Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
TORn AMATEUR SYMPOSIUM Day One- The Physics Of Middle Earth
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 5:22am

Post #26 of 68 (240 views)
Shortcut
Balrog Slo-Mo [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Silverlode, thanks for the input. You are right that some of the Balrog scene happens in slow motion. The actual time until Gandalf starts to fall is 34 seconds, not 30; there is the short slo-mo time when Frodo screams "Noooooo!". On the "Physics of the Lord of The Rings" web page they figured that in and subtracted 4 seconds, so I did that as well.

If Gandalf falls in a head-first position, as in the film, he can catch the Balrog more easily. The problem is the long time until he starts falling. Even using this position, a skydiver can still only manage about 180 mph terminal velocity. So if the Balrog's TV was approximately 160 mph, as I've calculated, then eventually Gandalf could have caught him. My rough calculation gives me a time of 9 minutes 30 seconds to catch up, given that 30 second head start. That's a lot longer than the complete fall. So that long head start is still the factor that makes Gandalf catching the Balrog physically impossible, unless Gandalf has some magic power, or we agree that the 30 seconds was not "really" 30 seconds but much shorter.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 5:38am

Post #27 of 68 (256 views)
Shortcut
Moria IHOP [In reply to] Can't Post

If Gandalf used the Balrog's body as an airbag (which is possible from the final moments of the scene in the movie) then he would have experienced much less force than if he had hit the water. The Balrog, on the other hand, should have been a pancake hitting the water at 160 mph. I guess Morgoth built those demons pretty well! Maybe Frodo should have awakened from his dream/vision in an International House Of Pancakes (oh wait, wrong Warner Bros. action movie...)

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 5:40am

Post #28 of 68 (247 views)
Shortcut
What browser are you using? [In reply to] Can't Post

If you use Firefox, try right-clicking the link and selecting "open link in new tab".

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 22 2013, 6:44am

Post #29 of 68 (230 views)
Shortcut
As DwellerinDale suggests, which browser are you using Aunt Dora? [In reply to] Can't Post

Internet Explorer is a bit hit and miss when trying to view documents on GoogleDocs, but Chrome should work fine. If not, I'm sure we can send all essays your interested in via e-mail. Do let us know.

Smile

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!




DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 22 2013, 7:13am

Post #30 of 68 (234 views)
Shortcut
Which is rather lucky for the Dwarves, I guess. [In reply to] Can't Post

If the Company had all been Men, I'm guessing the added mass would have also increased the amount of break-up on the bridge. They wouldn't have landed in a neat pile!

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!




noWizardme
Tol Eressea


Jul 22 2013, 9:06am

Post #31 of 68 (225 views)
Shortcut
Side-slam [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that cars often have more impact protection fore and aft than on the side, and so it might be that the vehicle occupants more of the energy if the vehicle was hit from the side. Also, it might make a difference if the occupants lurch sideways rather than straight forwards and back - maybe the neck and head get more abuse that way than if they are slammed first into the airbag and then back into the headrest?

Disclaimers: The words of noWizardme may stand on their heads! I'm often wrong about things, and its fun to be taught more....

"nowimė I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"


noWizardme
Tol Eressea


Jul 22 2013, 10:58am

Post #32 of 68 (236 views)
Shortcut
Physics versus storytelling... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for this DiD, this is a splendid piece of work - a great explanation, and it is fun to deploy these kinds of tools in reaction to Tolkien on film. I am looking forwards to your Parts 3&4!

The analysis reminds me of an anecdote Sir David Attenborough gave at a public lecture I once attended (at the University of Cambridge Zoology Department, in about 1985, I think). Sir David has had a long career presenting BBC films about the natural world. He spoke about an anthropological piece he had once made, based on a society of jungle-dwellers. It was customary there for young men to climb to a high-up tree house, attach a vine to themselves and do , in effect, a bungee jump. Sir David and team were pleased with the exciting footage they obtained of this, but were later rather flummoxed to get a letter from a university. The letter-writers had taken a stopwatch to the film, done some calculations about forces, and had become very excited by the results - it seemed to them that the human body could not possibly survive the forces unleashed. But, what these intelligent men had neglected, Sir David said, was that the film had been cut for dramatic effect - it did not contain continuous film, from one camera positioned such that it would be valid to take timings from the film and use them for the calculations the letter-writers presented. I didn't see the actual film, but the point was that it would have gone something like this:
  1. Camera angle - young man about to jump - then...
  2. he jumps!
  3. Reaction shot, onlookers on the ground
  4. Young man falling
  5. View from camera in tree-house, young man receding
  6. Young man falling again
  7. Onlookers on ground
  8. Young man arrives near ground, climbs down

...that is, the film only contained footage genuinely recorded at the event, but simultaneous events, or events from different jumps had been cut into a sequence which presented the drama of the event most appropriately, in the film-makers' opinion. This meant it wasn't valid to start a stopwatch at (2), stop it at (8) and base calculations on the elapsed time. Shots such as (3) took the amount of time on film which gave the editor an interesting shot, not the true amount of time of the jumper's decelerated free-fall. Sir David's point was that, caught up in the apparent veracity of the film, the letter-writers had neglected this axiomatic flaw with their analysis.

That exact "scene cutting" problem might quite literally apply to Gandalf and the Balrog (from memory, the Goblin Town sequence is one continuous shot, so this wouldn't apply ). Further cinematic effects might interfere too - for example the dramatic effect the film-makers can get by showing time slowed down or sped up.

But, while this problem might put a particular error factor into the calculations, I really wanted to raise it to introduce (as Sir David did) a wider and more interesting question, about what is accepted as realistic. Sir David went on to discuss some other aspects of his nature documentaries which were not realistic in the most literal sense - for example, he said that the soundtracks were largely not the real sound of the events. Instead, a better recording of that creature was substituted, or sounds such as the expedition slopping through the swamp were done by Foley artists. Again, the results could be so intuitively acceptable that the end result could - was in some senses intended to- fool even the most intelligent viewer.

Returning to our two Tolkien scenes, we have an quite interesting audience reaction here. Someone who does not like Tolkien at all might well be laughing at us "You mean to say that you happily accept that there is a wizard, a gigantic demon-like creature partially made of flame; by magic they demolish a structure in a mythical setting - and then you get all upset when the physics of free fall is not authentic?!! I say, really...." I erect Mr Strawman, the fictional disliker of all things fantasy at this point, because that isn't my own point of view! As these threads show, I'm as able as the next fan to get exercised at odd points of plot consistency or "realism". And what upsets one viewer does not offend another - a friend of mine was one of those who was appalled by the Goblin Town Fall, for example, whereas I thought it an amusing bit of lighthearted cinematography. There's probably some other point which would have the converse effect (I'm annoyed, he likes it). So I, please note am not laughing at the problem, even less at the excellent analysis presented here. Rather, it is making me excited about the subject of "reality" in speculative fiction.

"Reality" in quite obviously unreal fiction? It's all very odd.


Tolkien himself addressed this point, in On Fairy-Stories

Quote
"But since the fairy-story deals with 'marvels' it cannot tolerate any frame or machinery suggesting that the whole story in which they occur is a figment or illusion."

[and, in a later passage...]

"What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator' he makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter, Inside it, what he relates is 'true'; it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed."

Which is how it works, I think - we grant the story-teller a kind of license to be unreal, provided he or she entertains (or "satisfies" as Tolkien puts it elsewhere in his essay). But that license can be suddenly and savagely revoked: as individuals, we make an unconscious critical judgement of what is "realistic" , and surprise ourselves (or others) when the storyteller oversteps our privately and unconscionably-drawn bounds. It's as if suddenly we wake up from an enchantment.

Back to the Tolkien scenes under discussion here. Its a really interesting (and ironic) point that the negative fan reaction has been much more to the Goblin Town Fall, shown in DiD's paper to be physically feasible. The infeasible Balrog catches Gandalf, who goes into power dive, retrieves sword and catches balrog scene, was not as disturbing.

But I think I know why. Whether the scene makes a satisfying story is more potent than whether the physics is correct. As you might predict from Tolkien's comments, for most of us, enjoyment trumps (or jams?) "realism". So, for example, the Gandalf falling scene was canonical, so didn't stir up the "Oi, Jackson, you're messing with the canon" reaction. It is "true" in a sort of mythical or poetical sense - Gandalf "ought" to be able to fall with the balrog, but rise again. In Goblin Town, by contrast, New Line are pushing it with the cannon, pursuing a cinematic device partly for laughs- the bridge falls in 3 stages not only to keep the forces manageable, I think. It falls in many stages so as to give the audience the momentary feeling that all is safe again, only to snatch that away for still more excitement. The "well, that could have been worse" line works all the better for audiences who've seen similar action sequences (from Indiana Jones to How To Train Your Dragon) - I think the audience immediately gets the idea that there will be a slapstick moment proving this statement to be comically wrong. And there it is - it got a laugh in the theatre in which I saw the film.


Thanks once again for a brilliant opening innings to the symposium DwellerinDale! A blessing (or curse?) of the online format is that responses like this one can be much longer than a face-to-face symposium could possibly accommodate as "questions". Like this one, to be sure. I hope |'ve used that opportunity interestingly!


As an optional footnote to the problem of "reality" in speculative fiction...

One of the finest science-fiction stories I have read pushes this to an extreme, producing a highly unreal story which still succeeds in being utterly compelling. It is Robot, by Helena Ball, and published by Escape Pod (you can read, or listen to it for free or for donation here). [I particularly recommend the audio podcast, with Eleiece Krawiec's quite brilliant capture of the old lady's voice - but please be warned, you need a quiet environment to hear that performance, and the story needs your full attention - it's not a long story.].

The relevance of this story to my post it that this story is in the form of comments made by an elderly, unwell woman to the robot which cares for her.
You may wash your aluminum chassis on Monday and leave it on the back porch opposite the recyclables; you may wash your titanium chassis on Friday if you promise to polish it in time for church; don’t terrorize the cat; don’t lose the pamphlets my husband has brought home from the hospital; they suggest I give you a name, do you like Fred? - See more at: http://escapepod.org/2013/05/09/ep395-robot/#sthash.P5w2y6pi.dpufRelevant to my point here is that the narrator is clearly an unreliable one - her feelings towards the robot lurch from affection to paranoia. She may well have dementia &/or other mental health problems. And yet, the audience happily accepts her most outrageous claim - it is true, for the purposes of the story, that a robot obtained from an alien civilization as part of a trade deal, is employed to excise necrotic flesh from the poor lady's ulcers. We (by which I mean me, other people I've played this to, those commenting on the Escape Pod website) completely accept the absurd, grotesque and fantastical idea that the old lady is being voluntarily eaten alive by an alien machine. That is like the "Let..." at the start of a mathematician's paper - we accept that bit as an axiom, and advance to wonder about other aspects of the lady's relationship (and that of her society's) with the robot.

It's quite a genre where you can pull that kind of stunt!

Disclaimers: The words of noWizardme may stand on their heads! I'm often wrong about things, and its fun to be taught more....

"nowimė I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Jul 22 2013, 11:19am

Post #33 of 68 (229 views)
Shortcut
Interesting points [In reply to] Can't Post

I hadn't really thought deeply about your suggestion, that part of the negative reaction to Goblin Town was the canon vs non-canon aspect. I don't recall now: how did fans react to Aragorn falling off the cliff in TTT? They never say how high the cliff is, but since even Legolas and Gimli don't go looking for him, I assume they too thought the fall was certainly fatal. That scene is completely non-canon but was ironically probably a better candidate for the "fall off a cliff and live" criticism.

I think that "Gandalf and the Balrog" would be much less susceptible to the film-cutting effect than the Attenborough piece. They only cut away from Gandalf for about 4 seconds, I believe, and we see him in real time hanging on to the ledge before falling. As I mentioned above in the response to Silverlode's comment, I subtracted those 4 seconds of slow motion to bring the time between falls down from 34 seconds to 30 seconds.

There seems to be no definite answer concerning what we accept as realistic. It depends on the person, their level of knowledge, and the setting. Any physicist can tell you that "James Bond would be dead within 5 minutes of the beginning of any movie", but James Bond is one of the most popular film franchises of all time. Perhaps "impossible" stunts have become part of the James Bond canon!

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




squire
Valinor


Jul 22 2013, 11:51am

Post #34 of 68 (221 views)
Shortcut
The story still needs to come first [In reply to] Can't Post

A very nice excursion into the underlying factors in the dramatic success (or failure) of the falling bridge scene, which has almost nothing to do with the physics. As you say, the interesting thing about this paper is that it shows that, arguably at least, the physics are workable. Yet in the context of a fantasy film, the only role of the special effects masters in such cases is to preserve the audience's investment in the ongoing story and not break the willing suspension of disbelief. I recall quite a number of discussions of the LotR films in their time wherein our analyses showed that the effects crew had gone to great lengths to make something look 'real enough' that we could accept its evident absurdity. For example, the wings of the Fell Beasts were worked out in some detail to provide fairly large creatures that appeared able to fly and carry a human-scale rider; ditto the Eagles, for that matter.

As before, I would be interested in comparing the efforts of these filmmakers to the efforts of Tolkien himself, who often confessed in his letters to the absurdity of several of his story devices, like lembas and various tricks of orthography and geography. The more we look into his writing in detail, I've become convinced, the more we come to the conclusion that Middle-earth is a gigantic stage set (or sound stage, in filmic terms) with all of the cherished cultural and dramatic icons of his world carefully painted with stage-paint and taped together with gaffers tape on the back side. He's just damned good at it, having taken decades of careful work to achieve his effects; and having taken care always to focus on the story rather than the gimmicks.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


noWizardme
Tol Eressea


Jul 22 2013, 12:10pm

Post #35 of 68 (204 views)
Shortcut
The cutting effect [In reply to] Can't Post

I quite agree - the "cutting effect" for Gandalf would not be enough to undermine your conclusion, nor to upset your excellent exposition of the point. I wanted to raise it more to bring in the whole issue of what looks real vs what is real (whatever "real" is!!)

The Aragorn falls of cliff moment is a good one to bring up!

Disclaimers: The words of noWizardme may stand on their heads! I'm often wrong about things, and its fun to be taught more....

"nowimė I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"


Aunt Dora Baggins
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 12:31pm

Post #36 of 68 (202 views)
Shortcut
Got it now. [In reply to] Can't Post

I was using Firefox on my laptop. When I tried it on our desktop, it worked fine. No idea what happened. Anyway, I'll have a read a bit later today.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 1:03pm

Post #37 of 68 (179 views)
Shortcut
Glad it worked Aunt Dora. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!









noWizardme
Tol Eressea


Jul 22 2013, 1:06pm

Post #38 of 68 (183 views)
Shortcut
You mean...NONE of it is real???? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Disclaimers: The words of noWizardme may stand on their heads! I'm often wrong about things, and its fun to be taught more....

"nowimė I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"


Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 4:24pm

Post #39 of 68 (189 views)
Shortcut
One tough Balrog ! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
If Gandalf used the Balrog's body as an airbag (which is possible from the final moments of the scene in the movie) then he would have experienced much less force than if he had hit the water. The Balrog, on the other hand, should have been a pancake hitting the water at 160 mph. I guess Morgoth built those demons pretty well! Maybe Frodo should have awakened from his dream/vision in an International House Of Pancakes (oh wait, wrong Warner Bros. action movie...)




I wonder if the Balrog was first-generation incarnate...he is described leaving the water as a creature of writhing, slimy strength. Perhaps he still had the innate ability to shape-shift, having been an early Balrog (the one who escaped the destruction of Thangorodim, per Letters) and perhaps not having bred...maybe after hitting the water "pancake shaped airbag" was a possible shape option! Wink

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!









Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 4:25pm

Post #40 of 68 (170 views)
Shortcut
Just breathe into the bag Furincurunir! Nice and slow...// [In reply to] Can't Post

You mean...NONE of it is real????

The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!









Rembrethil
Tol Eressea

Jul 22 2013, 4:32pm

Post #41 of 68 (180 views)
Shortcut
My Impression [In reply to] Can't Post

My personal impression was that after he had been dunked in the water, his flame could not be re-lit (At least until he dried). Somehow the text led me to believe that shadow, the other substance in his form, when wet, turned into a mud-like substance. Perhaps the underground setting shaped this idea.

No clue how I got this impression, but the visual of a sticky, black earthworm is still in my head.


Elizabeth
Valinor


Jul 22 2013, 6:09pm

Post #42 of 68 (184 views)
Shortcut
Gandalf dived. [In reply to] Can't Post

Diving not only decreases your drag and hence allows you to catch up with slower-falling things such as swords and Balrogs, it also facilitates your entry into the water so as to minimize the impact.








noWizardme
Tol Eressea


Jul 22 2013, 7:10pm

Post #43 of 68 (162 views)
Shortcut
Breathe into this "pancake-shaped airbag" you mean? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Disclaimers: The words of noWizardme may stand on their heads! I'm often wrong about things, and its fun to be taught more....

"nowimė I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"


Aunt Dora Baggins
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 8:03pm

Post #44 of 68 (177 views)
Shortcut
That is SPECTACULAR! [In reply to] Can't Post

Really, I'm in total awe. I hope you don't mind that I added a link to it on my school website, on the page for my calculus class.

It's been a long, long time since I did much of anything beyond multivariable calculus, so I don't remember how to solve non-linear first-order differential equations (I can solve the linear ones), so even if I had the time I couldn't check all your work. But reading through it made sense, and you do a marvelous job of explaining. I think even someone who didn't understand any of the mathematics could still get a lot from your article.

I agree that some psychological factors could be part of the explanation of why people accepted the balrog scene and not the dwarf scene. The time flow in the first case really makes sense to me. Many years ago I was involved in a rather serious car wreck, though luckily no one was seriously injured. It must have been a small fraction of a second between the time the guy turned left in front of me and the time I hit him, going 60 mph (If he was, say, 20 feet away, it would have been about a quarter of a second). And yet I remember thinking at the time, "Wow, I'm having an accident. Look at that. Time really does slow down, just like in the movies." It is an old movie cliche to slow time down during powerful, emotional scenes, and I found out that night that it seems to happen in real life too. So the viewers could easily make the unconscious assumption that the real amount of time that passed was much shorter than the time we were seeing on the screen.

To tell the truth, the first time I watched the scene, especially Gandalf catching up to the balrog, I think a part of my mind realized that it wasn't realistic. But it was so amazingly beautiful that I was willing to accept it anyway.

And I think you're right about scale being part of the reason people can't accept the second scene, from The Hobbit. That was brilliant, realizing that viewers were unconsciously seeing the dwarves as human-sized.

Part of it may also be that by the use of camera angles and background music, Jackson was ramping up the excitement, so the action felt even faster than it looked. And unlike the balrog scene, it didn't have that almost ballet-like quality of beauty. It felt like comedy and whiz-bang, and so it pulled people psychologically into the direction of thinking of cartoons and silliness. When I watched it, I got a sense of what my husband calls "gratuitous babes and explosions" (explaining the kind of action movies he and our kids like and that I find boring.) That scene seemed interminable to me. And of course part of what made it so long was the very thing that you cite as making it possible, all the things that temporarily broke the fall.

Anyway, this was brilliant, and I thank you so much for sharing it.

Post-script: regarding Gandalf and the balrog, they are both Maiar, and could easily have a different density from mortal folks. I know that Gandalf was given the form of an old man, and I suppose Tolkien meant that to be a complete incarnation, but maybe part of the reason movie-goers were able to accept it is that ultimately he's an angel. And because he's a demon, I could accept a balrog's whip being a quarter of a mile long :-D


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



(This post was edited by Aunt Dora Baggins on Jul 22 2013, 8:11pm)


Aunt Dora Baggins
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 8:21pm

Post #45 of 68 (170 views)
Shortcut
A lot of fans were horrified by the Aragon/cliff scene [In reply to] Can't Post

but that was for storytelling reasons more than physics reasons. I don't recall anyone commenting on his likelihood of survival (though I'm sure I wasn't able to read everything folks here wrote at the time.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



elaen32
Gondor


Jul 22 2013, 9:08pm

Post #46 of 68 (150 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

if Aragorn had fallen off that particular cliff- he would have had good reason to be angry with Legolas and Gimli for leaving him behind on a gentle incline some 2-3 feet below! I think it was the depth of the river gorge that they greenscreened below the cliff which was the problem for me. It was ridiculously deep and the vegetation and general geography of the place didn't match the rest of the scene.
I think there was disbelief about the feasibility of surviving the fall as portrayed at the time. I didn't know about TORn then, but I did read criticisms elsewhere, not only of the plot device, but also the impossibility of it.


The first TORn Amateur Symposium, IS NOW ON from Sunday 21st July in the Reading Room. Come and join us for some interesting discussion on some different and personal ways of looking at Tolkien's work



Elizabeth
Valinor


Jul 22 2013, 9:19pm

Post #47 of 68 (156 views)
Shortcut
Poor, I think. [In reply to] Can't Post

Aragorn's chances of survival, that is. It's a long fall, and not only water at the bottom, but fairly shallow water, at that.








Aunt Dora Baggins
Half-elven


Jul 22 2013, 9:41pm

Post #48 of 68 (151 views)
Shortcut
Now that it's been brought up, it's kind of surprising [In reply to] Can't Post

that it hasn't been brought up before (at least to my knowledge.) The bad storytelling overshadowed the bad physics, I guess.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 22 2013, 9:53pm

Post #49 of 68 (148 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I think [In reply to] Can't Post

the whole idea of inserting a fake death (which was going to fool very few people - it was obvious Aragorn wasn't going to die) at that point was such a deviation from canon that the quality of execution was considered irrelevant. Besides, most people reserved their ire for other TTT storyline changes, particularly the Osgiliath detour and the Faramir "character assassination".

Similarly, few people complained about the effects of the Moria "swaying staircase" scene in FOTR, even though the greenscreen effects there are some of the weakest in the entire trilogy, especially during the shot where Aragorn and Frodo are falling toward the camera. Overall, I think there was far less complaint about technical execution of scenes, canonical or not, for LOTR. Perhaps all the talk of technical innovation and the new format focused people on those aspects more for AUJ, or perhaps increasing familiarity with CGI effects is now breeding contempt where it once earned admiration.

Silverlode

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zāram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nāla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dūm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."



Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 23 2013, 12:36am

Post #50 of 68 (130 views)
Shortcut
I see! Thanks Dweller!! // [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The square-cube law still applies, but the difference would be in their comparison to normal humans, because of the shape difference. This was one reason why I bumped up the mass estimate of the Dwarves by 25% in my analysis. If they were as wide as a normal human, for example, then with their other two dimensions being about 2/3--3/4 human values, the masses of the Dwarves would be more like 40-42 kg. With bone and muscle being proportional to the square of linear dimension, thicker bones would give them a greater strength to weight ratio.


The first TORn Amateur Symposium starts this week in the Reading Room! Come and join in!








First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.