Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Finduilas]

Yes, a book on the topic would be interesting. But I don't think that is the kind of question that CT would ask his dad.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

As artists, and movie-makers are interested in selling their product, so they want to go for the 'coolest' looking pictures for their audience to make more money...and when you do that you often lose the accuracy.

I agree, to an extent. But I don't think that it is solely down to Tolkien artists and the film-makers. I believe that, for some people (and certainly for me), the same kind of thing occurs as a spontaneous reaction to the text, regardless of the proper, technical, logical interpretation of the words used.

I watched the first LotR film before I came across the Downs and before I was even aware that there was a debate over whether Balrogs had wings. At the time, I was struck (as with many of the film's other images) by how close Jackson's Balrog was to my own impression of the creature. When I first joined the Downs, I was actually rather surprised that there should even be any argument over the issue. To me, it went without saying that Balrogs were winged.

Wow. I am positively stunned that this discussion is -still- extremely alive. It feels like I heard all those reasons for either side a million times, heh. I don't think the big goal of this topic in 2005, "settling it once and for all", will ever be achieved.

p.s. I voted 'yes'.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I watched the first LotR film before I came across the Downs and before I was even aware that there was a debate over whether Balrogs had wings. At the time, I was struck (as with many of the film's other images) by how close Jackson's Balrog was to my own impression of the creature.

This is because "Jackson's Balrog" is not Jackson's at all, it's John Howe's, which I guarantee you had seen before, whether you recall it or not.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This is because "Jackson's Balrog" is not Jackson's at all, it's John Howe's, which I guarantee you had seen before, whether you recall it or not.

True and yes, I had. Although I had seen no Tolkien art when I first read the book, and am pretty sure that Howe's depiction matched my own imaginings too when I first saw it. Difficult to be absolutely certain, because my original impression has almost certainly been influenced to a degree by art seen since. But I certainly do not recall it ever even occuring to me that the winged Balrog, as depicted by Howe and others, was wrong in any way (and I do recall seeing artists's depiction of Balrogs that struck me as "wrong", although not for any lack of wings). As I said, I never even considered the possibility that Balrogs might not have wings until I came here and read the articles on the front page.

In any event, the upshot of it all is that winged Balrgos are firmly impressed upon my mind and no amount of argument, however skillful on strongly grounded in textual evidence, is ever going to shake that.

[Finduilas]

I must have been to young when I first read the books, because I can't remember my personal image at the time.

I have to admit, I like the Balrog in the movie. Even though Jackson was wrong, he did a good job at making it look cool. Of course that is absolutely no excuse for him so have done it.

--Finduilas--

[Elfchick7]

Um...I am wondering why this is such a huge debate. Have y'all actually read the chapter the Bridge of Khazad-Dum? B/C Tolkien wrote, "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall".