Gandalf White
Gone Missing
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,178
Mrs. Maggott said:Gandalf was burned - NOT burning! There is a difference. We don't know how severely he was burned, but he was still clothed when he reached the mountaintop, so it certainly could not have been anywhere near as bad as Denethor's conflagration! One may run, walk or swim quite a while when one is burned - as long as one's breathing passages have not been severely compromised. I cannot imagine Denethor (head and beard soaked with oil) being able to breathe more than a few seconds under such circumstances.
I cannot imagine Denethor (head and beard soaked with oil) being able to breathe more than a few seconds under such circumstances.
Incidentally, the levels of Minas Tirith have been recounted, more carefully, and seven seperate levels were found.Witch-King said:Just one point, I think its sad that a pesron sits there and counts the levels on the minas tirith shots, and complains cuase there is 6, OMG its the end of the world as we know it.
I'll agree Jackson made a great trilogy. Whether they could have been better if they stuck closer to the book is, however, a matter of conjecture and not fact. Personally I think they're as good as any movie I've ever seen, with RotK possibly being the best ever- certainly the most emotionally satisfying for my part. However, they were not perfect, and in some cases where there are differences I think the books were better.Witch-King said:Jackson made a great trilogy, yes im a jackson fan, and a Tolkien fan. If he didnt make the film the way he did, it would bore people and be too long.
joxy said:You said "All materials have to breakdown into a gas before combustion takes place". Carbon is a material; I asked you the details about carbon.
Denethor is not relevant to the question, but if you won't answer without relevance to him, then I must mention that carbon is a constituent element of the combustible parts of the body.
Mrs. Maggott said:Gandalf was burned - NOT burning! There is a difference. We don't know how severely he was burned, but he was still clothed when he reached the mountaintop, so it certainly could not have been anywhere near as bad as Denethor's conflagration! One may run, walk or swim quite a while when one is burned - as long as one's breathing passages have not been severely compromised. I cannot imagine Denethor (head and beard soaked with oil) being able to breathe more than a few seconds under such circumstances.
No, I'm not. Try reading my post.Foe-Hammer said:Are you trying to say that the carbon contained in Denathors body is even remotely related to the believability of the scene? You're just trying to shift the discussion.
joxy said:No, I'm not. Try reading my post.
You raised the topic of the chemistry of burning, with which you said you were familiar. I was on that topic, asking you a question about it: does carbon volatilise or sublimate into gas before it combines with oxygen, as you claimed, and at what temperatures?
I said that Denethor was not directly relevant to my question.
You started the shift by talking about the chemistry!
joxy said:What did I say to make you think that?
it is reasonable to expect that anything that is only implicit should be included sparingly, and, of course, that any total inventions should be kept to an absolute minimum.
No, I don't; I looked it up but couldn't find it; that's why I asked someone who I thought would know the answer.Foe-Hammer said:I suspect you already know the answer to that....
I think it was Mrs M who gave the definitive answer to this: If, as I understand is the case, Denethor has burning oil on his head, then he must inevitably breathe in the hot gaseous products of combustion. The very delicate structure of the human lungs would be destroyed immediately and that would result in almost instant death.Anárion said:....he should have died fairly quickly in the movie too.
The comment I made was meant in a completely general context: that, as a matter of principle, I would prefer total inventions to be left at an absolute minimum. I didn't comment then on the cheesiness or impossible nature of the scene.Gandalf White said:While I think it would have been better to leave Denethor's plunge out, I don't think it hurt the film in any way.
Mrs. Maggott said:Let's also look at the Denethor thread with regard to the changes we see in Gandalf in ROTK. In this film, he goes from a creature of ultimate magnanimity and compassion (remember his conversation with Frodo in Moria) to a man who strikes Denethor with his staff and then rides his horse over the man. Further, he makes no attempt to save the man when he does set fire to himself. Remember, in the book (God help us!), Gandalf attempt to talk Denethor out of his suicidal despair, telling him that his people need him and that if he actually does seek death, there is a battle taking place in his front yard! In the film, Gandalf just stands their making ponderous pronouncements about the passing of Denethor....
Also, Gandalf becomes very pessimistic. He states unequivocally that Sauron will not believe the feint that the Lords of the West make to the Black Gate in order to keep Sauron's (all too cheesy) Eye from Mount Doom. So while Aragorn gets infinitely better as a character - mature, optimistic, taking charge when the opportunity arises - Gandalf begins to wane. He becomes pessimistic, melancholy and definitely far less compassionate. He "leads", but not with the strength of a Being who "cannot be hurt" by weapons of war (as he tells Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli in Fangorn). He uses his staff to drive off the Nazgul in Faramir's first retreat, but when the forces of Mordor are about to gain entry into the City, he is reduced to wielding a sword. What happened?! How come he goes from virtually invincable to a mini-Aragorn? This is never explained and, frankly, the character never recovers at least as far as I could see. I was happy to see Jackson "fix" Aragorn, but frankly, not at the expense of Gandalf.
joxy said:No, I don't; I looked it up but couldn't find it; that's why I asked someone who I thought would know the answer.
Thank you -that gave the answer, indirectly, but very well.Foe-Hammer said:Pardon me for doubting your sincerity. Try this link.
No, I went to the film in a bright blue gown based on the styles of the Renaissance. I unfortunately have a closer resemblance physically to Ioreth than Eowyn. And the fact that I attended the film in costume has very little to do with my devotion to or any admiration for said film--my friends and I used the films as an excuse to get together for our own reasons, which included designing and making costumes for Ren fests. Either way, I totally fail to see the relevance...but anyway, it wasn't an Eowyn costume.LOL!
Rhiannon (the purist who posted two spots ahead of you) went to the film in full Eowyn regalia.
joxy said:Thank you -that gave the answer, indirectly, but very well.
It says "when you light the charcoal, what is burning is the pure carbon", but doesn't say what form the burning carbon is in:
solid, liquid, or gas, and what the temperature is.
However, it turns out that carbon isn't relevant anyway; it's the volatile hyrdrocarbons, containing the carbon, that matter, and they do go to gas, at quite a low temperature, as they burn. That's the question I should have been asking, and the answer.
Next questions:
1. How do "the issues surrounding screenplays, adaptations and the like" compel the complete change in Gandalf's personality which has been described?
2. How is it that "jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written" in respect of some characters, at some times, and not in respect of others?
The "others", of course, refers to the parts of the films, the major part of them, in which the adaptation IS close to the books.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?