PDA

View Full Version : Lurtz


Shark
03-20-2001, 01:25 PM
<BR>Who in Sharkey's name is Lurtz?<br> And, why will they bring him into the movies?<br> <br> It seems Lurtz is going to be an Uruk of Saruman's. Aren't there enough of them already, with Uglk, and Mauhur, and everybody. Why bring in a completely new character? And, considering that were will be both Lurtz action figures and Lurtz tin miniatures, he will play a more or less major role (at least among the orcs). The strange thing is there won't even be an Uglk for the LOTR-tabletop game - they will only bring out that strange Lurtz.<br> <br> And what a name that is - Lurtz! Why a 'tz' in it? Why invent a new name?<br> Lurtz! Lurtz... Bill the pony's name in German is Lutz... Lurtz indeed. <p></p>

Orald
03-20-2001, 02:51 PM
<BR><br><br> I think Lurtz supposedly kills Boromir. Maybe they thought it necessary to have a fixed bad guy, instead of one like Saruman and Suaron that we don'r see until later on. What I don't understand is why they don't just make Ugluk the one who kills Boromir. <p>Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into E, and evil be good to have been.</p>

Suldaledhel
03-21-2001, 05:07 AM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> If Ugluk was made in the movies to kill Boromir, I think it would lessen the love for him during Merry and Peregrin's captivity. And then one could actually be shown the duel between Eomer and Ugluk, showing the nasty creatures end. It really irks me when the plot of an already successful book is changed for a movie. Not just LoTR, but others have done this too, in pretty big ways. :"> <p>I have been a fierce bull and a yellow buck. I have been a boat upon the sea. I have been the foam of water. I have been a drop in the air. I have journeyed as high as an eagle. I have been at the throne of the distributor. I have stood high upon the white hill. I was fluent before being gifted with speech. I have been teacher to all intelligences. I have singly built the tower of Nimrhod. I am the tetragrammaton. I am a wonder whose origin is not know, and I shall be until the day of doom upon the earth -=I may be found merrymaking at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/>The Barrow Downs</a> or telling stories at <a href=http://pub58.ezboard.com/bsuldalskeep>Sldal's Keep</a> </p>

Balin999
03-25-2001, 10:54 AM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> i think this sucks. the name alone sucks... lurtz... haha and the german name ? bubsbehobi? ridicoulous....<br> i think they should have let ugluk kill boromir and dont take such a stupid lurtz or whatever-orc. thats quite pointless in my opinion.<br> <p>Behold the King of Moria!</p>

Mithrandir
03-26-2001, 01:35 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> I agree! Lurtz? What kind of orcish name is that. Sounds like someone throwing up to me. I really liked ugluk, he was the perfect bad guy orc. Now why did they have to go and screw everything up? Although this movie should be good, some of the choices that are being taken really are not for the best, and i think Tolkien would have wanted his characters to be portrayed, not ones that he didnt even create! Oh well, that is my little contrabution for today. <p>The Road goes ever on and on </p>

Shark
03-26-2001, 01:41 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> The point is, if even so small things are changed, and in places where a change is so unnecessary, my fears for the great scale begin to grow... <p></p>

Mithrandir
03-26-2001, 04:17 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> I most definately agree with you, Sharku. I just hope that it all turns out for the better. <p>The Road goes ever on and on </p>

Balin999
04-01-2001, 11:48 PM
<BR> re</b><br><br> imagine that peter jackson and his team make some other changes:<br> Radagast becomes Mabotu the brown wizard from the Bahamas.<br> Frodo doesn't fight with Gollum for the ring but they give it to sam and do some wrestling just for fun while sam decides that it would be best to give Sauron his ring back. <br> well i could think of more &quot;additions&quot; but i hope that Peter Jackson will do his work well and that we will see three satisfying movies without too many changes.<br> still i'm worried about arwen's role. <p></p>

Suldaledhel
04-02-2001, 12:09 PM
<BR> Re: re</b><br><br> Prap's the wrong thread to ask this, but does anyone have a good answer as to why the plot was changed in the first place? The plot was perfectly fine, and I dont see what anything needed to be changed at all. :"> <p>I have been a fierce bull and a yellow buck. I have been a boat upon the sea. I have been the foam of water. I have been a drop in the air. I have journeyed as high as an eagle. I have been at the throne of the distributor. I have stood high upon the white hill. I was fluent before being gifted with speech. I have been teacher to all intelligences. I have singly built the tower of Nimrhod. I am the tetragrammaton. I am a wonder whose origin is not know, and I shall be until the day of doom upon the earth -=I may be found merrymaking at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/>The Barrow Downs</a> or telling stories at <a href=http://pub58.ezboard.com/bsuldalskeep>Sldal's Keep</a> </p>

Orald
04-02-2001, 01:24 PM
<BR> Re: re</b><br><br> Umm, I suppose it's so there is a flesh and blood 'bad guy' for the first movie and not just someone abstract, and so boromir's death can be avenged. Like I said before, I think they could have just used Ugluk. <p>Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into E, and evil be good to have been.</p>

Shark
04-02-2001, 02:13 PM
<BR> Re: re</b><br><br> Maybe the end, which has to be left 'hanging' anyway, will be after Lurtz, who is shown as the typical Hollywood bad guy, nasty, mean, no one can find him cool, has killed Boromir from behind.<br> <br> The audience can then leave thinking 'Oh that Lurtz, I hate him, I hope Aragorn kicks his *** in the next movie!' What a cliffhanger! <br> <br> Why not Uglk? Well, I suppose because PJ did not want to mess with a genuine JRRT character... which isn't an argument for adding a new one, though.<br> <p></p>

Gilthalion
04-02-2001, 06:39 PM
<BR> Re: re</b><br><br> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! <p><center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

burrahobbit
04-12-2001, 10:39 PM
<BR> Re: re</b><br><br> <a href="http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1023">www.theonering.net/movie/...large/1023</a><br> <br> In the blue section in the 11th or 12th line (depending on how you count) it clearly says &quot;Newborn Lurtz&quot;, but in the yellow &quot;TWIN PACK&quot; section just below that it has Boromir packaged with Lurtz, wich might imply that they fight in the movie. But there is also &quot;Galadriel with Frodo&quot; and im sure they don't fight. <p>What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>

The Dagda
04-15-2001, 10:24 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz</b><br><br> Ahh yes, another change. You see, the Cinema going audience is too stupid to follow the Tolkien plot, so we now have the Newline plot. This &quot;Lord Of The Rings&quot; is not driven by Tolkien's novel of the same name, but by marketing and low expectations of the movie going public, and the movie making companies low estimation of their customers. <br> So, what do we get? Lots of eye candy and special effects, a romance novel love affair, dumb villain-characters only written in so the main characters can get revenge by killing them (think Charles Bronson here) and Japanese martial arts Elves, replete with Samurai armour and katanas. After all, Asian martial arts are all the rage these days, so wouldn't it be cool to make the Elves in the same image? Just throw in a few &quot;celtic&quot; designs to give them that &quot;elvish&quot; look, whatever that is.<br> <br> But why? Why make so many changes and alterations to Tolkien's STORY? Because 50 million people can't be right. Besides, Hollywood knows &quot;what the people want to see&quot;, even better than the people. <p></p>

The Dagda
04-15-2001, 10:30 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> Oh, here's an &quot;Elvish sword&quot; as wielded by the Elven warrior &quot;Arwen&quot;.<br> <br> <a href="http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1076">www.theonering.net/movie/...large/1076</a><br> <br> <a href="http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1075">www.theonering.net/movie/...large/1075</a> <p></p>

enep
04-16-2001, 04:15 AM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> Omigod.Omigod.Omigod.Calmdown.ARGH! <br> <br> If PJ does one more thing like that I'll personally come over to his house and LURTZ</b> all over his front door. <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

Suldaledhel
04-16-2001, 07:09 AM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> I was looking over the image of Arwen wielding that katana, and noticed something on her face. Is that a scar? Or is it only some trick of the lighting and the camera lens? <p>They all gazed at him. His hair was white as snow in the sunshine; and gleaming white was his robe; the eyes under his deep brows were bright, piercing as the rays of the sun; power was in his hand. Between wonder, joy, and fear they found no words to say. 'I have passed through fire and deep water, since we parted. I have forgotten much that I thought I knew, and learned much that I had forgotten. I can see things far off, but many things close at hand I cannot see. I shall tell you of my tales at <a href=http://pub58.ezboard.com/bsuldalskeep>Sldal's Keep</a> ." </p>

red
04-16-2001, 07:40 AM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> I am now eagerly anticipating The Dagda's LotR movie trilogy as it seems he knows better how to make it. Wow! This is great! I thought one version of the LotR on screen was too good to be true! Now The Dagda's gonna make another?! Wonderful!!<br> <br> -rd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

The Dagda
04-16-2001, 12:57 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> I know how NOT to make it: by NOT following the story it is supposed to be based upon.<br> <br> I may still enjoy a fantasy film inspired by The Lord Of The Rings, but I'd rather see one that more closely followed the story rather than adding characters and scenes which Tolkien never wrote, nor even hinted at. You (and PJ) may think that it is neccesary to have a scarred warrior Arwen defending an unconcious Frodo at the Ford of Rivendell, but here I must disagree. I also feel that the Japanese stylings of the Elves are out of place in Middle Earth, which Tolkien describes as NW Europe. <p></p>

red
04-16-2001, 01:37 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> PJ said it before (many times) and I will say it again... These movies are PJ's own INTERPRETATION of the books which has has the prerogative to make. He's spent years of his life invested in these movies. He's invested time, sweat, tears (and who knows... maybe a little blood too) to make them. Have you done this, Dagda? No, you just sit back, relax and shoot down the movie before you've even seen it.<br> <br> There is nothing wrong with making a movie interpretation of a book and making a few changes. The movie will have Peter Jackson's name on it. HE is the 'author', so to speak. It is HIS piece of work. He can do darn well whatever he pleases. And it is ok. The movies are NOT Tolkien's, so it doesn't matter if there are scenes or characters that, &quot;Tolkien never wrote, nor even hinted at.&quot;<br> <br> -rd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

The Dagda
04-16-2001, 07:24 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> red, how do you presume to know anything about me or what I may or may not have done? I don't make assumptions about you or anyone else on this board. I have the right to state my opinions here as much as anyone else, without resorting to personal attacks.<br> <br> Whatever. <br> <br> I have great respect for Peter Jackson, as a director. I think &quot;Heavenly Creatures&quot; is one of the better films I have seen (especially so since I can remember so much of it from five years ago). But based upon spy photos and reports which are posted on the many LOTR sites, the film is looking sillier and sillier to me. There are reports of not a few, but many, many, significant changes to the story. Maybe the spies are wrong. I'll wait to see the film before I &quot;shoot it down&quot; or praise it, but I'll happily dis' promotional pictures and spy photos and reports. Although Peter Jackson has stated that he is making his interpretation, he also stated that he understands his responsibility to the millions of fans of JRR Tolkien's book upon which he is basing his film. Additionally, the film isn't Peter Jackson's, but New Line's, a subsidiary of AOL-Time/Warner. They as producers may be exerting much pressure on PJ to make this LOTR Trilogy as commercial as possible, for fear that Tolkien's vision is &quot;dated&quot; and not relevant to the cinema audience of today. I can understand why the Tolkien Estate refused to endorse the production. I still hope the film does justice to the book, and I may enjoy it now that my expectations are so lowered. I even enjoyed the Bakshi film when I saw it in the '70s.<br> <br> <p></p>

Zoe
04-17-2001, 04:31 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> I think that if PJ were to, say, call the movie &quot;Bob's Ring&quot; (for lack of a better name) and base it on the LotR, even advertise it as &quot;based on the LotR&quot;, but didn't actually call it the LotR or try to pretend it was that, none of us here could care less. <br> <br> It's just that, based on spy photos (which I admit, could be complete and utter rubbish), this movie <i> called</i> the Lord of the Rings, is, in fact, not. <p>"This sig is proudly quote-free." -Me.<br> (Also known as eoz, and now has a non-Tolkien forum, called <a href="http://pub57.ezboard.com/beverythingelse45161">everything else</a>.) </p>

Orald
04-17-2001, 05:19 PM
<BR> Re: Lurtz and other Changes</b><br><br> It is Lord of the Rings, it just doesn't have anything to do with the book of the same name. <p>Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into E, and evil be good to have been.</p>

red
04-17-2001, 05:29 PM
<BR> Good one, Durelen!!!</b><br><br> &quot;It is Lord of the Rings, it just doesn't have anything to do with the book of the same name.&quot;<br> <br> <br> <br> -rd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-18-2001, 06:17 AM
<BR> Re: Good one, Durelen!!!</b><br><br> Exactly Z. You said it. <p>What if - what if this is as good as it gets?</p>

Gilthalion
04-18-2001, 07:30 AM
<BR> What?</b><br><br> *sighs*<br> <br> It will certainly be a cinematic adaptation of Tolkien's tale. By definition, it will not be Tolkien's tale as written, for it will not be a work to be read privately, but a work to be experienced <i> en masse</i> in a theatre!<br> <br> Comparisons are futile! (Though one could hope the movie will be true in content as well as spirit.)<br> <br> I guess I haven't seen as many spy photos as everyone else. Most of the promotional and spy photos I've seen have been absolutely stunning.<br> <br> There is one of a wizard (presumably Saruman) impaled on a spiked wheel that is unsettling.<br> <br> Artistic license.<br> <br> But Art is indeed subject to Critique!<br> <br> I am certain of this much, this film will (obviously) be the BEST cinematic interpretation for many years to come!<br> <br> (It's not like anyone has made a new &quot;Gone With The Wind&quot; in the last 50 years!)<br> <br> Face it! You won't see a better adaptation in your lifetimes!<br> <br> Considering the caliber of the actors, the original story from which they work, the loving attention, the incredible special effects, the gorgeous sets and scenery and costumes, overall, I expect there will be little to complain of.<br> <br> (Except that Bombadil will be missed!) <p><center> <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">Barrow-Downs</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000">Bare Bones</a>~<a href="http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhir">Tar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~<a href="http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/gilthalion.html">Grand Adventures</a>~<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.asp">The Hobbits</a>~<a href="http://www.tolkientrail.com">Tolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-18-2001, 08:53 AM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> Hmmmm......I really do think this is a very futile arguement since the pro-movie fans aren't going to yield and nor is the anti-movie segment. However, I shall jump into the fray anyway.<br> The point is, why do we need to see an interpretation at all? Gone With the Wind is a different matter. At least the main characters were human. Here we're going to see PJ's interpretation of elves and Balrogs and what not.<br> As a movie I have no doubt it will be fantastic. But only if you don't see it as LoTR. <p>What if - what if this is as good as it gets?</p>

The Barrow-Wight
04-18-2001, 09:08 AM
<BR> Film Limitations</b><br><br> Imagine the difficulty PJ has had just to bring the films to the current version. He's had to force 1000+ pages into 6-7 hours while pleasing a fickle audience, demanding actors, and profit minded productions companies and banks, not to mention the limitiations placed on everything PJ does by money, time and the currently techonological state of the filming industry. <br> <br> I bet that if PJ could, he would make the movies EXACT to the books. But he can't (see above for a short list of reasons why if you still doubt me). Without PJ there wouldn't be a movie at all, and we'd have to stick with that awful Bakshi mess as our only theatrical monument to The Lord of the Rings.. <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000002>RKittle</A>&nbsp; at: 4/18/01 11:22:39 am<br></i>

The X Phial
04-18-2001, 09:10 AM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> I'm not sure that I see how Gone With the Wind was different. Sure, the characters were human, but there were in fact no real people named Rhett, Scarlett, etc, so the vision and interpretation are similar if not entirely the same. I suppose the question of 'why' could be asked of any movie adaptation. Why make Wizard of Oz into a movie? Why create other expressions of the same ideas in another form at all? Why do we look at paintings done about the subject matter of ME? Surely, my internal vision of the characters is not the same as Howe's, but I can still enjoy them. You are right in saying we aren't going to change any minds...and I hope this post doesn't come across as too hostile. <br> <br> I think the best reasons for making the movies is that the books INSPIRED Peter Jackson to create a rendition in his medium, film. That they have become so commercial is a product of the fact that the only way to produce something anymore is to sell it. I doubt anyone would be happier with a really low budget art house version of the story. <p>-*-The X Phial-*- You must believe in free will, you have no choice. Isaac Singer</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000095>The X Phial</A> at: 4/18/01 11:21:38 am<br></i>

amyrlis
04-18-2001, 11:16 AM
<BR><br><br> Lots of good points on both sides! I am disappointed by the 'changes' that keep popping up, however, I still wait in eager anticipation for the movies. Like the Wight, I would rather have something than nothing, but that's just me. <br> <br> Just to skip back to the topic at hand - Lurtz, the Uruk Hai - for a moment. There is a picture of a statue of him on the Ain't It Cool News website (sorry, I don't know how to provide links and such). He's pretty scary looking and is nothing like the orcs we've seen in the trailer. Yikes! What do you think? <p>-amyrlis <Br>These are indeed strange days. Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass. -Eomer</p>

The Dagda
04-18-2001, 11:33 AM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> I'm certainly not against a film, but significant diversions from the story will not reflect well on it. I would submit that most people want to see The Lord Of The Rings story on film, and not just something that resembles it but is different in significant and many ways. If Saruman is impaled on a spike at Orthanc, then what of The Scouring Of The Shire? Or if Arwen (as a warrior princess?!?) saves Frodo at the Ford, stands up to the Nazgul (her, not Frodo) before the Flood, and leads an army of Elves to fight at Helm's Deep so she can slay orcs and fight beside her lover, is this still The Lord Of The Rings? An Elvish army fighting with the Rohirrim, whose fear and terror of Elves and the Golden Wood shows explicitly the theme of the estrangement of Elves from Men, and the Fading of all things Elvish from Middle Earth. It is this Autumnal quality which helps make the story what it is, and having an army of Elves fighting with an army of Men, especially Rohirrim, doesn't do much to propel this central theme of LOTR.<br> <br> You know, Bakshi's part one of the LOTR was fairly true to the story. He condensed parts, abridged the story, made action scenes from expository passages, but he made few changes to the story, and none of them significant. The characters were true to the book, as was the story. That it was underfunded, and production cut when he was only half way through the story, wasn't his fault. He was given only $10 million and a year and a half to make the film. Bakshi had no access to digital technology or CGI; every background and character was hand painted, and if he had been given the time and money, every rotoscoped scene would have been completed, along with Parts 2, and 3. If you follow animation, you can see that this is a miniscule budget and a pitiful short time to make a feature film, which left us with those unpainted rotoscoped battle scenes, and half the story. Yet, I enjoyed it when I saw it (non ending not withstanding). People may disagree with some of the drawings, or the look of Borimir, but the characters were realised well and the voice actors were excellent. There is a DVD re-release planned for the film later this year or the next, and I'm buying a copy for my collection.<br> <br> <p></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-18-2001, 08:16 PM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> I do understand that PJ has incested much in this movie. It means a lot to him and he's trying his best. But that isn't good enough. Some things are better left alone. Like LoTR. How can everyone's perception of say, Galdriel possibly be the same? It can't, you say. And PJ's interpretation is only one of the many, you say. Yes, but it is the one that is oging to be released worldwide on a commercial scale. And, as said, it is the only LoTR movie that will be released in yeras to come. Hence this is what will stick. Samurai elves, scarred Arwens and of course, no Tom.<br> <br> The deviation from the story just make it worse of course. The expansion of Arwen's role for instance. Not only is it totally uncharacteristic but it also takes away from Eowyn's glory. To make it commercially appealing, PJ has thrown in Lurtz. But why? Why do we need a Lurtz at all? And why does it have to be commercially appealing anyway? Of course PJ wants to make money. But why murder LoTR in the bargain? <p>What if - what if this is as good as it gets?</p>

red
04-19-2001, 04:30 AM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> Oh no! &lt;gasp&gt; Arwen will take away Eowyn's glory!! &lt;gasp&gt; sacrilege! &lt;gasp&gt; Noooooo!!!! The perception of millions will be RUINED! I say, RUUUUUUUIIINED!! &lt;sob!!&gt;<br> <br> -rd D"> <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

Mithrandir
04-19-2001, 03:09 PM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> My greatest fear for the movies is that those who watch the movies first and then go buy the books to read will be disapointed. &quot;but its nothing like the movie!&quot; they will say. and it shouldnt be. in most cases, any book is better than the movie, but those who read the book afterwards already have a preconcieved notion of what will happen. and most of the time, they are wrong. because there will be so much taken out of the story and shuffled about to create such a great movie that the new reader will be dissapointed in what they find in tolkiens work. it just upsets me that the work wont be read for the love of the printed words, but for the love of the bloody action on the screen. no one can replace tolkiens writings, because they are something that each person who reads them holds deep within them. and you cant try to change that by spending millions of dollars to give a new version of the writing. we all know what we love most about tolkiens works, and seeing the movie wont change it. sure it may make us mad at the director and actors, but we will not stop reading tolkien. because the love for it was already stowed inside of us. hows that for philosophical? <p>The Road goes ever on and on </p>

enep
04-19-2001, 07:22 PM
<BR> Re: What?</b><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> &quot;Oh no! &lt;gasp&gt; Arwen will take away Eowyn's glory!! &lt;gasp&gt; sacrilege! &lt;gasp&gt; Noooooo!!!! The perception of millions will be RUINED! I say, RUUUUUUUIIINED!! &lt;sob!!&gt;&quot;<hr></blockquote><br> <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-19-2001, 11:42 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> That's more or less why I think there should be a law. Read the book before ou watch the movie. Can you imagine the guy at the entrance quizzing all the movie-goers? &quot;And do you know who Tom Bombadil is? No? Sorry then. You won't be allowed to see the movie. Read the book and then come back.&quot; Ah, bliss. <p></p>

enep
04-19-2001, 11:49 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> &quot;I dreamt of a perfect world. A world where everyone had seen the LotR movie and still knew who Bombadil was.&quot;<br> <br> Hmm...don't think it's gonna happen though, TLW <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-20-2001, 05:23 AM
<BR> Hmmm......</b><br><br> ....more's the pity I guess. That's the trouble with us idealists I guess. BTW, not to change the topic or anything but-the dotman strikes again! <p></p>

Mithrandir
04-20-2001, 05:26 AM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> Just encourage everyone to read the book first!!!! <p>The Road goes ever on and on </p>

enep
04-20-2001, 06:00 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> The Dotman Strikes Again! Episode VII: A New Dotman! Return of the Dotman!<br> <br> I think we got something going here, TLW <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

the Lorien wanderer
04-20-2001, 08:55 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> The dotman rises from the dead....<br> Night of the living dotman....<br> Know what enep? I rather think we have....<br> Now get back to the topic everyone otherwise Gil will come and tick us off.... <p></p>

enep
04-21-2001, 04:39 AM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> Now to make some money out of it <br> <br> Ahem, yes, hmm, back to the topic, erm...Lurtz? Only a true genius could think up a name like that...perhaps PJ should've consulted some Tolkien Linguistic experts to make one up for him??? <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

Zoe
04-21-2001, 11:51 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> &quot;Lurtz&quot; either sounds like the sort of name someone'd come up with when trying to sound &quot;german&quot; or &quot;russian&quot; (coughcough), or a member of the Addams Family. <p>"This sig is proudly quote-free." -Me.<br> (Also known as eoz, and now has a non-Tolkien forum, called <a href="http://pub57.ezboard.com/beverythingelse45161">everything else</a>.) </p>

enep
04-23-2001, 01:09 AM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> Doesn't sound too good, that's for sure <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

Mithrandir
04-23-2001, 05:51 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> Lurtz. . .the long lost second cousin twice removed of the Adams family. . .coming soon in the next movie!!! <p>The Road goes ever on and on </p>

KayQy
04-26-2001, 11:36 AM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> I don't know why, but I get the feeling that I've heard the name Lurtz somewhere before, besides on the spy stuff and threads. Are we sure it's not a place or very obscure ME reference?<br> <br> As to changes in the movie(not that I want to stir up the hornet's nest again)... After many years of getting upset over every little detail, I have started to follow what I call the Godzilla law. If I'm watching a movie based on a book, and I encounter a change, I mentally compare it to Jurassic Park: the Lost World, and if it's not the equivalent of turning a T-Rex loose on LA, then it's probably all right. After that fiasco, it would take quite a bit to discourage me. <p><i>I do not know that we can have a heaven here on earth, but I am sure we need not have a hell here either. --Rich Mullins</i></p>

GandaIf The White
05-25-2001, 03:30 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> That didnt really happen in the Jurassic Park book? omg! <br> <br> Well, that is just another example of what Hollywood thinks is best for us. They are like the stupid goverment that does things for you even though you dont want it to be done. If the changes to the movie are made because they think they will draw in a bigger audience? I think not. Take the change in Arwens part for example. I think that Liv just got a little greedy.. Why else would they take away the glory scenes Eowyn? Or maybe it was just because they thought that Arwen hadnt done enough in the film, therefore, not being the best women for Aragorn. <br> <br> For whatever reason they did it, it was the wrong choice. Nobody can change it now, though. So dont whine any longer. If you want to make yourself useful, send some death threats to PJ or something. He deserves it. LURTZ! COMEON! Did they get some retard who had never read LOTR in there to make up some new guy? I personally liked the Orcs that were in the story.. And I think everyone else would have to. Ugluk rules! Lurtz drools! Thats enough childishness for one day. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000064>GandaIf The White</A> at: 5/25/01 5:31:54 pm<br></i>

Theodred21
06-26-2001, 07:39 PM
<BR> Re: what?</b><br><br> LURTZ, that's the stupidest name for an orc I have ever heard. Where did they get such a screwed-up name as that. It sounds like the sound you'd make if you threw up. Peter Jackson should have let Ugluk have some credit too. I mean, Ugluk was a pretty nasty character. What would JRRT think if he saw this now. Oh well, books turned into movies nver escape wiithout some changes or new characters, so what's the point fighting it. Whatever PJ wants to do with the movie I'll let him, and I'll hope that this movie will turn out good. <p></p>