5:11 am
Quoting C Stucky
I have one: What do you guys think about the eagles saving the day?

I never thought that was so weird or a bad writing technique, but some people just rant and rail about it. What do you think?

In a way they're kinda like a fallback, you know? Without the eagles in Return of the King they wouldn't have won, same with Last Battle. However, I liked seeing the eagles. It's always a cool thing to watch when they swoop in.
Permalink
| August 27, 2017, 9:47 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting C Stucky
I have one: What do you guys think about the eagles saving the day?

I never thought that was so weird or a bad writing technique, but some people just rant and rail about it. What do you think?

It does annoy me, but what annoys me more is when people say they should have ridden the eagles to mount doom, even though there were reasons they didn't.
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 11:45 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
It does annoy me, but what annoys me more is when people say they should have ridden the eagles to mount doom, even though there were reasons they didn't.

ikr. How on earth would you keep that a secret?
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 12:45 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
In a way they're kinda like a fallback, you know? Without the eagles in Return of the King they wouldn't have won, same with Last Battle. However, I liked seeing the eagles. It's always a cool thing to watch when they swoop in.

That brings up a good point, the battle of the five armies, and the battle at the black gate wouldn't have been won if it weren't for the eagles, just like the battle of helm's deep wouldn't have been won without the elves, or Gandalf bringing back Eomer, or the battle of Minas Tirith wouldn't have been won if it weren't for the rohirrim, or Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli didn't bring the dead army... :D
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 2:15 pm
Quoting Micah FBH
It does annoy me, but what annoys me more is when people say they should have ridden the eagles to mount doom, even though there were reasons they didn't.


One des not simply fly into mordor
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 2:54 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
the battle of helm's deep wouldn't have been won without the elves, or Gandalf bringing back Eomer, or the battle of Minas Tirith wouldn't have been won if it weren't for the rohirrim, or Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli didn't bring the dead army... :D


That is just people brining in reinforcements. :P
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 2:56 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

That is just people brining in reinforcements. :P

The eagles were reinforcements. :P

Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 3:03 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
The eagles were reinforcements. :P


But....but.....but.....Eagles....

:P
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 3:13 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

But....but.....but.....Eagles....

:P

:P
Permalink
| August 31, 2017, 7:27 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

But....but.....but.....Eagles....

:P

Ok, I guess that brings up another topic, what do you guys think of specific mythical creatures such as the balrog, and ents? (Dragons, trolls, goblins do not count...)
Permalink
| September 1, 2017, 6:22 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
That brings up a good point, the battle of the five armies, and the battle at the black gate wouldn't have been won if it weren't for the eagles, just like the battle of helm's deep wouldn't have been won without the elves, or Gandalf bringing back Eomer, or the battle of Minas Tirith wouldn't have been won if it weren't for the rohirrim, or Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli didn't bring the dead army... :D

... Well, yeah, that's really true... Personally Eomer's return has got to be one of my favorite scenes from LOTR.
Permalink
| September 2, 2017, 8:19 am
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Ok, I guess that brings up another topic, what do you guys think of specific mythical creatures such as the balrog, and ents? (Dragons, trolls, goblins do not count...)

Are we talking ability/persona, or about what they added/how they fit into the movie(s)?
Permalink
| September 2, 2017, 8:20 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
... Well, yeah, that's really true... Personally Eomer's return has got to be one of my favorite scenes from LOTR.

Agreed! I like that one as well... :D
Permalink
| September 2, 2017, 8:48 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
Are we talking ability/persona, or about what they added/how they fit into the movie(s)?

More of Tolkien's creativity creating such unique creatures, and how the affected the story, whether they were unique enough, and if you think the film captured it well.

Permalink
| September 2, 2017, 8:50 am
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
More of Tolkien's creativity creating such unique creatures, and how the affected the story, whether they were unique enough, and if you think the film captured it well.

Ah, all right. I think the balrog was done very well. The concept is brilliant, especially for where it was. This flame engulfed, demon-creature emerging from the deepest reaches of Moria, capable of destroying all in its path, no matter its size, something so intimidating and powerful that even a wizard fears it. This said beast then effectively defeats one of the most powerful wizards in the land (though at the cost of its own life), a fellowship's ray of sunlight, their pillar of hope. Something so dark to combat something so light. As a figure of evil, it was perfect to end one of such light. A great piece no doubt, and a very wise addition.
Permalink
| September 2, 2017, 10:14 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
More of Tolkien's creativity creating such unique creatures, and how the affected the story, whether they were unique enough, and if you think the film captured it well.

I like the way that trolls are portrayed, especially in the Hobbit. I also really like the way the Balrog looks in the film, however, I felt like they didn't do a good job making it more than a monster. The Balrogs are fallen Maia, and I'm sad that wasn't ever mentioned. They did a good job setting up that threat though.
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 3:04 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
I like the way that trolls are portrayed, especially in the Hobbit. I also really like the way the Balrog looks in the film, however, I felt like they didn't do a good job making it more than a monster. The Balrogs are fallen Maia, and I'm sad that wasn't ever mentioned. They did a good job setting up that threat though.

Yeah, I agree. The balrog looked cool, but he didn't really seem powerful enough... Technically Gandalf could have not fallen off, because he grabbed high enough on the bridge where he could pull himself up, which means he didn't really do anything that dangerous to the fellowship. :/
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 3:13 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
Ah, all right. I think the balrog was done very well. The concept is brilliant, especially for where it was. This flame engulfed, demon-creature emerging from the deepest reaches of Moria, capable of destroying all in its path, no matter its size, something so intimidating and powerful that even a wizard fears it. This said beast then effectively defeats one of the most powerful wizards in the land (though at the cost of its own life), a fellowship's ray of sunlight, their pillar of hope. Something so dark to combat something so light. As a figure of evil, it was perfect to end one of such light. A great piece no doubt, and a very wise addition.

Yeah, that also brings up a good point, it does create a rift in the fellowship, where they feel hopeless, and that they eventually lose Boromir, and the fellowship breaks. Which creates a good dramatic effect. :D
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 3:20 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Yeah, I agree. The balrog looked cool, but he didn't really seem powerful enough... Technically Gandalf could have not fallen off, because he grabbed high enough on the bridge where he could pull himself up, which means he didn't really do anything that dangerous to the fellowship. :/


Sorry that's the most silly nit-Picking I think I've ever seen! :P
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 5:55 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

Sorry that's the most silly nit-Picking I think I've ever seen! :P

Yeah, but in reality, he could have just climbed up. :P
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 6:47 pm
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Yeah, I agree. The balrog looked cool, but he didn't really seem powerful enough... Technically Gandalf could have not fallen off, because he grabbed high enough on the bridge where he could pull himself up, which means he didn't really do anything that dangerous to the fellowship. :/

He brought down Gandalf in a one-on-one. That's pretty powerful. :P
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 10:22 pm
Quoting Micah FBH
I like the way that trolls are portrayed, especially in the Hobbit. I also really like the way the Balrog looks in the film, however, I felt like they didn't do a good job making it more than a monster. The Balrogs are fallen Maia, and I'm sad that wasn't ever mentioned. They did a good job setting up that threat though.

I don't think Gandalf would have had the time or really thought to explain the dangerous monster following them was a Maia... See, it can be explained in a book because it is kind of told by a narrator, but movies (unless they are silent films) unfortunately would need someone to explain that.
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 10:26 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Yeah, but in reality, he could have just climbed up. :P


No, he was too weak from fighting...or that's the argument anyway :P
Permalink
| September 4, 2017, 10:28 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Silver Wolfos
I don't think Gandalf would have had the time or really thought to explain the dangerous monster following them was a Maia... See, it can be explained in a book because it is kind of told by a narrator, but movies (unless they are silent films) unfortunately would need someone to explain that.

You've got a point: different mediums can have different limitations when it comes to telling stories. I don't think the book even mentions that the Balrog is a fallen Maia (just hints at it). Besides, it's much more cool to have a "nameless" fear :)
Permalink
| September 5, 2017, 4:37 am
 Group moderator 
Erm. Why is it that every time a make a comment, this conversation goes silent :P
Permalink
| September 6, 2017, 1:32 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting C Stucky
You've got a point: different mediums can have different limitations when it comes to telling stories. I don't think the book even mentions that the Balrog is a fallen Maia (just hints at it). Besides, it's much more cool to have a "nameless" fear :)

Ooh, that is kind of cool, I thought it was a fallen Maia, because it was also a balrog that attacked Gondolin. Gandalf also says the Balrog of Morgoth, so it still could be something other than a fallen Maia... :)
Permalink
| September 6, 2017, 2:02 pm
Quoting C Stucky
Erm. Why is it that every time a make a comment, this conversation goes silent :P

Some questions will never be answered...
Permalink
| September 6, 2017, 4:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Ooh, that is kind of cool, I thought it was a fallen Maia, because it was also a balrog that attacked Gondolin. Gandalf also says the Balrog of Morgoth, so it still could be something other than a fallen Maia... :)

No, it's definitely a fallen Maia. That's the definition of a Balrog. The reason he calls it a Balrog of Morgoth is because the Balrogs are Maia that chose to follow Morgoth instead of Inwe.
Permalink
| September 6, 2017, 5:43 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Rove Random
No, it's definitely a fallen Maia. That's the definition of a Balrog. The reason he calls it a Balrog of Morgoth is because the Balrogs are Maia that chose to follow Morgoth instead of Inwe.

Ok. Nvm then.
Permalink
| September 6, 2017, 6:12 pm
 Group moderator 
Next topic, treebeard, what do you think about the design? Do you like the character? (The usual.) :)
Permalink
| September 20, 2017, 4:39 pm
 Group moderator 
*bump*
Permalink
| September 26, 2017, 8:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Next topic, treebeard, what do you think about the design? Do you like the character? (The usual.) :)

I am a fan of tree beard. I think that the movies nailed the design, however, I wish there was more of the ents in the film.
Permalink
| October 11, 2017, 2:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Roanoke Handybuck
Next topic, treebeard, what do you think about the design? Do you like the character? (The usual.) :)

I like him in the movies! Some people would have liked him to be less tree-like and more humanoid though, since he is not very precisely described in the books (I think). For instance check out this piece of artwork:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/hildebrandt/treebeard.jpg

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/sweet/entmoot.jpg
Permalink
| October 16, 2017, 7:34 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Kringe
I like him in the movies! Some people would have liked him to be less tree-like and more humanoid though, since he is not very precisely described in the books (I think). For instance check out this piece of artwork:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/hildebrandt/treebeard.jpg

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/sweet/entmoot.jpg

Hmmm... I see your point there, the book did describe Treebeard as a 14 foot humanoid creature, that looked like he was clothed in bark and tree type attributes... Personally, I really like what they did with Treebeard in the movies... :)
Permalink
| October 16, 2017, 7:44 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Kringe
I like him in the movies! Some people would have liked him to be less tree-like and more humanoid though, since he is not very precisely described in the books (I think). For instance check out this piece of artwork:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/hildebrandt/treebeard.jpg

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/sweet/entmoot.jpg

Yeah, but even when I read the books, I never thought of him looking like a giant wearing leaves.

Permalink
| October 16, 2017, 11:42 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Micah FBH
Yeah, but even when I read the books, I never thought of him looking like a giant wearing leaves.

I haven't even seen the movies, and I definitely pictured him as an anthropomorphic tree.

Permalink
| October 17, 2017, 12:02 am
Quoting Rove Random
Quoting Micah FBH
Yeah, but even when I read the books, I never thought of him looking like a giant wearing leaves.

I haven't even seen the movies.


My good sir! Care to explain yourself? :P
Permalink
| October 17, 2017, 5:42 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting James Douglas

My good sir! Care to explain yourself? :P

1. Parents are overprotective.
2. The movies absolutely cannot be as good as the books.
Permalink
| October 17, 2017, 11:31 am
Quoting Rove Random
1. Parents are overprotective.
2. The movies absolutely cannot be as good as the books.

I have reason 1 too...:P
Permalink
| March 23, 2018, 7:30 pm
Other topics
« Middle Earth Discussion and Debate



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Fellowship of the BrickLord of the Rings


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2018 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use