[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

What DOES this 'Young Master Gandalf' line mean? As a Maia, isn't Gandalf older than Treebeard?

Was he a Maiar in the film? The concept is never explained (and nor is it in the book). As far as film-goers are concerned (just like us pre-Silmarillion, pre-Unfinished Tales book readers, originally) Gandalf is simply a Man, albeit an incredibly powerful and wizardly one. No indication is given of his age. Treebeard, on the other hand, is specifically stated (in the book) to be one of the oldest living beings within Middle-earth.

Yes - it's British slang, and considered rather rude. If I wanted to be rude, I'd shout "Shut yer gob!" I don't know if New Zealanders use it, however.

Probably. Australians certainly do.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Hadn't Christopher Lee been impaled enough times in movie history?

Wasn't that rather the point (if you'll pardon the pun )?

Originally Posted by alatar

Wasn't Saruman 'the baddy' for movies 1 and 2? So why is there no resolution when he dies? No one even quips, "One down, one to go."

Originally Posted by alatar

The deaths of Saruman and Gríma had to be dealt with this way or similarly, but it was all too quick. It's sad PJ gave the chief villain of TTT such an unspectacular ending.

I have only watched the scene once or twice. But I recall rather enjoying it. Perhaps, though, that was just a sense of relief that it was included at all. It made absolutely no sense, in the theatrical release, for no explanation to be given as to what happened to the major "baddie" for the first two films. I recall arguing rather strongly at the time of the theatrical release that it was a major mistake, so I was glad to see it in the EEE. I agree, though, that it would best have been included at the end of TTT, bringing a conclusion, as it were, to Saruman's role in the tale.

And as regards the much-maligned drinking scene, I must admit that it (along with other generally disdained "film-Gimli-isms") amuses me. The film must cater for those of us (like Essex's kids) who appreciate toilet humour too, you know. Is it that the humour genuinely does not appeal, is it that it is "just not Tolkien" or is it the denigration of Gimli's character? Personally, I have no problem with any of those, but I can understand the last of those reasons better than the others.

I do agree that, in the light of Galion's misdemeanors in the Hobbit, it makes no sense that Legolas is immune to the effects of alcohol. Then again, remember that these are Jackson's Elves, not Tolkien's Elves ...