Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote in news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter JacksonÂ’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history.
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote in news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 >@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history. Many of the
film’s shortcomings in portraying a sense of battlefield realism
have more to do with the constrains of the medium. Film is an
incredible powerful medium, after all, but also a very limited one.
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson’s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn’t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."
From the conclusion: "...
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson?s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn?t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> schrieb:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote in
news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
JacksonÂ’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.
Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
killing of the Trees, or Manwë sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
JacksonĀ’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.
Like scraping butter over too much bread?
I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)
Michael F. Stemper <mstemper@gmail.com> schrieb:
Like scraping butter over too much bread?
:-)
I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)
Sam will kill whom if he tries what?
On 30/01/2021 14.15, tenworld wrote:
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), dilutedLike scraping butter over too much bread?
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
I did like the scene at the end where LegolasI never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.
On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 3:38:35 PM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/01/2021 14.15, tenworld wrote:
I did like the scene at the end where LegolasI never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
when they are hanging around the Rohan places. and the way he takes Aragon's lead in the fellowship
even though as the son of an elven king he would have higher status
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:35:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda wrote:
...
I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation sinceFrom the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
Jackson?’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.
the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
which actually works better.
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <ten@world.std.com>
wrote:
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:44:59 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm'sI actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
Klamm, that's next up for me.
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <ten@world.std.com>
wrote:
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
YDRC.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:44:59 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <ten@world.std.com>
wrote:
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
YDRC.
So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <ten@world.std.com> >>>> wrote:
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
YDRC.
So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,--
please ignore.)
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
YDRC.
So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".
My apologies.
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
YDRC.
So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
Keeping in mind he is sixty or so in LOTR.
And how much time separates the two.
I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote in news:ru1iep$8u2$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> schrieb:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote in
news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
Jackson??s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.
Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
the movies. The sentence just before the part I quoted is:
(begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
analysis to ?book good, movie bad.? (end quote)
He again notes his overall approval of the movies in the Conclusions
section of the last of the Helm's Deep pages.
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-5, Steve Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:44:59 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
Partly, yes. The blogger argues that classical sources always showed
war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
tenworld <ten@world.std.com> writes:
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-5, Steve Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 19:44:59 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
I would say it's because of Punic wars between Rome and Carthage. Bad
guys (Carthage) used elephants, and they lost. Of course, Carthage is
defined as bad only because they lost, and Rome is defined as good
because they are the ancestors of whole Western civilization.
Steve Morrison <rimagen@toast.net> schrieb:
[quoted text muted]
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
(well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 91:35:29 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,334,171 |