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: Off Topic: The Pollantir:
Which LOTR monster(s) was/were the closest to your own visual expectations?
Poll: Which LOTR monster(s) was/were the closest to your own visual expectations?
The Balrog 13 / 28%
The Watcher in the Watcher 2 / 4%
The Trolls 1 / 2%
Shelob 4 / 9%
The Mumakil 5 / 11%
The Great Beasts that pull 'Grond' 0 / 0%
Sauron's physical form in the Prologue 0 / 0%
The Fell Beasts 0 / 0%
The Ents 2 / 4%
The Eagles 11 / 23%
The Wargs 0 / 0%
Gollum 5 / 11%
The Orcs 1 / 2%
Uruk-Hai 1 / 2%
The Goblins 2 / 4%
Other 0 / 0%
47 total votes
 

Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor


Aug 14 2012, 11:21am

Post #1 of 19 (872 views)
Shortcut
Which LOTR monster(s) was/were the closest to your own visual expectations? Can't Post

I have tried to include a wide variety of options from greater to lesser monsters (e.g. from The Balrog to an Orc). Obviously there is an other option available if your choice is not covered.


(This post was edited by Radagast-Aiwendil on Aug 14 2012, 11:22am)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 14 2012, 11:32am

Post #2 of 19 (407 views)
Shortcut
Eagles and goblins [In reply to] Can't Post

They couldn't really have gone wrong with them. As for all the others, I imagined them either similar to (i.e Ents - not Treebeard though, and the Oliphaunts), or not at all (wargs, Gollum etc).

Doesn't mean I don't like the designs though!


DesiringDragons
Lorien


Aug 14 2012, 12:08pm

Post #3 of 19 (417 views)
Shortcut
Not the wargs... [In reply to] Can't Post

they were described as wolflike, but in the films they look more like giant hyenas.

Actually, most things didn't look as I pictured them! Took me awhile to get used to the differences between my mental image of Middle-Earth and its denizens and the film versions.

(I voted Eagles.)


Sam20
Lorien

Aug 14 2012, 5:51pm

Post #4 of 19 (413 views)
Shortcut
Eagles, Mumakil [In reply to] Can't Post

That's the two creature in PJ's film that come closest to what I imagine reading the books. But one might say it's hard to get them wrong since they're well described by Tolkien and so if you follow the instructions the result can be good.


(This post was edited by sam90 on Aug 14 2012, 5:52pm)


Elizabeth
Valinor


Aug 14 2012, 8:48pm

Post #5 of 19 (400 views)
Shortcut
Actually, most of them. [In reply to] Can't Post

The balrog was brilliant, with rather fewer clues from the books than some of the others. The wargs were the only real failures, and that scene was made up and not from the book, anyway.


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 15 2012, 1:15am

Post #6 of 19 (365 views)
Shortcut
The Balrog and Gollum were the closest. [In reply to] Can't Post

Most of the rest were at least close enough approximations that they felt right.

I just wish Shelob had been more monstrous (monster-y?) and less spidery.

And I still hate the Wargs. Tongue


(This post was edited by RosieLass on Aug 15 2012, 1:15am)


sevilodorf
Gondor


Aug 15 2012, 2:24am

Post #7 of 19 (337 views)
Shortcut
Eagles were closest [In reply to] Can't Post

but Balrog was great and the Mumakil exceeded expectations.

Shelob's behavior was not what I expected .... more agressive than sneaky.

Fell Beast was NOT what I envisioned though explaining what I did think it looked like would be difficult.

Some Orcs yes... others not so much.

Wargs... not at all... wanted more wolflike.


GAndyalf
Valinor

Aug 15 2012, 2:52am

Post #8 of 19 (417 views)
Shortcut
Mumakil - notes in post... [In reply to] Can't Post

Balrog - while MOSTLY a very good representation here the head of the Balrog is, imo, off especially considering this: Balrogs were NOT mindless beasts incapable of speech, and while the use of sword and whip gave some nod to the intelligence it must be remembered that these stalwarts were NOT just main battery firepower for Morgoth Bauglir but his CAPTAINS - peers and equals of Sauron (who also was given the mindless-beast bellowing treatment but more on that below). These fallen Maiar deserve better than trolls as even orcs and uruks are given MUCH better treatment!
Watcher in the Water - This one was quite good and since the question was 'closest to' my own visual expectations' I have to give Mr Jackson and his team kudos for several because this is one that exceeded my own.
Trolls - These were also very good but while I appreciate the visual feast of artistry I'm also scientist enough that I'd really appreciate something that is possible and a few features (teeth most notably) just don't pass muster here. I prefer Tolkien's own drawings here.
Shelob - SOOO tantalizingly close, but the one feature 'my' Shelob had that this one didn't was when I read those chapters I envisioned a creature that like the writing seemed able to generate and feed off of the darkness that surrounded her. It was not normal darkness at all but a combination of malice and a terrible hunger that sucked the living's souls from travellers unlucky enough to enter her lair just by being in it. I wanted a Shelob that somehow could radiate that - do it perhaps by having any light around her distorted and dimmed excepting only the Phial, which in piercing her darkness would cause her to recoil (Tolkien wrote that this was so but Mr Jackson didn't really have her react well, imo) and visually for the viewer to have it the only really clear picture we get of her horror.
Mumakil (my vote) - These were both awesome and majestic. My vote for closest to my mental pictures of them.
Beasts pulling Grond - These were quite good in the movie but to be honest, my attention really wasn't on them in the book so I can't give them a vote when they weren't really what captivated my mind's eye in their scene.
Sauron (pre-Eye) - Liked the height (even though Tolkien would have had him more of a 7-footer rather than 16 or so), loved the mace (though somehow I always envisioned Sauron using a sorcerer's blade rather than a mace, rather like Gandalf and Glamdring?). Again, like the balrog, this is Sauron. Most cunning and terrible of all of the servants of the Enemy. To simply have a bellowing giant cheapens his whole 'experience' by a lot.
Fell beasts (presume the flying versions) - These would be tough under any circumstance and the movie-makers did well, but it just didn't feel like the stories and I'm not truly certain how to improve them except perhaps a tad more exotic rather than pterodactyl-ish?
Ents - Very close. The eyes would have been tough, but this is Hollywood and spfx. I'm sure that something to convey the depth of ent-eyes could have been managed? The mouths also were nice, but seemed just a shade off-kilter and not quite 'natural' looking enough.
Eagles - Size was good, but didn't look like the musculature of real birds to me. Would have been fun to see more face but that likely would have been a detriment as 'anthropomorphising' too much and too much away from the bird.
Wargs - As others have noted - looked like hyenas and not wolves at all.
Gollum - This is another that exceeded my visual. Stunning. Magnificent.
Orcs - I can't see how these are the shattered and ruined elves. I would've liked a treatment much more similar to Gollum's resemblance to hobbits.
Uruk-hai - Like orcs above, only these should have been the haggard elf look combined with an Arnold Schwarzeneger body to give the cross between orcs and men that these were supposed to be. They got the latter close to right, but the former needed to be there as well as to me the connexion to elves was in lip-service of Saruman only.
Goblins - Tolkien only really hints at any difference between orcs and goblins, with that hint being that orcs are a 'truer' race that is stronger in mind and body and more directly connected to evil. That said, the comments for orcs and uruks can partially be laid aside as these creatures are quite degenerate from their 'original orc form' but even there I'd love a hint, a barest whisper of elf just to break the heart and echo the sadness of the ages of middle-earth.


(This post was edited by GAndyalf on Aug 15 2012, 2:58am)


Patty
Immortal


Aug 15 2012, 5:22pm

Post #9 of 19 (331 views)
Shortcut
Not a monster but... [In reply to] Can't Post

The Nazgul. They stepped right out of the book to me.


Annael
Half-elven


Aug 16 2012, 2:58pm

Post #10 of 19 (343 views)
Shortcut
I said "Eagles" but the Trolls & the Ents were good [In reply to] Can't Post

Wargs were the worst. They were just big wolves, not hyenas you could ride.

Orcs were fine in the first movie but the pink potato guy was just ridiculous.

Also did not like the Dead - would have been better with no color, a grey mist instead of the green scrubbing bubbles.


imin
Valinor


Aug 16 2012, 3:12pm

Post #11 of 19 (343 views)
Shortcut
I also voted for the eagles [In reply to] Can't Post

Hard to mess them up i think, lol.

And i agree with everything else in this post i am replying to so no need to right it out again, just hopefully PJ has learnt from his warg mistake and will make them look like wolves this time in the hobbit!


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 16 2012, 8:07pm

Post #12 of 19 (324 views)
Shortcut
I didn't care for the eagles. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not because they didn't look eagles, because they did. They just were too obviously CGI.


Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor


Aug 16 2012, 9:33pm

Post #13 of 19 (309 views)
Shortcut
I agree with you [In reply to] Can't Post

Whilst the Eagles at the Black Gate were fine in my opinion, I disliked Gwaihir's appearance when he came to rescue Gandalf at Orthanc. It was clearly CGI.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 16 2012, 9:37pm

Post #14 of 19 (328 views)
Shortcut
What are the alternatives to CGI though? [In reply to] Can't Post

Or would "better" CGI have done the job?


Magpie
Immortal


Aug 16 2012, 10:00pm

Post #15 of 19 (400 views)
Shortcut
I'm not so sure those of us who grew up with Harry Harryhausen [In reply to] Can't Post

... are so concerned things looking 'clearly CGI'. ;-)

They are CGI. They can't look entirely real or they risk the uncanny valley.

The thing is, even those old HH special FX did the trick. A story is told. If it's just a person in front of a fire telling it, or puppets, or claymation, or computer generated effects, how *real* something looks shouldn't be the barometer for how well the story is told.

I love seeing the advances in computer generated effects and animation. I just watched Brave and I thought back to watching Toy Story, which was revolutionary in its day, and compared the hair in Brave to the hair in Toy Story. Brave was beautiful to look at and I appreciated the advancements and work that went into it. But having dated CG/animation effects doesn't diminish Toy Story, or at least it shouldn't if the basic story works for the viewer.

I think it's kind of a right brain vs left brain. To fully appreciate the story, one must not get too caught up in the technology. :-)


Annael
Half-elven


Aug 17 2012, 1:52am

Post #16 of 19 (332 views)
Shortcut
agree [In reply to] Can't Post

at the time the movies came out, while I had some quibbles with the CGI in other places, the eagles worked for me just fine. I was just happy that the eagle screams were actual eagle screams instead of roars as people sometimes have done with giant birds.

Not just Harryhausen - remember how blown away we all were by the first "Star Wars" movie?


Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor


Aug 17 2012, 9:36am

Post #17 of 19 (311 views)
Shortcut
You've answered your own question [In reply to] Can't Post

Better CGI would have done the job. It's not something that bothers me in the slightest, but it was worth a mention since the topic came up.

The Eagles at the Black Gate were fine and looked very real.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 17 2012, 9:43am

Post #18 of 19 (311 views)
Shortcut
Better CGI is the only sensible answer [In reply to] Can't Post

I was wondering whether you were going to say animatronic eagles Wink


GAndyalf
Valinor

Aug 17 2012, 5:25pm

Post #19 of 19 (430 views)
Shortcut
The odyssey of spfx... [In reply to] Can't Post

While there has always been science fiction in movies, the 1950s were when it blossomed as a genre. Sometimes terrible scripts and fledgling spfx got it marginalised for nearly 2 decades, but the fans were far more loyal than other movie-going audiences because science fiction WRITING was VERY good from the 1920s on and these folk WANTED BADLY to see their visions written by H.P Lovecraft, James Branch Cabell, Doc Smith, Ray Cummings, and others brought 'to life' on the silver screen.
Indeed while the '50s had the most shoestring of budgets for spfx, some of the stories were timeless: The Day the Earth Stood Still, and Forbidden Planet (with comic actor Leslie Nielsen as the romanticlead, no less) are two of the best from the '50s SF that was romanticized in the 1975 cult film classic, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".
Then we reach 1968, a pivotal, even seminalyear for science fiction. The late Gene Roddenberry had shown to 'executives' at NBC that science fiction was both serious and a well of untapped possibility unlike anything since oil blossomed as an industry. While Star Trek (the original series) still suffered from terribly sub-standard spfx because the network didn't want to spend it on a 'risky' show (and by their slotting of Trek really tried to kill it) the writing was stellar - by some of the greats of science fiction of it's day, including Harlan Ellison and a budding David Gerrold.
That lead Stanley Kubrick to team with sf legend Sir Arthur C. Clarke to turn a short story called "The Sentinel" into one of science fictions great films of all time, "2001: A Space Odyssey" changed spfx forever with Doug Trumbull pioneering the industry as no one has before him - and training a young John Dykstra who was the genius and father of George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic which did the spfx for the original Star Wars (now "A New Hope") and so many great science fiction and fantasy films since.
As Annael says, those of us who lived through the transformation of movies - and other genres have benefitted GREATLY from the blossoming of fx (action flicks particularly, but even appearing covertly in comedies and love stories the effects have rippled through our movie experience) - know that without those courageous pioneers in the '50s who believed in the great stories (and even the not-so-great ones) NEEDING to be told in movies, Gene Roddenberry BELIEVING that science fiction could work in the horribly shallow (even today) medium of television, of Kubrick and Clarke envisioning what COULD be on the big screen, and then finally Dykstra and those that have followed once the floodgates were FINALLY opened fully by the wild success of Star Wars.
If the story is good enough, they'll find a way to make it happen.
In Tolkien's lifetime he hoped to see movies made, plays made, music made celebrating his work. He wouldn't have sold the works he did to Saul Zaentz if he didn't but his own writing reveals he celebrated ALL forms of art. Indeed even Christopher isn't against the filming of his father's work so much as he's against it being done without proper reverence to what that work was supposed to MEAN. In that, he was proved correct when corporate executives made decisions and forced Mr Jackson to 'dumb down' LotR to the point where Christopher could not stomach it. With his trust in movie-makers quite gone and the budget of independents insufficient to go that route he's chosen to simply 'close the gate' as it were to safeguard what is left from such crude indiscretions (and insulting the intelligence of loyal fans).
It will be fun to watch the spfx of The Hobbit - all 3 glorious volumes of it - but it will be just as important to see if along with more money if Mr Jackson uses his gained leverage for the professor's work, or simply continues with movie-making policies of "based on" rather than "based IN" the professor's work.

 
 

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.