My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

[Gandalf White]

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.

Now discuss Gandalf hitting the water. In our world he would have been killed upon impact by (a) the impact itself, especially after such a fall, and (b) the shock generated by the temperature of the water.

And a side note: Denethor didn't have a beard in the movie!

Joxy: We now find the heart of the matter. It is not so much that Denethor's fall was cheesy or impossible, merely that it was added. I don't deny that is a valid argument, if we look at the film as an adaptation.

 

[Morgaphry]

I cannot imagine Denethor (head and beard soaked with oil) being able to breathe more than a few seconds under such circumstances.

Denethor had no beard as has been mentioned, but also, 100m sprinters do their entire race in one breath. Denethor had a few breaths and probably less than 100m.
The pyre was not set up in Rath Dinen behind the White Tower. We see a "funeral procession" led by Denethor moving away from the Tower, so they must have been quite close to the spur of Mindolluin, probably less than 100m.

As to whether Denethor is really burning at this stage, It's a schoolboy trick:
You spray your hand with a deodorant can, then you light it with a cigarette lighter. You have flaming hands but don't feel a thing. (I don't really approve of these actions, but they are amusing nonetheless!)
Denethor would not be burning yet. He would feel the heat, yes. But would still have complete control of his body and movement. His robe may be burning, but he wears a full set of chain mail underneath at all times. This would protect his body for some time.
He could probably open his eyes for a few moments to see where he was going and he was too busy screaming in agony to think about breathing.

Thanks
Morgaphry

 

[Witch-King]

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. 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.

 

[aragil]

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.

Incidentally, the levels of Minas Tirith have been recounted, more carefully, and seven seperate levels were found.

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.

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.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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.

Are you trying to say that the carbon contained in Denathors body is even remotly related to the believability of the scene? C'mon! You're just trying to shift the discussion to avoid facing the fact that in the real world, denathors leap is not only believable, but entirely possible.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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 can imagine someone who is totally bent on his own destruction being capable of many things.

 

[joxy]

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.

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!

To return then to the believability. It sounds to me like a load of rather nasty nonsense, and I can't imagine why PJ wasn't satisfied with Tolkien's account of the event. However, I may become a believer when I see it.

 

[joxy]

Joxy:....It is not so much that Denethor's fall was cheesy or impossible, merely that it was added.

What did I say to make you think that?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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!

I suspect you already know the answer to that and I am not going to allow you to bait me into a discussion that goes further away from the relevant issues surrounding the scene.

I brought up the basics of combustion in order to try to inject some sanity back into this thread. You are trying to spin this off into the nether regions of chemistry where most people would get lost when we start discussing hydrocarbons, water, and carbon dioxide.

 

[Anárion]

In the book, when Denethor burns himself, it says that Gandalf had the door closed, and they heard a great scream cry out from behind it, and then all was silent. So, Denethor must have died fairly quickly if he only let out one scream, instead of screaming until his death. So, Im thinking that he did scream until his death, which was about 15 seconds(IMO) after he lit himself on fire. So, not to really side with the Nit-wits or anything but if he died very quickly in the book, he should have died fairly quickly in the movie too.

 

[Gandalf White]

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.

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.

 

[joxy]

I suspect you already know the answer to that....

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.

 

[joxy]

....he should have died fairly quickly in the movie too.

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.

 

[joxy]

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.

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.
Of course, it's NOT an invention, but a CHANGE. You say you would prefer it not to be there, but that it doesn't "hurt" the film.
I haven't seen it, so tell me, does that mean you find it fits in with the flow of film as PJ presents it? From what I have read here, it sounds like a variant on PJ's torch-bearer and flaming ent, or even on the Witch and Scarecrow of Oz. Can you take it seriously? Can you take it as seriously as Gandalf apparently does, with some solemn pronouncement on it, even before it finishes?!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

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.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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.

Maggot, your inability to understand all these changes are just the result of you refusing to be educated and accept the issues surrounding screenplays, adaptations and the like. This will continue to be a thorn in your side until you accept the fact that jrrs work lacked the required writing style to make it suitable for adaptation as it was written.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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.

Pardon me for doubting your sincerity. Try this link.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question43.htm

 

[joxy]

Pardon me for doubting your sincerity. Try this link.

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.

 

[Rhiannon]

LOL!
Rhiannon (the purist who posted two spots ahead of you) went to the film in full Eowyn regalia.

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.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

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.

Answer to question 1: Gandalds time is supposed to be over and the age of man begining. How woould it look if (like in the book) gandaldf is responsible for saving ME, while this supposed king is coming into his own? He accepted the mantle of king in the paths of the dead. Why should gandalf be more in tune than the king?

#2: He spent way too much time on scenery and too little time on believable character development. Jrr characters are constantly contradicting previous behaviors.