Fellowship of the Ring

mepbmlist
#1

Hi again,

I'll just bite into this one. Saruman *was* a minion of Sauron at
that time. They just spell it out a bit earlier than the book does,
but the book definately spells it out for you when Pippin looks into
the Orthanc stone.

My interpretation was that Saruman was tricking Sauron but was NOT his
minion in any way. First of all it is very aptly put by Gandalf on their
first meeting in Orthanc:

···

--------
"Saruman," I said, standing away from him, "only one hand at a time can
wield the One, and you know that well, so do not trouble to say we!"
--------
It is perfectly clear in the books that what Saruman desires is the Ring.
How can you explain being a minion of Sauron when you seek for yourself
what your 'master' desires? Yes, Saruman was corrupted by Sauron, but was
corrupted into wanting the Ring for himself, not into becoming a servant
of Mordor.

For further proof of this, look what happened to Merry and Pippin when
they were captured by the orcs. There were two orc parties, one of the red
eye and one of the white hand. The hobbits ended up on their way to
Isengard.

Sorry to be so geeky :slight_smile:

Well, I started this :PPPP

Marc said:

The key ingredient for a movie that is based on a book is capturing
its spirit, not a slavish and literal interpretation of the text.

There are many shades of gray :slight_smile: I was disappointed exactly because for me
the film did not capture the spirit. It did in many beautiful scenes, but
in others it didn't capture it so badly that it completely broke the spell
for me. As I said, a big one was the dialogue. I have only seen it once
(and I will see it more times :):):slight_smile: so I am wary to give you some of the
lines that I think I heard and jumped off my seat. Why is the spirit of
Tolkien captured better by lines like 'Are you frightened? Not nearly
frightened enough' than by the lines that Tolkien himself wrote?

Reading the Fellowship of the Ring aloud would take 60 hours.
That is one looong movie. You cannot present anything much longer
than a play in literal form.

Yes, a film would probably not stand up to the book even if it was 60
hours long. I do not expect it to stand up to the book, just be a bit more
faithful and capture the spirit better (dialogue, again).

2) The world. OK, I admit that my first and foremost griping is with

the

elves, all elves. Why so arrogant and cold?

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I thought they
captured the elves perfectly. They work for the forces of good,
but they are not saints. Galadriel does good things...but she is
powerful and intimidating. You see the features that allowed her
to cause so much grief in the Silmarillion.

In the books Galadriel is good and gentle. She is so gentle that... well,
I will let Tolkien say it in his words :slight_smile:
--------
She looked Gimli who sat glowering and sad, and she smiled. And the Dwarf
hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue looked up and met her
eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an
enemy and saw there love and understanding. Wonder came into his face, and
then he smiled in answer.
He rose clumsily and bowed in dwarven-fashion: 'Yet more fair is the
living land of Lorien, and the Lady Galadriel is above all the jewels that
lie beneath the earth!'
--------

I find that both the Galadriel and the Gimli of this film totally failed
to portray this character. It is not how I interpert it, it is how it is
written :slight_smile:

Again I hope this does not come through as confrontational, it's a subject
that I am passionate about :slight_smile:

Haris

#2

Hi again,

> I'll just bite into this one. Saruman *was* a minion of Sauron at
> that time. They just spell it out a bit earlier than the book does,
> but the book definately spells it out for you when Pippin looks into
> the Orthanc stone.

My interpretation was that Saruman was tricking Sauron but was NOT his
minion in any way. First of all it is very aptly put by Gandalf on their
first meeting in Orthanc:
--------
"Saruman," I said, standing away from him, "only one hand at a time can
wield the One, and you know that well, so do not trouble to say we!"
--------
It is perfectly clear in the books that what Saruman desires is the Ring.
How can you explain being a minion of Sauron when you seek for yourself
what your 'master' desires? Yes, Saruman was corrupted by Sauron, but was
corrupted into wanting the Ring for himself, not into becoming a servant
of Mordor.

I think that aspect of the film was totaly clear to the viewer....
Sauron orderd Saruman to raise an army for him.....
Then Saruman creates that army and asks them who their master is and the orcs
say Saruman and not Sauron.....
So he double crosses Sauron and send these troops to capture the ring for
himself not to give it Sauron...

For further proof of this, look what happened to Merry and Pippin when
they were captured by the orcs. There were two orc parties, one of the red
eye and one of the white hand. The hobbits ended up on their way to
Isengard.

Why would these two parties work together.... because Saruman told Sauron that
he is his minion.... then he doublecrosses him tries to get the ring
himself....

I am not saying that Saruman was a minion to Sauron, but he pretendet to be
one and as I think that aspect was shown in the film...

Greetings

Stefan

#3

I lean still towards being very happy of hte movie
adaptation of the book, but I have to totally agree
here. They eliminated this scene completely .. even
though they set it up! I nthe woods beforethe elves
"ambush" them, Gimli says he will never look fairly
upon a witch or something to that effect, like he does
in the book before entering lorien. So they set it
up, but then Gimli completely disappears in the whole
Lorien sequence! quite irritating, why bother with the
set-up.

Still hate the river thing, even though i knew about
it in advnace. But besides these two, i still loved
the movie and will see it again.

JB

···

--------

I find that both the Galadriel and the Gimli of this
film totally failed
to portray this character. It is not how I interpert
it, it is how it is
written :slight_smile:

Again I hope this does not come through as
confrontational, it's a subject
that I am passionate about :slight_smile:

Haris

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

#4

*I lean still towards being very happy of hte movie
*adaptation of the book, but I have to totally agree
*here. They eliminated this scene completely .. even
*though they set it up! I nthe woods beforethe elves
*"ambush" them, Gimli says he will never look fairly
*upon a witch or something to that effect, like he does
*in the book before entering lorien. So they set it
*up, but then Gimli completely disappears in the whole
*Lorien sequence! quite irritating, why bother with the
*set-up.

They probably filmed it, and it got cut out during
editing. This happens to films all the time. We'll
just have to wait for a DVD with restored scenes.
This is something that happens to most all films and
frequently ends up creating gaps in plot logic, something
I find infuriating.

Another gap which may [or perhaps not] be plugged by
missing scenes was created by the compression of book 1.
Since Gandalf discovered the identity of the one ring
so fast and then ran off immediately to ask Saruman about
it, there's no good explanation for why Aragorn was
at the Prancing Pony and aware enough of the Hobbits
to be keeping a sharp eye on them, much less know about
any rings. And that goes double for Arwen.

*Still hate the river thing, even though i knew about
*it in advnace. But besides these two, i still loved
*the movie and will see it again.

I loved it too, even though I think it is fatally flawed.

phredd

···

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:53:30AM -0800, John Briggs wrote:
--
IsagiyokuKakkoyokuIkiteIkou..TatoeFutarihanarebanareniNattemo...Takemyrevolution
            Shoujo Kakume Utena | phredd@enteract.com
HikariSasuGarden,TewoTiriaiChikaiattanagusameattaMouKoiwaNidotoShinaiyotteHohowo

#5

Haris

I understand where you are coming from, we all care about this subject else
we wouldn't be posting here :slight_smile:

Agree with you about Gimli and see the points you are making in other areas,
but have to disagree that there is no interpretation in your view of the
book.

We all bring our own viewpoints, experiences, education etc. when we
perceive any work of art. Also art changes when presented in a different
medium, as does our perception of that art.

This could get very deep but the film lives, talking today to friends who
haven't even read the book but saw the film they understood very well the
tainting power of the ring; the islands of peace and life in an ever
darkening world; Tolkien's warning of industrialisation as an evil of the
modern world.

So, please relax and enjoy the movie what it is ... a movie based on a book
that you love. It won't be the same as the book, it can't be, but it can
still be enjoyable.

When I first played ME-PBM I was BITTERLY disappointed that Imladris is a
major town - everyone knows its Elrond's House! I despised the differences
to the books, and there are plenty of them. But now I enjoy the game for
what it is. A game based on a series of books that I love.

Best wishes to everyone,

Matthew

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charilaos Nikokavouras" <cn399@ic.ac.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

I find that both the Galadriel and the Gimli of this film totally failed
to portray this character. It is not how I interpert it, it is how it is
written :slight_smile:

Again I hope this does not come through as confrontational, it's a subject
that I am passionate about :slight_smile:

Haris

#6

Hi again,

> I'll just bite into this one. Saruman *was* a minion of Sauron at
> that time. They just spell it out a bit earlier than the book does,
> but the book definately spells it out for you when Pippin looks into
> the Orthanc stone.

My interpretation was that Saruman was tricking Sauron but was NOT his
minion in any way. First of all it is very aptly put by Gandalf on their
first meeting in Orthanc:
--------
"Saruman," I said, standing away from him, "only one hand at a time can
wield the One, and you know that well, so do not trouble to say we!"
--------
It is perfectly clear in the books that what Saruman desires is the Ring.
How can you explain being a minion of Sauron when you seek for yourself
what your 'master' desires? Yes, Saruman was corrupted by Sauron, but was
corrupted into wanting the Ring for himself, not into becoming a servant
of Mordor.

For further proof of this, look what happened to Merry and Pippin when
they were captured by the orcs. There were two orc parties, one of the red
eye and one of the white hand. The hobbits ended up on their way to
Isengard.

> Sorry to be so geeky :slight_smile:

Well, I started this :PPPP

Marc said:

> The key ingredient for a movie that is based on a book is capturing
> its spirit, not a slavish and literal interpretation of the text.

There are many shades of gray :slight_smile: I was disappointed exactly because for me
the film did not capture the spirit. It did in many beautiful scenes, but
in others it didn't capture it so badly that it completely broke the spell
for me. As I said, a big one was the dialogue. I have only seen it once
(and I will see it more times :):):slight_smile: so I am wary to give you some of the
lines that I think I heard and jumped off my seat. Why is the spirit of
Tolkien captured better by lines like 'Are you frightened? Not nearly
frightened enough' than by the lines that Tolkien himself wrote?

> Reading the Fellowship of the Ring aloud would take 60 hours.
> That is one looong movie. You cannot present anything much longer
> than a play in literal form.

Yes, a film would probably not stand up to the book even if it was 60
hours long. I do not expect it to stand up to the book, just be a bit more
faithful and capture the spirit better (dialogue, again).

> 2) The world. OK, I admit that my first and foremost griping is with
the
> elves, all elves. Why so arrogant and cold?

> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I thought they
> captured the elves perfectly. They work for the forces of good,
> but they are not saints. Galadriel does good things...but she is
> powerful and intimidating. You see the features that allowed her
> to cause so much grief in the Silmarillion.

In the books Galadriel is good and gentle. She is so gentle that... well,
I will let Tolkien say it in his words :slight_smile:
--------
She looked Gimli who sat glowering and sad, and she smiled. And the Dwarf
hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue looked up and met her
eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an
enemy and saw there love and understanding. Wonder came into his face, and
then he smiled in answer.
He rose clumsily and bowed in dwarven-fashion: 'Yet more fair is the
living land of Lorien, and the Lady Galadriel is above all the jewels that
lie beneath the earth!'
--------

I find that both the Galadriel and the Gimli of this film totally failed
to portray this character. It is not how I interpert it, it is how it is
written :slight_smile:

Again I hope this does not come through as confrontational, it's a subject
that I am passionate about :slight_smile:

Haris

RD: Oh mere mortal, you have failed to comprehend the complexity of
Galadriel! First and foremost, she was a Noldo, one of the "mightiest and
fairest of those who walk Middle-earth." (Silmarillion).

Secondly, she was the most powerful Noldo left in Middle-earth. She stayed
in Middle-earth even after the gods were willing to forgive her, because she
desired power and dominion, and realms of her own to shape and rule
(Unfinished Tales: the story of Galadriel and Celeborn). She was immensely
powerful and had pride to match, like all the Noldor. "She looked upon the
Dwarves with the eye of a captain, because she saw in them warriors capable
of besting the orcs."

So, mortal, you perceived Galadriel as a mere witch? The evil must lie in
your own heart. Certainly Galadriel was as proud and power-hungry as any
other Noldo. But she had the greatness of spirit not to despise races
lesser than the Noldor, but rather to recognize that they too had their part
to play. Galadriel did display humanity and sensitivity to Frodo which I
thought came across in the film . In the book, of course, she displayed the
same qualities to all of the fellowship, but the film was too short to show
this, so quite rightly concentrated on her relationship with Frodo.

Yes, mortal, Galadriel was good, and could be gentle (as she was, in the
film, to Frodo), but that was only one aspect of her character. You don't
live for thousands of years, the mightiest of your kind, and become a head
of state, without being ruthless and aloof. She had reason to be cold and
arrogant, if she wanted, yet she deigned to talk with each one of the
fellowship and give what help and comfort she could. But for reasons of
time, this was condensed into her talk with Frodo.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Charilaos Nikokavouras <cn399@ic.ac.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#7

Haris

I understand where you are coming from, we all care about this subject

else

we wouldn't be posting here :slight_smile:

Agree with you about Gimli and see the points you are making in other

areas,

but have to disagree that there is no interpretation in your view of the
book.

We all bring our own viewpoints, experiences, education etc. when we
perceive any work of art. Also art changes when presented in a different
medium, as does our perception of that art.

This could get very deep but the film lives, talking today to friends who
haven't even read the book but saw the film they understood very well the
tainting power of the ring; the islands of peace and life in an ever
darkening world; Tolkien's warning of industrialisation as an evil of the
modern world.

So, please relax and enjoy the movie what it is ... a movie based on a

book

that you love. It won't be the same as the book, it can't be, but it can
still be enjoyable.

When I first played ME-PBM I was BITTERLY disappointed that Imladris is a
major town - everyone knows its Elrond's House! I despised the

differences

to the books, and there are plenty of them. But now I enjoy the game for
what it is. A game based on a series of books that I love.

Best wishes to everyone,

Matthew

RD: Have you read the Silmarillion? There, Imladris is specifically
referred to as a "fortress." Imladris withstood a siege by Sauron's armies
and was a major recruiting base for the armies of the Last Alliance. I
think the term "house" is used as a very loose poetical term, which may
mislead anybody who took it literally.

The "Last Homely House" Imladris may have been, but it was palatial as well
as fortified, obviously comprising several connecting halls, and by
inference a large number of outbuildings as well. Consider: you have this
massive "house" (palace?) with Elrond's family, friends and advisors, plus
Noldo and other Elven refugees from all over Middle-earth. You have at
least a modest military force. To mainatin all these artistocrats and
warriors, not to mention their horses, you need cooks, smiths, cobblers,
tailors, fletchers, coopers, carpenters, masons, servants, stablehands etc.
Then you need to feed all these non-productive people which needs at least
eight times their number of farmers!

Having just seen The Fellowship for the second time, I was diappointed to
see that Imladris, for all its size, seemed devoid of inhabitants except for
the main characters. There should have been lots of peasant or servant
elves in the background, going merrily about their daily business and
singing as they did so.

Fully justifies being classified as a major town I think!

Richard.

From: "Charilaos Nikokavouras" <cn399@ic.ac.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

> I find that both the Galadriel and the Gimli of this film totally failed
> to portray this character. It is not how I interpert it, it is how it is
> written :slight_smile:
>
> Again I hope this does not come through as confrontational, it's a

subject

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Riley <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

----- Original Message -----
> that I am passionate about :slight_smile:
>
> Haris
>

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#8

Hi Richard

Have you read the Silmarillion? There, Imladris is specifically

referred to as a "fortress." Imladris withstood a siege by Sauron's armies
and was a major recruiting base for the armies of the Last Alliance. I
think the term "house" is used as a very loose poetical term, which may
mislead anybody who took it literally.<<

Fully justifies being classified as a major town I think!<<

Yes I have read the Silmarillion, a number of times :slight_smile:

The events you describe took place about 3,000 years before the War of the
Ring by which time most of the Noldo had left for the West. This is why the
sum of their war effort consisted of sending the sons of Elrond to fight
with the Dunedain Rangers. Of course in the Return of the King moviethis
will undoubtedly consist of Arwen & her brothers!!

So lets say in ME-PBM the DS reveal Imladris. Then the Fire King sends his
emissaries in and sways it to his nation. His commander goes in and hires
armies of Orcs .... what happened to all the Elves that were running about
the place a few months before? The Ranger's are a bit naffed off about this
so they sends emissaries in, blah-blah-blah -- the commander then recruits
armies of Dunedain. What happened to the Elves AND the Orcs?

Of course this premise applies to all of the population centres in the game,
and is a foible I am happy to live with, but I really can't think of
Imladris in the middle to late third age as a major town. And if its
upgraded to a city where does the extra populace come from? People moving
back east from the Valar's lands perchance?

Matthew

#9

*I lean still towards being very happy of hte movie
*adaptation of the book, but I have to totally agree
*here. They eliminated this scene completely ..
even
*though they set it up! I nthe woods beforethe
elves
*"ambush" them, Gimli says he will never look fairly
*upon a witch or something to that effect, like he
does
*in the book before entering lorien. So they set it
*up, but then Gimli completely disappears in the
whole
*Lorien sequence! quite irritating, why bother with
the
*set-up.

They probably filmed it, and it got cut out during
editing. This happens to films all the time. We'll
just have to wait for a DVD with restored scenes.
This is something that happens to most all films and
frequently ends up creating gaps in plot logic,
something
I find infuriating.

Another gap which may [or perhaps not] be plugged by
missing scenes was created by the compression of
book 1.
Since Gandalf discovered the identity of the one
ring
so fast and then ran off immediately to ask Saruman
about
it, there's no good explanation for why Aragorn was
at the Prancing Pony and aware enough of the Hobbits
to be keeping a sharp eye on them, much less know
about
any rings. And that goes double for Arwen.

*Still hate the river thing, even though i knew
about
*it in advnace. But besides these two, i still
loved
*the movie and will see it again.

I loved it too, even though I think it is fatally
flawed.

phredd
--

IsagiyokuKakkoyokuIkiteIkou..TatoeFutarihanarebanareniNattemo...Takemyrevolution

            Shoujo Kakume Utena |
phredd@enteract.com

HikariSasuGarden,TewoTiriaiChikaiattanagusameattaMouKoiwaNidotoShinaiyotteHohowo

···

--- Phredd Groves <phredd@enteract.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:53:30AM -0800, John > Briggs wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

#10

Hi Richard

>>Have you read the Silmarillion? There, Imladris is specifically
referred to as a "fortress." Imladris withstood a siege by Sauron's

armies

and was a major recruiting base for the armies of the Last Alliance. I
think the term "house" is used as a very loose poetical term, which may
mislead anybody who took it literally.<<

>>Fully justifies being classified as a major town I think!<<

Yes I have read the Silmarillion, a number of times :slight_smile:

The events you describe took place about 3,000 years before the War of the
Ring by which time most of the Noldo had left for the West. This is why

the

sum of their war effort consisted of sending the sons of Elrond to fight
with the Dunedain Rangers. Of course in the Return of the King moviethis
will undoubtedly consist of Arwen & her brothers!!

So lets say in ME-PBM the DS reveal Imladris. Then the Fire King sends

his

emissaries in and sways it to his nation. His commander goes in and hires
armies of Orcs .... what happened to all the Elves that were running about
the place a few months before? The Ranger's are a bit naffed off about

this

so they sends emissaries in, blah-blah-blah -- the commander then recruits
armies of Dunedain. What happened to the Elves AND the Orcs?

Of course this premise applies to all of the population centres in the

game,

and is a foible I am happy to live with, but I really can't think of
Imladris in the middle to late third age as a major town. And if its
upgraded to a city where does the extra populace come from? People moving
back east from the Valar's lands perchance?

Matthew

RD: the changes you are talking about apply to any pop in the game. As you
say, it's something we have to live with.

All I was doing was justifying the case for Imladris starting out as a MT.
Certainly elf numbers were dwindling but Imladris was still a refuge for FP
of all races from a wide area. It must have had at least a modest standing
army - as it does in the game - or it would be quickly swamped by the orcs
who swarmed in the nearby Misty mts not to mention evil Men. Imladris may
have been magically or geographically "hidden" but Sauron knew exactly where
it was - he had besieged it once!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Riley <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#11

> *I lean still towards being very happy of hte movie
> *adaptation of the book, but I have to totally agree
> *here. They eliminated this scene completely ..
> even
> *though they set it up! I nthe woods beforethe
> elves
> *"ambush" them, Gimli says he will never look fairly
> *upon a witch or something to that effect, like he
> does
> *in the book before entering lorien. So they set it
> *up, but then Gimli completely disappears in the
> whole
> *Lorien sequence! quite irritating, why bother with
> the
> *set-up.
>
> They probably filmed it, and it got cut out during
> editing. This happens to films all the time. We'll
> just have to wait for a DVD with restored scenes.
> This is something that happens to most all films and
> frequently ends up creating gaps in plot logic,
> something
> I find infuriating.
>
> Another gap which may [or perhaps not] be plugged by
> missing scenes was created by the compression of
> book 1.
> Since Gandalf discovered the identity of the one
> ring
> so fast and then ran off immediately to ask Saruman
> about
> it, there's no good explanation for why Aragorn was
> at the Prancing Pony and aware enough of the Hobbits
> to be keeping a sharp eye on them, much less know
> about
> any rings. And that goes double for Arwen.

RD: There was another such gap. Boromir, fighting against hopeless odds to
defend the hobbits, blew his horn to summon help, Legolas goes, "the Horn of
Gondor!"

Where was the intro to the Horn of Gondor? In the book, Boromir blew it as
the Fellowship left Lorien. Aragorn told him off, as they were trying to
preserve secrecy. Boromir retorted that he always sounded the horn when he
set out on a journey. It would have taken a scene only seconds long to say
this and establish that the horn was an heirloom. But this too has been
cut - if it was ever shot. Roll on the "director's cut."

Richard.

>
> *Still hate the river thing, even though i knew
> about
> *it in advnace. But besides these two, i still
> loved
> *the movie and will see it again.
>
> I loved it too, even though I think it is fatally
> flawed.
>
> phredd
> --
>

IsagiyokuKakkoyokuIkiteIkou..TatoeFutarihanarebanareniNattemo...Takemyrevolu
tion

> Shoujo Kakume Utena |
> phredd@enteract.com
>

HikariSasuGarden,TewoTiriaiChikaiattanagusameattaMouKoiwaNidotoShinaiyotteHo
howo

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Homer Domingue <hdomingue2000@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Fellowship of the Ring

--- Phredd Groves <phredd@enteract.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:53:30AM -0800, John > > Briggs wrote:
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#12

They probably filmed it, and it got cut out during
editing. This happens to films all the time. We'll
just have to wait for a DVD with restored scenes.
This is something that happens to most all films and
frequently ends up creating gaps in plot logic, something
I find infuriating.

Supposedly the initial cut was 4 hours long. Jackson had to cut the
film down to 145 minutes per producers. He was able to get them to
go for the 178 minute cut.

Paul