First off I should say that I just recently watched ROTK - it was quite enjoyable. I have seen the other two as well. Only attempted to read the books in my youth ... never made it. My wife and her brother are fans of Tolkien so i've got all these books of Tolkien etc at home ... but never bother to read them. Forgive my ignorance ...
Anyways, i've got some comments/observations/questions of my own ...
- When Aragorn recruits the King of the Dead and his army for the battle of Pelennor Fields ... if they are such an unstoppable force why didn't he just retain them until the final battle with Sauron so they could do all the ass-kicking?
That didn't make any sense at all.
Hmmmnn ... I have this unstoppable force at my disposal that I can use against a really scary opponent. I think i'm just going to use them for a short while and then let them go off to never-never land. I won't utilize them in the ultimate battle - nahhhh - that would be too easy!
- When Frodo and Sam are hanging around on that rock outcropping while rivers of lava flow by and huge flinging rocks of fiery whatever are making pretty arcs in the sky ... guess Hobbits are immune to super-intense heat and poisonous gases?
- When Sam is lamenting on how if he had the chance over again he would marry whatshername back in The Shire as Frodo tries to console him ... well, you knew right away (obviously) that they would be saved somehow from their predicament.
The problem I had with that scene stems from my experiences of our Mature Forum at work. Damn that Forum!
I thought that there were potentially strong homoerotic vibes going on between Frodo and Sam. I smiled in my own mind invisioning Frodo offering Sam a blowjob during their last moments in Middle Earth. Seeing Frodo going down on Sam in my own imagination made me stifle a laugh in the theatre.
Especially since the whole scene was a bit drawn out to emphasize the seemingly lack of all hope for Frodo and Sam. In fact, I did kinda laugh and my wife looked at me strangely wondering what was there to laugh about.
- the scene where Denethor (i'm getting these names from patriotresource.com - not from my head that's for sure) is lit on fire from the pyre that he set for himself and Faramir - you see him falling from the edge of Minas Tirith.
Well, that's a really long way to go while being burned alive. The overhead shots of Minas Tirith from the gates to the edge makes it look like at least 500 ft or more. I had a quick chuckle ... looked great though.
- cut to the last scene(s) where Frodo leaves with Gandalf and the Elves. Why does he have to leave?
There's more ... but I won't bore you.
But i'd like to learn more about The Paths of the Dead and that whole situation if there are any sites on the 'Net that takl about it in more detail. Thought that it was interesting. Please don't recommend me to actually read a book - that would be too painful. ;)
Any comments/corrections would be welcome.
diacritic
02-06-04, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by bill_n_opus
- When Aragorn recruits the King of the Dead and his army for the battle of Pelennor Fields ... if they are such an unstoppable force why didn't he just retain them until the final battle with Sauron so they could do all the ass-kicking?
- When Frodo and Sam are hanging around on that rock outcropping while rivers of lava flow by and huge flinging rocks of fiery whatever are making pretty arcs in the sky ... guess Hobbits are immune to super-intense heat and poisonous gases?
I thought that there were potentially strong homoerotic vibes going on between Frodo and Sam. I smiled in my own mind invisioning Frodo offering Sam a blowjob during their last moments in Middle Earth. Seeing Frodo going down on Sam in my own imagination made me stifle a laugh in the theatre.
- the scene where Denethor (i'm getting these names from patriotresource.com - not from my head that's for sure) is lit on fire from the pyre that he set for himself and Faramir - you see him falling from the edge of Minas Tirith.
- cut to the last scene(s) where Frodo leaves with Gandalf and the Elves. Why does he have to leave?
Any comments/corrections would be welcome.
1) On the extended version you will see Aragorn bribe the army with gold. He has enough gold to pay them for only one battle
2) The blowjob will be on the EE
3) yes, that's messed up
4) Frodo leaves because Sam is married and thus no more BJs.
actually...
1) I think the dead are only obliged to fulfill their duty as defenders of gondor not attackers of Morder. (And in the books they never fight! They are only boogey men scaring off the pirates)
2) I agree woth the homoeroticism; it's definitely there, but others will disagree
3) yes, that's messed up
4) Frodo is in too much pain in Middle Earth, especially on the anniversaries of his stabbing at Weathertop and the destruction of the ring. And Sam is married so no more BJs (though Sam does follow him to the Undying Lands as soon as Rosie is a corpse, so they can continue their hobbit love in eternity).
bill_n_opus
02-06-04, 07:54 AM
:D
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.
One would figure that if they could come up with porno titles like Edward PenisHands and such that they would eventually come up with some LOTR porn title too. Frodo going down on Sam (cue the porno music) would be funny.
Anyways, I was just doing some internet research and found a great site that answered most of my questions.
Some really exhaustive site ... (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/u/undyinglands.html)
Can't believe that Tolkien produced so much detail and imagination and creativity. Quite mind boggling.
In the mystical land of Diddle Earth live bisexual folk called Throbbits, although as Dildo Saggins (Mundae) explains, they'd be more accurately dubbed trisexuals as "the horny little bastards will TRY anything!" !
Vegas9203
02-06-04, 10:43 PM
Well, if you're going to kill the movie with logic...
1. there is no such place as Middle Earth
2. No elves, dwarfs, hobbits, wizards...etc
3. it's a movie!! a FANTASY movie.
Aragorn is 87, Gandalf "died" and came back. Sauron is a spirit...etc, etc,etc, etc, etc, etc.....you must really suspend logic...or else it's pointless.
As for the homoeroticism....there is none, unless you are looking for it. If you think the Sam/Frodo relationship is homoerotic, how did you feel in FOTR when Aragorn *gasp* strokes and KISSES Boromir when he dies? I saw no homoeroticism there...just a lack of homophobia.
bill_n_opus
02-06-04, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Vegas9203
Well, if you're going to kill the movie with logic...
1. there is no such place as Middle Earth
2. No elves, dwarfs, hobbits, wizards...etc
3. it's a movie!! a FANTASY movie.
Aragorn is 87, Gandalf "died" and came back. Sauron is a spirit...etc, etc,etc, etc, etc, etc.....you must really suspend logic...or else it's pointless.
As for the homoeroticism....there is none, unless you are looking for it. If you think the Sam/Frodo relationship is homoerotic, how did you feel in FOTR when Aragorn *gasp* strokes and KISSES Boromir when he dies? I saw no homoeroticism there...just a lack of homophobia.
Well thank you Captain Obvious! :)
I fully realize that it's a fantasy movie ... that suspension of disbelief is an integral part of view such movie. Just pointing out interesting observations. I didn't say "It's an affront to science I tell you!"
As for the homoeroticism I wasn't suggesting anything like it was put there on purpose by Tolkien etc ... just commenting about how possibly funny the whole homoeroticism thing would be that's all.
TCG
02-07-04, 04:53 AM
There's really only 2 questions there, but i'll try to answer them.
1. the paths of the dead
the army betrayed isildur long ago when sauron deceived them and they declined to fight him (i believe i remember from the book), so isildur cursed them to never have peace in death until they fulfilled their duty to the king of Gondor. that's what they did at pelennor fields. aragorn had to release them from service. even if he wanted them to help attack mordor, they would not have gone with him.
2. why did frodo leave?
it was the only way that he could be healed from all his injuries. it's more detailed in the book (and on the EE i expect) that on the anniversary of each major injury (knife, sting, tooth, & the ring), he felt like shit. so going to the blessed realm was the only way to be fully healed. this invitation was extended to all the ringbearers, for it was a burden they never should have had to bear. so bilbo, frodo and sam were all allowed entry into valinor.
bill_n_opus
02-07-04, 08:23 AM
Thanks.
That was a very clear explanation about Frodo leaving with Bilbo, Gandalf etc.
RoboDad
02-07-04, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by diacritic
2) I agree woth the homoeroticism; it's definitely there, but others will disagree
Correction - there is no "homoeroticism" in The Lord of the Rings (book or movie), but some continue to insist on seeing something that isn't there.
Upper pylon 3
02-09-04, 10:10 AM
It looked like there was more homoeroticism between Merry & Pippen than Sam & Frodo.
Philip Reuben
02-09-04, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by RoboDad
Correction - there is no "homoeroticism" in The Lord of the Rings (book or movie), but some continue to insist on seeing something that isn't there.
You're not really 'correcting' him. You're proving his point that "others will disagree".
RoboDad
02-09-04, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Philip Reuben
You're not really 'correcting' him. You're proving his point that "others will disagree".
No, actually I was trying to point out the absurdity of his statement by making one that was equally absurd. He made a statement of opinion as if it were an absolute, undeniable fact, and then said some would disagree, thus implying that anyone who would disagree is somehow missing something. That is an absurd thing to do.
The claim of homoeroticism in The Lord of the Rings is pure conjecture at best. There is no empirical evidence that it exists on any level. There are only inferences drawn by people, based on what they think they see (either for or against it).
Philip Reuben
02-09-04, 11:55 AM
Yeah, I guess you're right.
diacritic
02-09-04, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by RoboDad
No, actually I was trying to point out the absurdity of his statement by making one that was equally absurd. He made a statement of opinion as if it were an absolute, undeniable fact, and then said some would disagree, thus implying that anyone who would disagree is somehow missing something. That is an absurd thing to do.
The claim of homoeroticism in The Lord of the Rings is pure conjecture at best. There is no empirical evidence that it exists on any level. There are only inferences drawn by people, based on what they think they see (either for or against it).
Empirical evidence is hard to find, particularly because Tolkien never mentions sex for any of the relationships in LOTR. However, the story of Sam and Frodo finds direct parallel in early and ancient texts in many texts that were also Tolkien's sources, like Morte Darthur (Malory's 15th Century retelling of the King Arthur stories) where knights find love between each other. Another example is Homer's Iliad, with the love shared between Achilles and Patroclus.
Homoeroticism refers to a kind of love that is not bound to the restrictions of carnal sex. It refers to a pure kind of love that is beyond sexuality, more pure because more spiritual, but much more intense than brotherly love. Indeed, during the middle ages, the Church encouraged men to avoid contact with women since they were seen as the embodiment of sin and sex; thus relations between men, leading to pure love (since it is impossible to love sin, women) between men becomes inevitable.
In ancient times love between men was the norm, not the exception. And what is the Lord of the Rings if not an ancient text presented to the modern reader? Of course the modern reader will not recognize the homoeroticism -- because he brings into the text his own modern values....
So, to keep things short: it is certainly possible to argue that homoeroticism does not exist, but one must be open to the possibility, based on textual evidence (see the chapter "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" where Sam gives Frodo many passionate staring looks, particularly when Gollum is absent), that the text can be quite homoerotic at moments. Blatently rejecting these moments would equate to nothing other than casting away key moments in the text.
RoboDad
02-09-04, 02:27 PM
You have made this claim before, trying to redefine homoeroticism, and you have been proven wrong before. Please try to come up with something new, and at least somewhat viable, as a basis for your arguments.
Oh, and by the way, attempting to equate the concepts of "love" and "eroticism" is bizarre, to say the least. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I love my brother very much, and would even die for him, but there is nothing erotic about our relationship.
wlmowery
02-09-04, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by RoboDad
You have made this claim before, trying to redefine homoeroticism, and you have been proven wrong before. Please try to come up with something new, and at least somewhat viable, as a basis for your arguments.
Oh, and by the way, attempting to equate the concepts of "love" and "eroticism" is bizarre, to say the least. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I love my brother very much, and would even die for him, but there is nothing erotic about our relationship.
:D
Debate is always so much more fun when you can make your own definitions for the key terms in conflict....
talemyn
02-15-04, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by bill_n_opus
Please don't recommend me to actually read a book - that would be too painful. ;)I recommend that you read the books . . .
Buy: