ROTK: Extended Version...

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:57 pm

bobaprime85 wrote:
Obfleur wrote:I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you

I don't like the humour in the movies. It's to stupid.
Especially all the jokes with the dwarf - and the jokes between the dwarf and Legolas.
I like the serious tone of the movies - but those jokes ruine everything.
I don't believe it-someone who shares my opinion about LOTR! I love the sweeds! And their wookies!

I only laughed at the jokes that I made. Their humor was about as bland as you can get. And I remember people laughing in the theater everytime the dwarf was on screen. I was like WTF!

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:17 am

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
bobaprime85 wrote:
Obfleur wrote:I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you

I don't like the humour in the movies. It's to stupid.
Especially all the jokes with the dwarf - and the jokes between the dwarf and Legolas.
I like the serious tone of the movies - but those jokes ruine everything.
I don't believe it-someone who shares my opinion about LOTR! I love the sweeds! And their wookies!
I only laughed at the jokes that I made. Their humor was about as bland as you can get. And I remember people laughing in the theater everytime the dwarf was on screen. I was like WTF!

Ppl laughed in Two Towers when Gollum was trying to dispel his evil half. Figure that. The jokes are the kind you smirk at, or maybe have a light chuckle. But by no means do they "ruin" the movie. I mean God...what's going on when someone makes a declaration like that...it's just plain dumb. Disregarding the whole movie cuz you don't like the jokes? Good Lord, I can't fathom that.

What was funniest to me was the competition between Legolas and Gimli. I mean, it was funny to start with, but then come to find out it was actually written into the book made it that much better. You don't expect a guy like Tolkein to include that kind of thing, given how long ago he wrote it, but it really is solid to see that he had a sense of humor.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:28 am

I don't like the comic tone of some of the scenes, and I must say the more I see Gollum the more Jackson's interpretation of him seems to irritate me... it's not because I think his interpretation is wrong, I just find Gollum (the way he's crafted him) to come across as more annoying than loathsome/pitiable.

I don't see why Obfleur shouldn't find the humour a problem- that battle sequence at the gates of Helm's Deep I thought were crippled by the joke of 'couldn't you find a better spot!' First time you see it, I grant, it's funny. However not the second time, imo. It forever stunts the drama and atmosphere of that scene for the sake of a one-hit laugh, I think.

I still say it's the greatest thing ever committed to celluloid, but it does have its flaws. Though they're to be expected, its what happens when one person translates their imagination to the screen- it won't necessarily match with everyone else's imagination.

Ultimate Weapon wrote:HAHA Homo eroticism is not some serious science. Nor is it taboo and off limits to parody.

...Quite. Thank you for putting us all straight on that.

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:34 am

I'm saying that there's a diff between not liking the humor and making it the entire basis for you not liking the movie. That's just plain silly. He's saying; forget all those battles, the great visuals and incredible moments. The humor sucked so it sucks.

But then, I've long since given up on this guy at all. I do not understand him or any of his motivations one whit. And this is one such example.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:21 am

Karl Lynch wrote:I don't see why Obfleur shouldn't find the humour a problem- that battle sequence at the gates of Helm's Deep I thought were crippled by the joke of 'couldn't you find a better spot!' First time you see it, I grant, it's funny. However not the second time, imo. It forever stunts the drama and atmosphere of that scene for the sake of a one-hit laugh, I think.

Yay for Karl!

Redstreak wrote:I'm saying that there's a diff between not liking the humor and making it the entire basis for you not liking the movie. That's just plain silly. He's saying; forget all those battles, the great visuals and incredible moments. The humor sucked so it sucks.

The visuals are stunning, yes. It's a great piece of work, yes.
But the meeting between Eowyn and that Nazgul dude is plain silly to me. The whole "I am no man" sounds like something out of a Arnie movie. Cheesy crap. Might've worked in the book - but it made me wanna hurl when I heard her say it.
Gollums death didn't move me at all. It just seemed.. short and pointless. Gollum, in fact, wasn't at all what I thought he would be. I wanted to pity him. I wanted to feel bad for him wanting the ring so much. But nothing really happened for me. He was just there as a great special effect.
And I honestly don't care how great the battles are - it's not battles that make a movie great. It's emotions, character development, dialouge, etc.
Sometimes the sad feeling of the movie just get crushed by large exploisions and special effects orgies (and the jokes).
The relationship between Sam and Frodo is well done - but to me, thats the only relationship that's well done.
The whole Legolas VS Gimli gets old and annoying.
And the humour... It's like Peter Jackson thinks we're ******* idiots (eg. when Helm is getting attacked, and Gimli is standing up on the walls saying something like "What's going on, I can't see". Plain silly. And that wasn't the only joke during the battle).
It's been a long time since I saw it, but the only characters that really changes/developes is Sam and Frodo? Everyone else stays exactly the same throughout the movie.
The dialouge sometimes seems so.. stale. Yes, I understand, it's a book, it's old, etc. But it makes the actors to stale at times.
I can go on, but I wont. These are my reasons why I don't think the movie is great.
I do understand why everybody else thinks they are great, I honestly do.

But I just dont like them as much as the rest of you. Can you pleeeaaase accept that?

And "I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you" doesn't translate into "not liking the movie".
I like the movie - but I would've liked it way more if that stupid humour was dropped = the humour ruines it.

Redstreak wrote: But then, I've long since given up on this guy at all.

What the [composite word including 'f*ck'] are you? My dad or something?
My AA sponsor?
Christ dude... all because I don't agree with you that LOTR are great movies - and some ******** 9/11-crap?

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:59 am

I thought by far the funniest line was when Aragorn said "Its the beards" to Eowyn. All the other jokes were arse, but it was great to see Aragorn being light and funny. He needed that side to him I think, just a shame it neveer appeared anywhere else in the films.

Despite the brilliance of everything, my favourite bit will probably be the hot troll action in the first film. That was stonkingly good, and I miss the sarcy tone of Bormir "They have a cave troll". Just the way he said it, know what I mean?

I'll get back to Redsreak's reply in a bit, I've run out of time at the moment and he said some interesting things.

KingMob · Post by **KingMob** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:24 pm

Auntie Slag wrote:"They have a cave troll". Just the way he said it, know what I mean?

Oh yeah. I love that line. I really rate his whole performance, actually. Best thing in the whole trilogy for me. Although Bernard Hill as Theoden comes a close second.

As for humour, each to their own. I think the hugest laugh I have is from right at the end of ROTK, where the Hobbits are coming home and they move past the 'grumpy'-faced old Hobbit who's cleaning his stoop or something, all gussied up in their finery.
And Pippin nods and says 'Arrite?' in a perfect moment of transplanting everyday Scottish linguistic behaviour into the film. Good thing, bad thing, intentional or not, I get a good-natured laugh from it every time.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:45 pm

I forgot the "Arrite" bit. Only seen ROTK once so far, so I don't know it like the others. It was good, nice that Jackson could stick little bits like that in, or leave them in as opposed to George Lucas who might think an "Arrite" completely undermines the something of the whatever of the bollocking scene.

In years time when this is all passe and the effects are surpassed I'll still love the cave troll, the top acting by Gandalf (I wanna sample "Its quite cool", that's the bit he says to Frodo in FOTR when he takes the ring out of the fire using tongs and passed it to him, and use it in a crappy rap medley).
That and the little bits that really shine; "They have a cave troll", "Arrite", Pippin pissing off Gandalf "What are you going to do then"?

My favourite Gandalf is from the first film, he's like the ultimate old Grandad, whereas in TTT he's a bit harsher. I really like that he gets a bit more grandaddy with Pippin in the third one.

Pippin: "So we're going to die then"
Gandalf: "Yep, fraid so".

Top stuff, no messing about with poncy speeches like "Always have hope young padawan", or "With great power comes great responsibility". Nah. Instead Gandalf goes with; "Deaths not so bad. Quite fun, you'll like it, probably".

Totally excellent, I've had it with jumped up 'fight to the end' speeches. You won't get good lines like this in Episode III.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:28 pm

Redstreak wrote:He's saying; forget all those battles, the great visuals and incredible moments. The humor sucked so it sucks.

Well, to be fair, he actually said 'the humour ruined it'- he never specified what 'it' was precisely. Might have just been those moments, those scenes etc.

But then, I've long since given up on this guy at all. I do not understand him or any of his motivations one whit. And this is one such example.

And yet he's gone to such great degrees to explain himself and I have some understanding of it. I'm not alone either.

I don't think Obfleur is bad, nor that he needs telling off. I can only speak for myself, but maybe if you give him a chance and accept that he will have different views to you. That doesn't make him bad... only so far as you allow it to in your eyes.

That's my meddling done for the day...

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:32 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:I don't think Obfleur is bad, nor that he needs telling off. I can only speak for myself, but maybe if you give him a chance and accept that he will have different views to you. That doesn't make him bad... only so far as you allow it to in your eyes.

I just saw myself dancing around, singing Michael Jacksons "I'm bad"

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:29 pm

long as you dont start taking after him in other ways!

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:12 pm

Obfleur wrote:
What the **** are you? My dad or something?
My AA sponsor?
Christ dude... all because I don't agree with you that LOTR are great movies - and some ******** 9/11-crap?

Yup, I am your "daddy". I said it before, the fact that you will not even look at the other perspective, that you will not be reasonable, is a completely ignorant and idiotic stance. You show me that you can look at and understand the other viewpoint, accepting that it exists and has merit, whether you agree with it or not, and we'll see. I never asked you to agree with me, but I asked you to acknowledge that another perspective exists and you refused. What do you think that says? It says your inobstinate, forget what anyone else thinks, I'm right and I can't possibly be wrong, etc., etc. The fact that you refer to it as 9/11 "crap" only buoys my point.

I thought I made myself clear before. The things you say and the reasons you give for saying them make no sense to me, and I'm an intelligent, well-read person, and generally understand ppl and their motives. So why should I think you're capable of sensible and rational thought processes when you won't do something as simple as acknowledge the way someone else feels? You've shown me nothing to indicate that you are reasonable. Until I can see you do that, I will consider you contemptible.

I can, convertibly, accept why you don't like the movie and understand it. I don't like it and think it's silly, but I accept that it is your perspective and you're entitled to it whether I agree or not.

Why you were so incapable of doing that in that same thing in the 9/11 thread I will NEVER understand.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:23 pm

Redstreak wrote:inobstinate

Dictionary.com defines this as: 'One of Red's made up words'.

Or does inobstinate in fact mean 'really nice'?

Footos: The Fresh Fighter!

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:58 pm

Obfleur wrote:

And "I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you" doesn't translate into "not liking the movie".
I like the movie - but I would've liked it way more if that stupid humour was dropped = the humour ruines it.

Yay Obfleur.

I personally have a few more problems than just the humor, but I think you covered that part very well. Hats off and all that.

Redstreak- deep breaths. And please don't try to use the 9/11 argument for a LOTR comparison. It's just bad taste.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:27 am

Auntie Slag wrote:I forgot the "Arrite" bit. Only seen ROTK once so far, so I don't know it like the others. It was good, nice that Jackson could stick little bits like that in, or leave them in as opposed to George Lucas who might think an "Arrite" completely undermines the something of the whatever of the bollocking scene.

It's the way you just know Lucas will change it so the other Hobbit says ''Arrite' first

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:26 pm

Ok just seen it.

I'm glad (like with TTT) I didn't get the short version" on DVD. A year apart from re-watching it wholy really made me love watching it again.

the extended bits really help the film to flow better. I mean the battles have a better rythim and sections make better sense.

Faramir and Eowyn really benifit from expanded roles and don't suddleny disapear in the last 3rd which is good as for the middle part Eowyn is clearly the character to emote with the most when the battle is building up.

The expanded Mordor makes it feel more epic and exhausting to Frodo and Sam making the final atop Mount doom more satisaying.

All in all the little bits here and there make it feel more complete and runs better.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:43 am

Don't forget the Mouth of Sauron, Judge Death or what?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:08 pm

some of it was good- yet some of it feels somewhat flat.

the bit where aragorn and co capture the boats feels a bit un-atmospheric, it makes more sense in the film but doesnt quite feel finnished.

gandalf V's the Witch King... that was naff.
A. he breaks Gandalfs staff - which Gandalf has back in his hands moments later.
B. the Whitch King could have easily finnished gandalf in that scene, which is a bit naff inits depiction.

Rather that scene wasnt in there

the part where Frodo and Sam are dressed as Orcs and start a fight to escape the sargent type Orc spotting them? erm yeah....

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:54 pm

I think that's what happened in the book though. I did agree with you about the Gandalf v. Witch King fight. I initially thought that was rubbish as to the Witch King splitting to take out the Riders of Rohan about five miles away who were just having a bit of a chat and getting themselves ready, when he could've taken out Gandalf in a second.

But then I went to a couple of LOTR sites, both message board and that Encyclopedia of Arda place, which is a fantastic resource and it turns out that:

- The Witch King doesn't have any power as such, and neither does Gandalf. The Witch King's power is all in his shrieking cry which robs men of their courage and makes them wet themselves and give up hope. He doesn't have any physical power, so he's about as hard as a normal bloke, except he's got this hideous cry and rides a snake thing.

- Gandalf doesn't have a bottomless bag of magic spells like Harry Potter. Instead Gandalf has one of the rings given to wizards and that is the fire ring. With this he can manipulate fire. He can't create it, but if its there he can wield it and make it do cool things. That's why he's such a whizz with fireworks and everyone thinks he's cool.
He's also the opposite of the Witch King in that he has the ability to inspire courage in men, and hope and love and fluffy feelings that makes them want to fight for their lands and not wet themselves. An Orc could kill him quite easily. Yes he's kind of immortal, but his body can be killed, as can the Witch King's body. Gandalf's a Maiur spirit, like Sauron. So they occupy a fancy body.

Oh, and the Valar (which are like the Maiur's bosses) expressly forbids them from using big wizardy powers in Middle-Earth because they're supposed to fit in with everyone as much as possible. This is why Gandalf can mooch about villages and places and everyone thinks he's a bit of an old codger and trickster, but Saruman was much more open about his powers, which is why he sets up Isenguard and a credit loan service.

The Witch King is influenced by Sauron. So he used some spell or other which busts G's staff apart, thus costing G a major wand of power, and then evaluates that the threat of Gandalf at this point is diminished so greatly that the riders of Rohan are a much greater threat, seeing as they can charge down and wipe out a sizeable amount of the Orc army attacking Minas Tirith. Its a bit like prioritising in the Office. Also, Sauron was **** scared of Aragorn and how his presence could really influence a fighting spirit and courageousness in men. Theoden and the Riders could probably do the same, more or less, so the Witch King prioritises that the Riders are more of a threat. Its just Sauron with his Bank Managers hat on.

For me, that kind of shuts me up about the scene, so I'm prepared to let that slide a bit. I also think its cool that neither Gandalf nor the Witch King are as unbeatable as I believed them to be. You can kill them like you could kill Tony Blair.

I'll have to watch it again to see the bit where he gets a staff back from somewhere. If so that's a bit of a major boob isn't it? Maybe he kept a spare one up his arse?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:31 pm

iHow come he can fight the Balrog for months then? and fly about with him etc? - is it be cause Balrog is made of fire?

If the witch king isntalls fear, and Gandalf hope - wouldnt they both cancel each other out?

Why is it Gandalf looks beaten?

What griped me wasnt who could beat who etc.. but more how the scene was handled. it just felt a bit lame.

Also why can merry cut the witch kings legs? bringing himto his knees. hes like "no man can kill me" - ok, fair enough but if u can be hacked up and brought down so easily not being dead but just a torso isnt gonna be much use. im thinking monty python holy grail here!

the staff is deff in some of the following scenes, when that nutty old king is trying to burn his son and Gandalf comes running in im sure he has his staff there - and later on at the gates of mordor.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:56 pm

You've got me on the fighting the Balrog for ages thing. He says the battle lasts seven days, which is more than long enough. I have no explanation for that.

G and the Witch King's powers of influence cancelling each other out? I can only guess its not an exact science, in the same way that people's personalities are all different, so people can be open to influence by different degrees.

Gandalf looks beaten? Technically he died fighting the balrog, because er... he did. But was brought back by the Valar to fight the final battle of the War of the Ring. Something about similarities to Christs raising from the dead etc. I've never liked this aspect of either Christ or Gandalf.

"No man can kill me". I am guessing this is because men are so easily corruptable and easily influence-able. No man can kill him because he scares the ***** out of them. Pippin can because he's a Hobbit and Hobbit's are more resistant to both the ring and (I'm guessing) the scariness of Witch Kings. It says in the books and the first film that Hobbits are much more resistant to these kinds of things.

Eowyn killing the Witch King. Well women can be right nasty when they've got a bit of a bee in their bonnet about things. Especially things like watching their Uncle get killed and entire race be wiped out. Or maybe she was just on the blob?

I though when Galdalf took out Denethor he charged along the hall and grabbed a passing candlabra or something? Or one of those four foot high tubes of Jaffa Cakes that you can get in Tesco.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:52 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:iHow come he can fight the Balrog for months then? and fly about with him etc? - is it be cause Balrog is made of fire?

Gandalf dosn't fly. They ar falling into pits that are older than the surface world. Never does Gandalf fly. In the fight he uses a powetrful looking sword. I don't see him using magic.

If the witch king isntalls fear, and Gandalf hope - wouldnt they both cancel each other out?

Yes. hence why the standoff looks inconclusive.

Why is it Gandalf looks beaten?

He unexpectably had his staff smashed. Gandalf doesn't know if he is more or less dangerous than the witch king. Remember it was predicted that no man could kill the witch king, so Gandalf wasn't sure if he could do it. Gandalf also showed fear against the Blarog and even implied that he couldn't beat him but he still beat him in the end.

What griped me wasnt who could beat who etc.. but more how the scene was handled. it just felt a bit lame.

I disagree. It was a standoff not a fight. The Witch King was slowing down Gandalf for fun as famir's death would be a knock, rather than a stragetic battle plan.

Also why can merry cut the witch kings legs? bringing himto his knees. hes like "no man can kill me" - ok, fair enough but if u can be hacked up and brought down so easily not being dead but just a torso isnt gonna be much use. I'm thinking monty python holy grail here!

It was predicted that no man could beat the witch king. Every one assumed that no one could kill the witch king.
He is perfectly killable, however the prediction made him and everybody believe he could not be killed. he was told no man would kill him. What he didn't hear was that was because a woman would kill him first.

In RotK the prediction came true but only through a loophole as he was killed by a woman and a hobbit.

Remember the witches predictions in MacBeth? Same sort of misguiding loophole there caused MacBeth to die.

the staff is deff in some of the following scenes, when that nutty old king is trying to burn his son and Gandalf comes running in im sure he has his staff there - and later on at the gates of mordor.

Nope. As he bursts in he grabs a soliders (to our left on the screen) pole and uses that. His staff isn't seen again untill the end (I presume a new one?)

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:24 pm

Ok well fair enough - i still dont like the encounter between the witch king and Gandalf, its just feels a bit naffo to me. - maybe its the editing of when it takes place. or somthing, but its just doesnt seem to fit in or work very well. its creates to many questions for the average LoTR type of guy. I mean, I had my LoTR mate sitting next to me who read all the books, simarilion etc... actually his parents are so into it, there house is doest have a number but a name 'the silmarillion' - and even he wasnt very impressed with scene.

i wonder sometimes why certain scenes are omitted from the normal cuts. because they seems a bit crap is a pretty decent reason. some parts worked nicely. some didnt. - I actually prefer added talking parts that go some way to explaing things.

Still a great film of course dont get me wrong - RotK echos SW RotJ , as in i hate the endings, they make me feel empty knowing there will be no more... i normally switch off.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:25 pm

Was it ever explained anywhere just how a staff goes from being a gnarled bit of wood to a staff with powers?

Is it like the equivalent of taking a peice of plastic and making it a remote control device for a TV, or is it merely nothing more than a symbol, or channel with which to direct a torrent of power?

I guess it must be something more because Grima went a bit nuts in TTT when he realised Hama failed to take Gandalf's staff before entering the Golden Hall.

What I REALLY appreciate about these films is that they make no bones about the fact that they are to supplant the books. They are intended to compliment them. And by that definition they are uber cool because the film never tells you why Denethor is such a nutty old bastard, but it suggests it when he says "You ain't seen what I seen, mate" to Gandalf, suggesting that he may have a Palantir, which leads you to the book which gives you the full account.

Class. You don't have to bother reading the books at all, but if you want to, they hint at the cool stuff.

[Edit]Impactor, I'm not a LOTR nut. I've read Fellowship and TTT twice, and ROTK once many years ago. I'd forgotten most of the stuff from them and that Gandalf v. Witch King made no sense to me at first. I wanted to re-read ROTK before seeing the extended film and I only got through the first 50 pages or so.
In point of fact I'm not entirely sure its explained in the books the relative powers of the Witch King and Gandalf. I think the stuff I've been reciting in my posts here come from The Encyclopedia of Arda website. That explains things interestingly and fairly concisely. It might be worth pointing your mate to that site, if he doesn't know about it already of course.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:40 pm

Auntie Slag wrote:Was it ever explained anywhere just how a staff goes from being a gnarled bit of wood to a staff with powers?

Is it like the equivalent of taking a peice of plastic and making it a remote control device for a TV, or is it merely nothing more than a symbol, or channel with which to direct a torrent of power?

I guess it must be something more because Grima went a bit nuts in TTT when he realised Hama failed to take Gandalf's staff before entering the Golden Hall.

I liken it more to that of the baseball bat from the Natural. A piece of wood from a tree struck by lightning, made into a weapon of power.

Nosecone · Post by **Nosecone** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:09 am

Going back to a point above about Gandalf using Magic and dieing it is like this

After the first age of the Earth the Valar all came and used their powers to remove Melor (Saurons old boss). They along with masses of high elves and many men fought a massive battle that actually caused a part of Middle Earth (Beleriad) to be totally dsestroyed and fall into the sea. They captured Melkor and cast him into the abys but Saurpn fiegned sorrow and said he had changed his way yet still refused to go to the undieing lands as he though that once their the valar wouldn't let him leave and cast him into the abys as well.

As he gradually rose back to power (after the last alience of men and elves) the Valar not wanting to forsake those still on middle Earth (as they love all living things) sent 5 Maiur to Middle Earth to try and manipluate courage in Men and bring about the end of Sauron that way. They were told not to use their powers and to stay true to the path and in doing so they would be allowed back to the undieing lands.

2 of the Wizards went into the East (The Blue Wizards) and nothing was heard from them, it is believed they were corrupted, either by Saruman or Sauron. Radagast the Brown became obsessed with Nature and thus turned away from the path of defeating Sauron so whilst he wasn't evil as such there is mixed opinions on whether he was allowed back into th eundieing lands after ROTK. Saruman obviously went bad so when Wormtounge killed him his spirit went to the undieing lands (as he is a demi-god so technically can't die just lose form) but he was refused entry and thus cast into the abys. Gandalf was killed by the Balrog (after he killed it) but because he had held true he was allowed back - however he was told his work wasn't yet done so he was reborn as Gandalf the white. The Balrog (who was a fire maiur) was cast into the abys in the same way as Saruman.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:28 am

Cool. So once cast in, can you ever get out of an abyss? Is there a bottom? Or once you are cast in do you stay there for perpetuity and afterwards?

Like, if Sauron cries "No, honestly guv, I swear i'll be good from now on. Truth, justice and the American way and all that. Mickey Moooouse, Mickey Mooooouuse etc".

Could the Valar go "Oh all right, just don't do it again you young scamp", like a true British judge?

Nosecone · Post by **Nosecone** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:18 pm

No, there is no coming back, its basically another term for death as when creatures die they mearly go on to the next stage of their path - Elves go to the halls of Mandos in the undieing lands where they wait until they are allowed out (cause they are bound to the planet and thus will only die when the planet dies).

As for Men no-one apart from Manwe (& Illuvator) knows where they go after death.

However the Abys is basically the end, there is no after-life, no hope for escape, It is in escence the end of existence - Its like a way of banishing you from existence.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:25 pm

I was given to understand that you could return from the Void?

That's why they set Elindil in the sky with a Silmaril tied to the prow of his ship, to keep guard in case Morgoth should ever try and return?

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:50 pm

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:why must every issue turn to this subject?

Because YOU'RE GAY!

Sorry, I came a little late to this post.