Thread: Favorite Weapons?
  >>
Favorite weapons? Open to all Tolkiens writings and PJs films.
One of my favorites has always been Angrist the Iron Cleaver. Beren used it to cut one of the Silmarills out of Morgoths iron crown.
"That's a knife"
- Crocodile Dundee
Sting, and Anduril.
The Witch King's GINORMOUS mace
Sting - there can be no other...
I [u:2lgkqnhr]love[/u:2lgkqnhr] how names in Tolkiens writings almost all have meanings
Anglachel "Iron Flame"
Gurthang "Iron of Death"
Narsil "Sun and Moon"
Anduril "Flame of the West"
Aeglos "Snow Point"
Guthwine "Battle Friend"
Yes, what wonderful coincidences!
I think this is why The Hobbit and LotR seem so real. Everything in the story has a substrata - a history. Even when I first read The Hobbit and about Sting coming from Gondollin, it resonated, was immediately believable - even though I knew nothing about Gondolin (or LotR or Silmarils!) The names have meanings and history. This is where much modern fantasies fail. They may be high filuting, clever and imaginative, but they are ultimately rootless.
I can't decide on my favourite weapon from the books but I do have a favourite from the films- the black bows and black feathered arrows of the Uruk-hai- they look perfectly fearsome and unpleasant.
I agree Odo, witht the last part of what you were saying (I'd quote it, but somehow I seem to be unable/uncapable of quoting just one line...) Without a history, there's no meaning to the story. Just like in acting. If you're just reading the lines with emotion, where's the truth in that? You need to create (if one isn't already given) a background for your characters.
How about the trebuchets on Minas Tirith! Those things were kicking butt til the stinkin Nazgul showed up
Not sure I really understand those long handled/short bladed "swords" the elves use during the Last Alliance. They look cool but really awkward to use.
[quote="Ancalagon":89o3epz1]How about the trebuchets on Minas Tirith! Those things were kicking butt til the stinkin Nazgul showed up
Every time I see siege weapons being used as anti-infantry weapons I get annoyed.
If you got it, use it.
-Definitely not my real-world policy
I just find myself asking what kind of architect or general would have put them there in the first place.
The trebuchets would have been even better anti-infantry weapons had they been flinging flaming coals
. It might have been "unrealistic" to use them as anti-siege weapons, but again, it's the sort of thing that works on film for an epic battle sequence.
For me LoTR works because of its conceit as 'real' history, Tolkien gets away with the fantastical elements by grounding it all in a very recognizable and solid world. The Battle of the Pelennor as shown in film is pure fantasy, completely unlike the book which is fantasy based on solid battle tactics, historical precedent etc. So I would prefer if they had treated the battles as 'historic' rather than just an excuse to have a lot of exciting effects and silliness.
Imagine making a film of the Battle of the Somme from WW1, starring Tolkien as the main character- then deciding the real battle just isn't exciting enough for film so they add in a load of tanks, but WW1 tanks are a bit rubbish so they make them look better and much bigger- then they have Tolkien single-handedly take down a tank by clambering all over it- suddenly its all a bit silly and basically that's how I see PJ's version of the Pelennor- by removing all the accuracy and careful planning Tolkien gives it he turns it into pure fantasy, pure spectacle and that breaks what Tolkien achieved in his writing- the sense of authenticity.
edit- you might want to move this too the Battle of the Pelnnor thread GB
I blame Eldo and Ancalagon for getting me all worked up by mentioning the trebauchet on Mnas Tirith for it being here!!
I don't know if any of you guys are gun enthusiasts, but I like the trebuchets because they remind me of the German MG-42 machine gun from WWII. (Bare with me here) The MG-42 is one of the most famous guns of all time for having a maximum rate of fire of 25 rounds per second, and received nicknames from allied troops such as "Hitler's Buzzsaw." The extreme rate of fire sacrificed a lot of accuracy, but when it did make contact it was absolutely horrific. So here's the similarity: the MG-42 didn't kill nearly as many [u:86vm2pm7]people[/u:86vm2pm7] as many other weapons did in WWII, it's greatest impact was killing enemy [u:86vm2pm7]morale[/u:86vm2pm7]. Remember the OH **** look of terror on the orcs faces when the trebuchets starting firing, even though relatively very few orcs were being killed compared to their massive numbers. Psychology is a huge weapon.
[b:86vm2pm7]See MG-42 video here:[/b:86vm2pm7] http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1053743/MG4 ... _Full_Auto
[u:86vm2pm7]THIS IS NOT A LOTR/WWII ALLEGORY[/u:86vm2pm7]
Well the Trebuchet IS a weapon, so no worries about discussing it on this thread
Ancalagon, you make a great point about morale
. Most people (including Orcs) don't like getting killed by big scary weapons. However, it should be pointed out that trebuchets were noted for their accuracy, particularly compared to other types of catapults which were extremely inaccurate. Though accuracy isn't the most important attribute for a weapon being used against many enemies, which I think was Eldo's point. Which is why I suggested the trebuchets should have been filled with flaming "buckshot" for a greater chance of hitting multiple targets.
But it was awesome seeing the Orcs being terrified of getting crushed by huge boulders
I wasn't trying to say trebuchets were innacurate, that was just part of my quick history rant about the MG-42
In regard to the physics of throwing "buckshot," due to the arcing trajectory of the trebuchet I'm not sure if they would fall with enough force to be lethal (similar to the myth of dropping coins off a tall building). Maybe if they were the size of baseballs.
Those boulders they were throwing were HUGE, about the size of small buildings. I think the trebuchets could have been loaded with many smaller chunks (maybe human sized), and the force generated by the trebuchet itself would have enough to turn them into deadly projectiles. And if they had been coated with flaming oils, they could have caused even more widespread damage.
I wonder how much damage flaming Denethor did
Flaming Denethor!!! Sounds like a cocktail
. And in death not entirely useless
. Probably took out a couple of Uruks.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3o4j9tg0]It might have been "unrealistic" to use them as anti-siege weapons, but again, it's the sort of thing that works on film for an epic battle sequence.[/quote:3o4j9tg0]
I'm with petty on this one. LotR is supposed to be a realistic fantasy in the sense that the fantastic elements abide by the rules of the world, and that said rules are the same as the rules for our own world unless clearly stated/implied otherwise. Common sense and tactics shouldn't be too different either. The filmmakers at least paid lip service to this idea, but I would have liked them to put the idea into practice a bit more often.
[quote="pettytyrant101":2s0qdqtx]basically that's how I see PJ's version of the Pelennor- by removing all the accuracy and careful planning Tolkien gives it he turns it into pure fantasy, pure spectacle and that breaks what Tolkien achieved in his writing- the sense of authenticity.[/quote:2s0qdqtx]
Agreed. There are some glimpses of an emotionally powerful and visually spectacular battle, but both are ruined for me by the overemphasis on the spectacular and the unbelievability. It breaks the illusion of a secondary reality, so to speak, and that ruins a lot of the Pelennor scenes for me, no matter how cool they would look otherwise.
It was "realistic" enough to sell the scene.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":daysctfg]It was "realistic" enough to sell the scene.[/quote:daysctfg]
To whom, though? And since when is realism a prerequisite for "selling" scenes (though it's possible I'm using a different meaning for "sell" than you are).
I definitely see where your coming from Eldo but I think on many issues, including this one, the filmmakers are caught between a rock and a hard place on what is realistic and what the audience wants to see. I feel like people with even the slightest grasp on ancient battle tactics are a small minority, with the majority of people just wanting to see "epic" this and "epic" that. In a way this reflects more poorly on us collectively as an audience than the filmmakers who simply give us what they believe we want to see.
Why must epic and realistic be exclusive? I think they could have had - and in fact did have- plenty of epic scenes that weren't painfully unrealistic. The trebuchets just weren't one of them.
Well I like "Epic" sequences that LOOK like they could be real, but aren't so stuck on historical accuracy that they lose all imaginative appeal. It's FANTASY. It's supposed to be more fantastic. Again, as in the Pellenor Field thread, if one wants historical accuracy on film, one should watch a historical drama.
So realism is the opposite of imaginative appeal, now?
No one's asking for a documentary, GB, just some common sense and believability from the characters and the setting.
Again, it just has to LOOK like it could be real. It doesn't have to be accurate. It just needs enough believability to make the Fantasy work.
I'm not sure where I stand on this...
To be honest, other than Tolkien's works, I'm not much of a fantasy person (no disrespect, it's just not my cup of tea) but at the same time reality is so limiting.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":vbg75up7]It just needs enough believability to make the Fantasy work.[/quote:vbg75up7]
And that's something that the trebuchets lack. There is no reason why any character in the story (as opposed to a film-maker) would put a siege weapon in a defensive position. It lacks believability and thus breaks the illusion of the fantasy.
It's VISUALLY believable. Good enough for me
What do you mean by visually believable?
Seeing as to how Minas Tirith had been standing for over 3000 years by the time of the War of the Ring, it's conceivable to me that someone during all that time might have said "Why not build siege machines? You never know when they might come in handy." Remember the trebuchet taking out the orc seige tower.
I mean it LOOKED real, not like a toy or cheap CGI.
And the trebuchet DID make a fairly believable anti-siege tower device Ancalagon
[quote="Ancalagon":3rhgvigw]"Why not build siege machines? You never know when they might come in handy."[/quote:3rhgvigw]
Yeah ... I have a hard time imagining someone living in Middle-earth - [i:3rhgvigw]not[/i:3rhgvigw] a filmmaker - ever thinking of that. The filmmakers were thinking with a modern mentality and just substituted trebuchets for guns. That's not how a character in the story would believably act.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1et497kn]I mean it LOOKED real, not like a toy or cheap CGI.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly agree about that, but I wish they had tried harder at the historical/realistic fantasy thing. They did a pretty good job with that for most of the Battle of Helm's Deep, I think.
I thought the Witch King had a sweet sword. It looks ancient and just plain evil (especially when he wraps those BA gauntlets around it.) Unfortunately, ROTK "recycled" the weapon as we see the Mouth of Sauron also wielding an identical one. Kind of robbed some of the significance.
I also loved when the Witch King is "suiting up" in Minas Morgul and the camera pans across his weapon racks
That scene was awesome.
I wish we had been able to see a bit more of the Witch-king, but the very brief glimpses enhance his mystery in a way that lingering attention would not.
someone mentioned Denethor on fire, and i thought that was the best scene!!!!!! That way, you see how bad the battle is and how small Denethor is. AND HE'S ON FIRE!!!! kind of reminds me of Ms. Havisham from Great Expectations, they actually are kind of similar...
One thing I thought was unfortunate about the film is that we get a really distorted impression of many of the characters. Denethor for example, Tolkien describes as being a wise, strong willed, powerful ruler throughout his life until just before the War of the Ring when he "loses it" after spending too much time with the palantir of Minas Tirith. However, this crazy Denethor is all we see in the film and it just doesn't do him justice. Similar with Boromir.
Exactly how far would Denethor have to have run from the tombs to where he fell -half a mile or so- on fire! come on! Its another example of PJ not being able to resist the crowd pleasing effect shot and is quite happy to throw reason, believability and any emotion he built up around things out the window for it.
My favorite weapon is probably Gurthang or Anglachel...almost the same. I wish that somehow this sword would have survived into the 3rd age like Turgon's did.
I personally like Gimli's axe and Sting.
Didn't the orcs use trebuchets or catapults to hurl heads into Minas Tirith in the Siege of Gondor
The orcs had catapults, the defenders had trebuchets.
Was the throwing heads thing in the movie? I don't rememeber.. I suppose that is quite graphic and I remember Tolkien was quite detailed in describing it about how multilated the heads were so something...I don't have the book on me right now
There was a brief scene of 30 or so seconds in the movie where the heads got tossed over, but none of them are seen afterwards.
Thanks for clearing that up Eldo, I think I'm fine with having that part brief
[quote="Eldorion":32e6kqln]There was a brief scene of 30 or so seconds in the movie where the heads got tossed over, but none of them are seen afterwards.[/quote:32e6kqln]
Merry and Pippin were seen kicking the heads into a net and so the game of football was invented.
Like the game of golf being invented in The Hobbit. The Great Bullroarer knocking off the goblins head.
  >>
Now, Chris, I see I MUST watch those movies again! - or was it in the books?