|
Post by infernal on May 28, 2004 12:32:58 GMT -5
what HDK means is the following fing: "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." This can either mean that his two wings spread out a shadow of two wings, but that will only work if you believe they have wings from the beginning. It can also be a metaphor - the body of the balrog spread out shadows looking like two vast wings - although this will only work if you believed that they didn't have wings from the start. Another thing is DONT TRUST THE MOVIES! they aren't very clear on details so they may indeed be wrong with what you see in the movies. Another thing, metaphor or not, that was used in silma is the following (this isn't an exact quote): "the balrogs passed by with wings speed". This can either mean they flew by - or that they ran with wings speed. To simplify, we can exchange the word balrog with something else - for instance eagles. We know eagles have wings and can fly. "the eagles passed by with wings speed", this seems like a correct sentence, right? Now to replace the word balrogs with something we know doesn't have wings - horses. "the horses passed by with wings speed, this sentence also seems to fit, right? In the end it all depends on what you believe, none of the ideas (whether it's wing supporting or not) can be proved and both seem to fit. Now another thing is with scales, though I'm too lazy to bring it up so just go to glyphweb.com and check it
|
|
|
Post by narsilLOTR on May 28, 2004 17:27:03 GMT -5
okay I didnt read all of what HDK said in details, but got most of it, in particular your making a precise analysis of some quotes of tolkien...well I wont start from this point, but rather remind some lil facts from silmarillion...
1) Balrogs are (or were) maia, that chose to help melkor when he started his war against the valar, ergo they still have some of maia power, so I guess every balrog looks different, they are not an army of demons, but of many individual evil beings, that probably all look different and have different powers.
2) Next point is, remember about the long story about the creation of the sun and of the moon? the ships are flying over the world in ships, melkor would like to destroy these lights, like he destroyed the first lights and the trees. But his problem is : he cant, I could look for a precise quote but Im too lazy, though it says that melkor isnt the lord of the air/wind, he has no flying servants, so he cant get the flying ships. If none of his servants can fly, then theres no reason for them to have wings. In nature, there are few beings with useless wings, but this is evolution, a thing that isnt present in tolkiens world
3) melkor actually knew this lack of "winged" servants, thats why he created the dragons, first of them couldnt fly also, but later generations were able to.
Last, lets now think of the real reason why so many people wanna have wings on balrogs...and wanna see them as big buring monsters....=> hollywood...big movies, special effects etc, also most people today first read/watch other fantasy stories and then lotr, which infuences them....I know that cos it also happened to me, reading lotr, it was hard not to imagine orcs as green pwning guys like in wc2. anyways, peter jacksons vision of the balrog is kinda exagerated imo....
|
|
|
Post by Kieron on May 28, 2004 17:37:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 29, 2004 17:03:06 GMT -5
Balrogs were just a bit greater than Man size and if anyone wants to argue dont make me drag out the " QUOTATION MARKS"
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 29, 2004 17:07:40 GMT -5
"the balrogs passed by with wings speed". Its "winged speed" and balrogs couldnt fly its an almost fact and since when has tolkien made creatures that have body parts they couldnt use?such as wings but they couldnt fly and also balrogs are maia there no going to have mistakes to there anatomy, thats like say giving saruman a trunk which he couldn move, or giving gandalf wings but he couldnt fly. or giving morgoth a pair of testacles which he cant use because no elven chicks like him except maybe arwen because shes so horny because aragorn lost both his penii in the battle of the pellanor fields...
|
|
|
Post by Kieron on May 29, 2004 19:04:57 GMT -5
Balrogs have wings and thats that
|
|
|
Post by infernal on May 30, 2004 3:34:48 GMT -5
read about scale on glyphweb and you will be convinced balrogs don't have wings... and no hdk balrogs were twice as big as elves from what I've read (don't make me use my quotation marks!)
|
|
|
Post by Kieron on May 30, 2004 6:27:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HDK on Jun 1, 2004 11:45:06 GMT -5
"they were of man size or maybe greater"
tolkien letters 43
|
|
|
Post by ARAGORNLOTRWC3 on Jun 7, 2004 21:09:49 GMT -5
If you saw the movie you'd have seen that the Balrog had huge wings unless youre like blind then maybe you didnt see them ;D
|
|
|
Post by MMG_God on Jun 7, 2004 23:06:30 GMT -5
This is copied and pasted from another site where i argued this because like im about to post im tired of these pointless arguements. Because it is a copy n paste im not sure how well it will correspond with this thread as i haven't read all of it. Well for what it is...
God damnit im tired of repeating myself on every god damn forum debating these idiotic aruements. So i'll cover only a few of them for now, briefly or not only the next few minutes will tell.
Do Balrogs have wings?
They most certainly do. To argue otherwise is pointless. FOTR specifically states they had wings when it says the balrog outstreched his wings from wall to wall, the arguement agaisnt this is based on invalid information based on the thoughts of people mixing up elements of the english language. One of the most common arguements agaisnt this I run into is another statement taken from FOTR in the mines of moria chapters in which it says Gandalf flew down the steps and landed in the midst of the fellowship. You see, this is a metaphor, while the balrog spreading his wings is a literal one. A metaphor is different than a literal statement in that a metaphor is a form of exageration to an extent and is not meant to be taken for fact. A literal statement however, is just like it sounds, and is a literal statement ... in other words a non-meaningful but a simple statement, not meant to be taken for more than what it is. I can go on longer, but i already argued this point on a different forum today and don't feel like going into it as much again.
Could Balrogs Fly?
No. I won't go into this one as much, but do you think balrogs fell to their deaths for fun? In at least 2 situations balrogs died because they fell. One in moria fighting gandalf and one off of a cliff fighting glorfindel on a path. Both met their doom by falling. If you do not consider the moria one an invalid death by falling because gandalf fought him once they landed you must surely accept the glorfindel one. One of the arguements i most commonly hear for this one is there is a line in the silmarillion in which it says the balrogs flew across the plain. This is another instance in which a metaphor is mistaken for a literal statement. If you read this in context you would see that this is indeed a metaphor. Also, just because a creature has wings does not mean it can fly, the best example of this is a penguin.
Is Glorfindel from the Silmarillion the same as the one from Lotr?
This is the only arguement I will not completely argue either side for. This is because the author states both. During an interview or it may have possibly been in a book, tolkein specifically states that they are not the same character and are entirely different. However, tolkein later revisits this question in his personal notes discovered by his son in which he says they are the same person. So, its either way. I personally prefer the authors original thoughts however that they are not the same.
Are the Nazgul ever specifically named?
No. Never. Only one name is for certain and that is khamul. Names such as Er-murazor were made up for the card game. One possible name for a Nazgul though is Gothmog because he was in a leadership position in Mordor and was second in command at Pelennor. He took over after the WK fell in that battle. It is unknown what race he is so it is not impossible that he was a Nazgul. It is more commonly beleived, however, that he was a black numearian like the mouth of sauron or an orc as he was represented in Jackson's film. It is also not entirely out of the question that Gothmog was another name for Khamul as Khamul was 2nd in command of the nazgul from context and Gothmog was 2nd in command at pelennor. It makes sense that the 2nd in command to the WK would be the same in both instances therefore proposing the arguement that Gothmog and Khamul are the same person.
Well thats all i'll talk about for now. I'd also like to say most of these questions are proposed by nerds with nothing better to do. Also, most are either people looking for an instance where something is not described in as much detail as they would like and they exaggerate on it or these questions pop out when people confuse elements of the english language. Why do they make these annoying questions? That is a question in itself. I personally think they have nothing better to do.
|
|
Alatar_theIstar
Full Member
From clan TBR. Well well... look at that! Uncle Bob came to visit with his cute lill' horse 8)=
Posts: 324
|
Post by Alatar_theIstar on Jun 8, 2004 3:15:20 GMT -5
If you saw the movie you'd have seen that the Balrog had huge wings unless youre like blind then maybe you didnt see them ;D well dont believe a film a fat half blind story changer made
|
|
|
Post by Iluvatar on Jun 8, 2004 7:20:33 GMT -5
hey don´t insult Peter Jackson. "Meet The Feebles", "Bad Taste" and especially "Braindead" are ownage movies ;D
|
|
|
Post by fingolfin on Jun 8, 2004 10:21:11 GMT -5
Well he did a good job, but with some SIMPLE changes it would be SO MUCH BETTER.. nuff said, don't wanna discuss about it again.
|
|
|
Post by HDK on Jun 8, 2004 11:26:15 GMT -5
mmg thanks for your input and whoever write that about balrogs needs a slap
go on glyph web and read the bit about propertion and you will be convinced
|
|