The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php)
-   The Movies (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Where's Aiglos? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10568)

The Perky Ent 04-03-2004 09:25 AM

Where's Aiglos?
 
I have realized something. After the battle where Gil-Galad and Elendil died, and Aiglos and Narcil were set together in Imladris, how come in the movie you can't see Aiglos in Rivendel with the shards of Narcil. I know they made Aiglos, because in the prologue of FOTR, they shot Gil-Galad fighting. His name is even in the credits. And I know, thank's to "The Lord of the Rings Weapons and Warfare", that he definitly used it. So how come it's not in sight in Rivendel? It should've been close to Narcil, to show the bond of the two kings....so where is it?



~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Gil-Galad ech vaegannen matha, Gil-Galad wields a well-made spear;
Aith helgnin I orch gostatha; The Orc will fear my point of ice
Nin cÌniel na nguruthos When he sees me, in fear of death
Hon essenÌn istatha: Aiglos He will know my name: Aiglos

Gil Galad 04-03-2004 10:17 AM

Aiglos proably wasn't set together with narsil because Elrond thought that since Isuildur wasn't able to destroy the ring, Aiglos shouldn't be set with Narsil, but that's just my opinion.

The Perky Ent 04-03-2004 10:37 AM

Um...Gil-Galad, are you speaking from the Book P.O.V. or the Movie P.O.V.? Because the book POV says that Aiglos was set aside Narcil. And if you are taking about the movie version, please explain your logic, because i don't understand it!

Gil Galad 04-03-2004 11:27 AM

The movie, I think that Elrond didn't set them side-by-side because he thought that Narsil was "unworthy" so to speak.

Thorongil 04-03-2004 01:15 PM

Why put Aiglos in the movie at all? It didn't need to be in Rivendell since half of it was shown for less than a second. But the book is another matter.

Elianna 04-03-2004 03:06 PM

Quote:

Elrond didn't set them side-by-side because he thought that Narsil was "unworthy".
Unworthy? That's why he put Narsil on a raised pedestal?

I looked at the galleries and watched the Boromir and Aragorn scene, the one with the shards of Narsil, and I think Aiglos was in there. There were pairs of spears displayed on either side of the Isildur and Sauron mural. Maybe Aiglos was one of those.

The annoying part about the movie's Gil-galad to me is this:
"His shining helm afar was seen" in the book, in the movie he has a wussy little crown of laurels.
"The countless stars of heaven's field were mirrored in his silver shield" in the book, in the movie there are stars etched on his golden shield. :mad: :rolleyes:

The Perky Ent 04-05-2004 10:29 PM

I looked at the movie and i didn't see spears, let alone Aiglos! Maybe it's the extended edition but i think you are seeing things :eek:

Numenorean 04-06-2004 04:13 AM

Perky , I think Gil-Galad & his spear are in both the cinema and the ext. editions of the FoTR prologue, only briefly but there nonetheless -
http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/graphics/aiglos.jpg
- Inscriptions on Aiglos -

Firefoot 04-06-2004 06:25 AM

I think I found it in Rivendell. When Boromir and Aragorn are talking in the library place Aiglos is just to the right of the picture of Isildur with Narsil. You can see it best just before Boromir walks over to see the shards of Narsil. It looks like it is between two standards, but the middle one (presumably Aiglos) doesn't look like it. It also looks quite a bit like the spear in Númenorean's picture. This is on the EE, but I think this part is in the theatre edition too.

The Perky Ent 04-06-2004 09:24 AM

Well i know that you could see it both versions during the Last Great Battle...or whatever they call it. As for Rivendell, i saw the spear to the right of the mural and failed to see Aiglos. No, i think that was just a spear from Rivendell. So then it is Peter Jacksons blunder. The thing i do not understand, is the he had Aiglos, why didn't he use it. Now i think it's because there's a big deal about Narcil and Anduril and reforging and such, so they didn't want to cram the viewer's with one more sacred weapon. Unless it was done in post production and you get tons of problems there. So, I guess they ditched Aiglos. But then, i don't think it would be a big thought to them. :(

Silmiel of Imladris 04-06-2004 07:30 PM

Is it just me or does Gil-Galad look like George Bush in that picture...ok never mind... Ahem..anyway I think this is another case of...Dum...Dum...Dum...PLOT SIMPILFICATION!!! For the sake of the non-readers Aiglos was not put in because the non-reader would be confused on which weapon was really important, Narsil or Aiglos. PJ wanted the audience to concentrate on Narsil so he didn't through Aiglos in the spotlight too. There is probably a similar reason for Gil-Galad not having much screen time. PJ wanted to the audience to concentrate on Elrond because of his role later.

The Perky Ent 04-13-2004 10:38 PM

Yes, it is like PG to do that. :( Oh well. And Gil-Galad looking like George Bush?!? Are you nuts...wait a minute, he does have a resemblace. Maybe you should start a thread of look a likes, starting with Gil-Galad and George Bush ;)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.