Anyone know who Lurtz is???
Insane Ranter
Uruk Hai named Lurtz... I don't remember any reference to him in the
books....
Hardy Hestert
>
> Who's is Lurtz?? Gamesworkshop made an LOTR game... with an Captain of the
> Uruk Hai named Lurtz... I don't remember any reference to him in the
> books....
Movie spoilers below
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Like most here I haven't seen the film yet, therefore "AFAIK" applies to
everything below.
Lurtz is an Uruk Hai character invented by Jackson&Co, mainly to have a
hero-orc (or anti-hero-orc), to give a face to the enemy. We see his
"birth" in Saruman's little shop of horrors and we see that even for an
orc he's a major bad-ass. They also had to beef up the breaking of the
fellowship a little in order to have an adequate showdown for this first
3h film. Lurtz leads the Uruk attack at Amon Hen, he's the one who puts
those arrows into Boromir's chest and then has a big fight scene with
Aragorn in which he gets killed.
I think the name "Lurtz" will not be spoken in the film, he has only
been given it for call sheets, credits and merchandise.
Michael O'Neill
<snippety>
> Lurtz leads the Uruk attack at Amon Hen, he's the one who puts
> those arrows into Boromir's chest and then has a big fight scene with
> Aragorn in which he gets killed.
<snip-snip>
So Aragorn fights Orcs at Amon Hen? Perhaps this is the emotional
journey we all go through in the film - getting more and more annoyed at
pointless changes to the plot.
Oh! No! It *is* necessary! You can't have a central character assume an
sad air and constantly fail to perform at a low point in his life, now
can you...?
Not for the Merkans, apparently...
M.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <f_BR7.152058$8n4.11...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "Insane
Ranter" <n...@spam.luckie> wrote:
Lurtz is the pathetic, audience-pandering creation of a shameless director
who refuses to trust the narrative power of the text he makes so many pious
(and staggeringly hypocritical) claims to respect. Lurtz was created in
part, I suspect, so New Line would have a really cool action figure to
market to the kind of people who think "Gladiator" was a great work of film
art. Lurtz is an abomination and his existence is a gross insult to JRR
Tolkien, his work, and his loyal readers and admirers. Lurtz serves as a
handy symbol of everything that's wrong with Peter Jackson's Lord of the
Rings (which is what the the damn film should be called, for the sake of
honesty). Lurtz will almost certainly prove very popular with know-nothing
audience members (i.e. people who've yet to read the novel), with Tolkien
dilettantes, and with gamers and action-figure collectors.
Does that answer your question? Always glad to help.
>
James
>Lurtz is an abomination and his existence is a gross insult to JRR
>Tolkien, his work, and his loyal readers and admirers.
Lurtz is a captain of a band of Uruk-hai. His name isn't even
mentioned in the movie.
James
Tamim
ripoff from Lugburz (Barad-dur)
--
Sandy Santra
Hardy Hestert wrote:
>
> Movie spoilers below
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
> V
>
>
> Lurtz is an Uruk Hai character invented by Jackson&Co, mainly to have a
> hero-orc (or anti-hero-orc), to give a face to the enemy. We see his
> "birth" in Saruman's little shop of horrors and we see that even for an
> orc he's a major bad-ass.
Oh, Christ, make me VOMIT.
The orcs *already* have plenty of faces--take Shagrat and Gorbag, for
instance, whom we meet in Chapter X of Book Four, "The Choices of Master
Samwise."
PJ is pissing me off more and more by the minute. I'm starting to have
a *bad* feeling about this.
Sandy Santra
> The orcs *already* have plenty of faces--take Shagrat and Gorbag, for
> instance, whom we meet in Chapter X of Book Four, "The Choices of Master
> Samwise."
Jeez, I just remembered: there's Uglúk and Grishnákh, too! They're in
the chapter "The Uruk-Hai"!
Raven Mac Andhru
There isnt...he is a Captain of Uruk Hai but i dont think the name is
actually spoken in the film....just for merchandice etc......
By the way Insane,nice ta see ya,kinda miss yer posts now i dont play UO
anymore :-)
Raven Mac Andhru
Raven Mac Andhru
>>The orcs *already* have plenty of faces--take Shagrat and Gorbag, for
>>instance, whom we meet in Chapter X of Book Four, "The Choices of Master
>>Samwise."
>>PJ is pissing me off more and more by the minute. I'm starting to have
>>a *bad* feeling about this.
Dont you guys ever get tired of bitching and moaning?Does anyone of you work
in the film industry and have a clue about how they generally work and the
restrictions they face.End of the day it doesnt make a difference who made
the film because people like yourselves would find fault with it...If you
dont like the film thats fair enough..its your opinion and you are entitled
to it...BUT..its through your own narrowmindedness that you dont not because
PJ is a bad film maker..Take responsibility for your opinions,dont try to
offload them on someone who cant answer you back
Raven Mac Andhru
TWS
"Tamim" <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9v7ddr$8ee$4...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
Yeah I think you're right.
James
>Oh, Christ, make me VOMIT.
>
>The orcs *already* have plenty of faces--take Shagrat and Gorbag, for
>instance, whom we meet in Chapter X of Book Four, "The Choices of Master
>Samwise."
To paraphrase the comic book guy: Worst complaint ever. Complete
non-sequitur. Yes, there are Orcs with names later on. Does that mean
the Uruk-hai should travel without a captain? What are you on?
Why stop with the Uruk-hai? Maybe we should eliminate all the
characters that have speaking parts in the movies, unless they're
mentioned by name in the book. Bilbo's party could be attended by
about five hobbits, and the Shire could have a population of ten.
There would be about three Riders of Rohan, and the only Ringwraith
would be the Witch-king.
James
Sandy Santra
James wrote:
> Why stop with the Uruk-hai? Maybe we should eliminate all the
> characters that have speaking parts in the movies, unless they're
> mentioned by name in the book. Bilbo's party could be attended by
> about five hobbits, and the Shire could have a population of ten.
> There would be about three Riders of Rohan, and the only Ringwraith
> would be the Witch-king.
Good point, very good point.
PMC
probably thought he needed a protagonist who interacts directly with our
heroes in the first movie (and who gets dispatched as well to give the movie
some kind of resolution.) I'm reserving my pissing offness until I actual
see how this works out in the movie. No one who has reviewed the film so far
has commented on it as a major problem or detraction from the story.
"Sandy Santra" <san...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C1742B9...@mindspring.com...
Norseman
news:3C1745AA...@mindspring.com...
But none are in FoTR, do not worry, Lurtz is only you slightly better than
average Uruk-Hai, a leader, his name is never spoken.
Aris Katsaris
"G. M. Watson " <gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> wrote in message
news:u1ecr1p...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> ----------
> In article <f_BR7.152058$8n4.11...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
"Insane
> Ranter" <n...@spam.luckie> wrote:
>
> > Who's is Lurtz?? Gamesworkshop made an LOTR game... with an Captain of
the
> > Uruk Hai named Lurtz... I don't remember any reference to him in the
> > books....
>
> Lurtz is the pathetic, audience-pandering creation of a shameless director
> who refuses to trust the narrative power of the text he makes so many
pious
> (and staggeringly hypocritical) claims to respect.
A nameless (inside the movie) Uruk-hai is the nameless Uruk-hai who shoots
the arrows
at Boromir.
Lurtz is Watson's excuse to snarl his disgust towards any attempt to make a
movie out
of a book.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
Frankly, I doubt that you were ever non-pissed, if you can't have even a
nameless
orc appear to the story, because Tolkien doesn't explicitely mention him. Or
is
it that we'll see some non-Hobbit POV scenes also?
Aris Katsaris
Bob Stahl
>Tamim:
>>Insane Ranter:
>>>Who's is Lurtz?? Gamesworkshop made an LOTR game... with an
>>>Captain of the Uruk Hai named Lurtz... I don't remember any
>>>reference to him in the books....
>>ripoff from Lugburz (Barad-dur)
>Yeah I think you're right.
Perhaps an amalgam of *Lurch* (Addams Family) and *Lawrence*
Makoare (the actor), made to sound orcish with -z at the end.
http://www.theonering.net/movie/cast/makoare.html
http://www.theonering.net/movie/char/lurtz.html
From the photos, he's a bit more ripped than I thought orcs
would be. Robo-orc. The Orcinator.
---
Bob Stahl
Nathan2Good
saruman's dungeon created by PJ....! way cool...
Insane Ranter
Raven Mac Andhru wrote in message ...
Hehe... I don't lay UO anymore either... I never knew I was missed anywhere
Morgil Blackhope
James kirjoitti viestissä ...
Keep facts out of this you Troll!
Morgil
Ps. JK :-)
Pps. WHAT am I doing in this movie-thread???
Norseman
news:9v84np$djoeg$1...@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de...
> Pps. WHAT am I doing in this movie-thread???
Keeping your posting count up, or you're weakening... you wish to know all
the details don't you? Admit it, you NEED to know some sordid details, you
just can't help it... ADMIT IT!!
Morgil Blackhope
Norseman kirjoitti viestissä ...
I confess!! I read through the whole "The new film is corrupting"-thraed!
It was unavoidable...
Morgil
Öjevind Lång
But in "TT", Uglúk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great
warrior!" (meaning Boromir). So why not let Uglúk do the job, since he
apparently does in LotR? Would make for more continuity between the films
too.
Öjevind
boggit
Öjevind Lång wrote in message ...
I suspect the screenwriters thought that Aragorn killing the "main" Uruk-Hai
character in FOTR would give the audience some sense of completion.
Jason Talley
The more Orc faces the merrier, imho, but I should maybe reserve
judgment until I actually see the flick.
I do look forward to seeing the miserable Grishnakh in TTT. I hope he &
his death scene made the final cut. I look forward to the Rohan
sequences in general, though. Some of the recent reviews show critics
trying to name-drop Kurosawa. . .I'm hopeful that Helm's Deep & The
Pelennor will be awe-inspiring
Dave Mansell
M. Watson) wrote:
>Lurtz is an abomination and his existence is a gross insult to JRR
>Tolkien, his work, and his loyal readers and admirers.
There is an interesting documentary coming up on Tolkien shortly on the
BBC, with clips from interviews with the Professor himself. Apparently he
was none too enamoured of people who took his work too seriously.
Dave
"For all its wonderful sets Potter looks, by comparison,
like it was filmed in a garden shed."
the softrat
wrote:
Don't be silly! The number of names in the book is huge! (Of course
you may not have read the same Lord of the Rings I did. Was yours by
Jeremy Richard Ruble Toklein?)
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
misquoted, then used against you.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:1tme1ugr62fcf910u...@4ax.com...
> To paraphrase the comic book guy: Worst complaint ever. Complete
> non-sequitur. Yes, there are Orcs with names later on. Does that
> mean the Uruk-hai should travel without a captain? What are you on?
Errr.... they HAD a captain. His name was Ugluk. If 'Lurtz' is the
captain of Saruman's Uruk-Hai who attacked the fellowship does that
mean that Ugluk is now his lieutenant? Or out of the story
altogether?
So they needed a 'named Orc' for merchandizing reasons - why not
Ugluk?
"Even the Christmas vacation will be darkened by New Zealand
scripts..." JRR Tolkien
Bob Stahl
> So they needed a 'named Orc' for merchandizing reasons - why not
> Ugluk?
I've seen a blister-packed Ugluk figure, if that's your fancy.
And here's a nice one... in squirrel fur...
http://www.larp.com/enhorn/kampanj/personer/solopics/ugluk.html
---
BillyBob
James
>ripoff from Lugburz (Barad-dur)
Incidentally, what do people know about Black Speech pronunciation? I
always imagined Lugburz as rhyming with "bug hurts", but from the way
it's spelt, wouldn't JRRT intend it to be pronounced Loog (like first
syllable of "boogie") Boors (rhymes with "Coors")?
James
TWS
"Dave Mansell" <nos...@cariad.net> wrote in
> There is an interesting documentary coming up on Tolkien shortly on the
> BBC, with clips from interviews with the Professor himself. Apparently he
> was none too enamoured of people who took his work too seriously.
Yes- I knew he had a sense of fun- it's threaded
throughout his work- isn't that why we like it so much?
TWS
"Conrad Dunkerson"
> "Even the Christmas vacation will be darkened by New Zealand
> scripts..." JRR Tolkien
Hi Conrad- your favourite sig cop here- seems like
long range weather predictions are a little more
optimistic than you think - look forward to weather
update after you've seen the movie.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <9v7v63$2io8$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
<stud...@di.uoa.gr> wrote:
(snip)
>
> Lurtz is Watson's excuse to snarl his disgust towards any attempt to make a
> movie out
> of a book.
>
If I've interpreted your rather confused syntax correctly, it appears that
you wish to address the general subject of filmed adaptations of books.
Well, it will, undoubtedly, surprise you to learn that I am certainly not
opposed to the concept as a whole. I'm not even opposed to the idea of a
filmed version of LOTR, as you would know if you'd ever bothered to read my
past posts. I'm just opposed to this one.
Any student of film and/or literary history knows that there have, during
the hundred years that the cinema has been with us, been occasional movies
that were made from good books that did justice to their source material
*and* treated it with respect. Jackson's LOTR, from all appearances, isn't
one of them.
>
>
Dave Mansell
M. Watson) wrote:
> that were made from good books that did justice to their source material
> *and* treated it with respect. Jackson's LOTR, from all appearances,
> isn't
> one of them.
> >
I'd love to know what you base that on, as there are presently 52 reviews
of the movie, of which 2 are negative. These are reviews from, citics,
Tolkien fans, people who have read the book once, and people who have
never read them.
I don't know of any reviews from Tolkien fans that are negative as yet.
James
>there have, during
>the hundred years that the cinema has been with us, been occasional movies
>that were made from good books that did justice to their source material
>*and* treated it with respect. Jackson's LOTR, from all appearances, isn't
>one of them.
What makes you think Jackson et al aren't treating Tolkien's vision of
LOTR with respect?
*They're using authentic Sindarin and took great pains to make sure
the pronunciation and accents of all the actors were true to Tolkien's
language; why? It won't make them more money, won't "dumb down" the
movies. If they wanted to *sound* cool, they could have just cobbled
together some made up words, or not used any Elf-language at all. I
defy you to come up with any rational explanation of this - apart from
"they wanted to treat their source material with respect."
*By some accounts, they've included Elf-tapestries in Lothlorien
depicting scenes from the Silmarillion. Why? It won't make them more
money; it won't "dumb down" the movies. If they wanted to give the
Elf-havens some sense of history, they could have just made up the
scenes. If you're right about the disgusting, corporate whore that is
Peter Jackson, he's not making the film for those who've read the
Silmarillion, or even heard of it. I defy you to come up with any
rational explanation of this - apart from "they wanted to treat their
source material with respect."
*From the start, Jackson tried to get Christopher Tolkien and the rest
of the estate involved; he declined. Why? It wouldn't have made
Jackson more money to have "Christopher Tolkien Approved!" on the
posters; it wouldn't have "dumbed down" the movies. I defy you to come
up with any rational explanation of this - apart from "they wanted to
treat their source material with respect."
Please, tell us why you think Jackson has *not* treated his source
material with respect.
In my view, a disrespectful adaptation of LOTR would be one in which
Celeborn was relentlessly, persistently mispronounced; in which Sam
was reduced to a babbling idiot; in which the filmmakers did zero
research into what Tolkien thought about Middle-earth. It's not
disrespectful to deliberately change elements of the story for the
purposes of adaptation to film, as Jackson has - it would be
disrespectful to just not give a damn.
Oh, and why is it bad to have an Orc character in the movie who wasn't
referred to by Tolkien in LOTR? There must have been at least a few in
Middle-earth.
James
Raven Mac Andhru
anywhere
Lol......but of course :-p
Raven Mac Andhru
Cam
about Tolkien, there is no super mortal. You can be slain by an arrow to the
chest regardless of who shot it.
--
"Do not try to interject logic into my rambling."
-Ethan Hammond from the PS NG
"Norseman" <xx...@xx.no> wrote in message
news:bcLR7.276$yk5....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Enya
news:zGTR7.160082$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1tme1ugr62fcf910u...@4ax.com...
>
> > To paraphrase the comic book guy: Worst complaint ever. Complete
> > non-sequitur. Yes, there are Orcs with names later on. Does that
> > mean the Uruk-hai should travel without a captain? What are you on?
>
> Errr.... they HAD a captain. His name was Ugluk. If 'Lurtz' is the
> captain of Saruman's Uruk-Hai who attacked the fellowship does that
> mean that Ugluk is now his lieutenant? Or out of the story
> altogether?
>
> So they needed a 'named Orc' for merchandizing reasons - why not
> Ugluk?
>
Errr...I'm not sure I understand u entirely. I think u're saying that this
'Lurtz' should have been called 'Ugluk.' But this orc 'Lurtz' gets killed.
Since I'm sure u're aware of this, then this apparently means that u r
suggesting that 'Ugluk' be killed of before we even get to his part in the
Two Towers.
Since this would constitute quite a large deviation from the book, and since
u r one of the people here who do a lot of WHINING about how the movie has
deviated from the book, then I can only reasonably conclude that, when u
made the above suggestion to give Tolkien's Ugluk name to the "Lurtz' orc, u
hadn't really thought this suggestion through very well, but rather just
shot it out there thoughtlessly like so many of the other feeble complaints
that I have heard over the last year or two in this newsgroup concerning
this movie.
this doesn't surprise me since I have little doubt that you have never
really given adequate thought to the degree to which Peter Jackson and the
rest of the Production crew have thought through every last detail of this
project. I also have little doubt that, had u or any of the other naysayers
in here made this movie, u would have made many errors of the above sort,
and u would have made a much worse movie that the one which is coming soon.
Have a nice day.
:)
Jack Petterson
> Norseman wrote:
> >news:3C1745AA...@mindspring.com...
> >> Jeez, I just remembered: there's Uglúk and Grishnákh, too! They're in
> >> the chapter "The Uruk-Hai"!
> >
> >But none are in FoTR, do not worry, Lurtz is only you slightly better
than
> >average Uruk-Hai, a leader, his name is never spoken.
>
> But in "TT", Uglúk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great
> warrior!" (meaning Boromir). So why not let Uglúk do the job, since he
> apparently does in LotR? Would make for more continuity between the films
> too.
>
Why not let Ugluk do the job? But the Orc who 'does the job,' in the
movie, gets killed in the process. And we need Ugluk in TT. Are you saying
that Ugluk should die at the end of FotR? I thought you have always said
that you didn't want to many changes?
Princess Leia
James, this is another excellent post - I'm becoming accustomed to your
stalwart defense of the movie.
But stop wasting your breath on the likes of 'people' like G.M. Watson.
Ignore the fool. He is not worthy of your attention. Never was.
AminorDeity
news:memo.20011212...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <u1ecr1p...@corp.supernews.com>, gm...@pop2.intergate.ca (G.
> M. Watson) wrote:
>
> >Lurtz is an abomination and his existence is a gross insult to JRR
> >Tolkien, his work, and his loyal readers and admirers.
>
> There is an interesting documentary coming up on Tolkien shortly on the
> BBC, with clips from interviews with the Professor himself. Apparently he
> was none too enamoured of people who took his work too seriously.
>
Finally! The Voice of Reason!
Thank you, Dave, for mentioning the well-known fact that Tolkien was never
very pleased with or understanding of those who took his work too seriously.
There are a number of folks here in this group who certainly seem quite
knowledgeable in all things Tolkien yet seem to have let this little fact
slip away.
I often get the impression that some of the more frequent posters in here
actually believe that The Lord of the Rings is nearly a perfect work. The
Professor would have been the first to tell them otherwise. They quite often
staunchly defend aspects of the book which Tolkien might well have
criticized.
And many of them have a oh-so-difficult time admitting when they might be
wrong. A poor quality for anyone interested in the truth.
Graeme
'Lurtz' should have been called 'Ugluk.' But this orc 'Lurtz' gets killed.
>>
The big question is WHERE does he get killed? The most reasonable place would
be in the fight with Boromir, but that's in the first chapter of the Two
Towers. Too early to bump off Ugluk (and I'd be very surprised if Ugluk isn't
in the next movie). Will that part be in this movie?
Alternately they might stick him into Moria (there weren't any Uruks there,
were there?), or possibly even as a spy in Bree, though that seems unlikely
since he doesn't seem to be in mufti.
As far as creating a name for merchandising reasons, that's interesting. I've
seen some Lotr toys in the stores, but the Burger King toy set DOES have Lurtz
the Non-Canonical, as well as a Cave Troll, but does NOT have a Nazgul. I
think that's pretty bad planning.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <CGdT7.41334$WK1.7...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Princess Leia"
<pl...@globe.net> wrote
>
> James, this is another excellent post - I'm becoming accustomed to your
> stalwart defense of the movie.
>
> But stop wasting your breath on the likes of 'people' like G.M. Watson.
> Ignore the fool. He is not worthy of your attention. Never was.
I'd appreciate it, too. I'm getting tired of cleaning off the urine stains
that he's been leaving on my shoes every time he comes barking and yapping
around my ankles.
Incidentally, do you really think anyone who names her(?)self after a Star
Wars character has any business calling someone else a fool?
James
>James, this is another excellent post - I'm becoming accustomed to your
>stalwart defense of the movie.
Aww. Thanks!
>But stop wasting your breath on the likes of 'people' like G.M. Watson.
>Ignore the fool. He is not worthy of your attention. Never was.
As far as I'm concerned, the alt.* heirarchy exists for arguing. :)
James
James
>> But stop wasting your breath on the likes of 'people' like G.M. Watson.
>> Ignore the fool. He is not worthy of your attention. Never was.
>
>I'd appreciate it, too. I'm getting tired of cleaning off the urine stains
>that he's been leaving on my shoes every time he comes barking and yapping
>around my ankles.
This is a rather confused metaphor, and a weak copout to boot.
>Incidentally, do you really think anyone who names her(?)self after a Star
>Wars character has any business calling someone else a fool?
Man, even your intellectual snobebry is third rate. If you're so
confident of your position, surely you can rebut my arguments. If not,
why do you think you're right?
James
Conrad Dunkerson
> Errr...I'm not sure I understand u entirely. I think u're saying that this
> 'Lurtz' should have been called 'Ugluk.'
No... someone said that Peter Jackson HAD to create the character of
Lurtz because it was stupid for the Uruk-Hai not to have a captain in
the book. I pointed out that this was didn't work because they DID
have a captain in the book, named Ugluk.
> But this orc 'Lurtz' gets killed. Since I'm sure u're aware of this,
> then this apparently means that u r suggesting that 'Ugluk' be killed
> of before we even get to his part in the Two Towers.
This would resemble logic - except that it makes no sense at all.
First, Lurtz only gets killed because he was added in the first place.
If no Lurtz added no need for completely different character (Ugluk)
to get killed. Second, Ugluk DOES get killed.
> Since this would constitute quite a large deviation from the book, and since
> u r one of the people here who do a lot of WHINING about how the movie has
> deviated from the book, then I can only reasonably conclude that, when u
> made the above suggestion to give Tolkien's Ugluk name to the "Lurtz' orc, u
> hadn't really thought this suggestion through very well, but rather just
> shot it out there thoughtlessly like so many of the other feeble complaints
> that I have heard over the last year or two in this newsgroup concerning
> this movie.
Given that I made no such suggestion 'I can only conclude' that you
are an annoying twit. It is not 'whining' to point out a factual
inaccuracy - and the claim that the Uruk-Hai had no captain in the
book was definitely false. If you are so blinded by the need to shout
down anyone who says anything which might in some possible way be
taken as criticism of the great and holy Jackson... well, then I think
the problem lies with you. I am looking forward to the movie, but
that doesn't mean I'll suddenly forget that there was a character
named Ugluk in the books just so that someone can make false excuses
for Peter Jackson.
There was no need to create a captain for the Uruk-hai. They had a
captain. If 'named Orcs' were needed for marketting purposes, well
there are plenty of those as well. No matter how many times they are
repeated neither of these 'explanations' which have been put forth
holds any water as to the real reason that Lurtz was added. For those
who hadn't figured it out, the REAL reason that Lurtz was added was so
that he could single-handedly kill Boromir and then be slain in turn
by Aragorn so that the audience could have a nice neat simplistic
Hollywoodesque conclusion to the first film. NOT to correct the
nonexistant flaw of a missing captain or to provide a character name
for use in action figures and bizarre Burger King promotional items.
--
"Even the Christmas vacation will be darkened by New Zealand
scripts..." - JRR Tolkien
Lars Haugseth
* graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:
|
| >>Errr...I'm not sure I understand u entirely. I think u're saying that this
| 'Lurtz' should have been called 'Ugluk.' But this orc 'Lurtz' gets killed.
| >>
|
| The big question is WHERE does he get killed? The most reasonable place would
| be in the fight with Boromir, but that's in the first chapter of the Two
| Towers. Too early to bump off Ugluk (and I'd be very surprised if Ugluk isn't
| in the next movie). Will that part be in this movie?
Spoilers follow below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lurtz mortally wounds Boromir, and is then in turn slain by Aragorn. As
far as I could hear, the name Lurtz was never uttered in the film, though
it does appear in the credits.
--
Lars Haugseth
Sandy Santra
Lars Haugseth wrote:
>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> Lurtz mortally wounds Boromir, and is then in turn slain by Aragorn. As
> far as I could hear, the name Lurtz was never uttered in the film
Another plot departure <groan>.
James
>> Lurtz mortally wounds Boromir, and is then in turn slain by Aragorn. As
>> far as I could hear, the name Lurtz was never uttered in the film
>
>Another plot departure <groan>.
Why is this worthy of a groan?
James
Graeme
as I could hear, the name Lurtz was never uttered in the film, though it does
appear in the credits.
>>
Hmmm, not wild about that. I think it would be better to save the death of
Boromir as an opener for the second movie, just like in the books. They've
also padded Aragorn's part a bit (as if it needed padding), but I guess they
found it too unheroic for him to arrive after the fight was over. But how do
the Orcs get away if Aragorn is that close on their trail? Surely he doesn't
run from them.
Lars Haugseth
How, exactly, is this a _plot departure_?
--
Lars Haugseth
Lars Haugseth
* James <a@b.c> wrote:
|
| Sandy Santra :
| >
| >Another plot departure <groan>.
|
| Why is this worthy of a groan?
Thanks for removing the spoiler space. *groan*
--
Lars Haugseth
James
>Thanks for removing the spoiler space. *groan*
I figure if someone's read this far into the thread without having
seen the subject, they deserve what they get.
James
Sandy Santra
Lars Haugseth wrote:
SPOILER BELOW!
>
> | > Lurtz mortally wounds Boromir, and is then in turn slain by Aragorn. As
> | > far as I could hear, the name Lurtz was never uttered in the film
> |
> | Another plot departure <groan>.
>
> How, exactly, is this a _plot departure_?
>
Lars, in the books a great deal of text is devoted to the fact that
Aragorn was running all over the place while the Fellowship was
"breaking up" (i.e., searching for Frodo in all different directions),
and on account of this, was not there when Boromir, Pippin, and Merry
were attacked.
When Aragorn finally *does* find Boromor--who's on his death bed, I
might add--he chastises himself for not arriving sooner. And then,
after Boromir dies, he feels guilty.
Aragorn's remorse feeds directly into his feelings of inadequacy about
handing the Fellowship in the absence of Gandalf.
For PJ to depict Aragorn shooting Lurtz, a (the) orc who ostensibly
delivers Boromir's death blow, adds a revenge element to the plot, thus
distorting the original "reading" of Aragorn's character vis-a-vis his
feelings of guilt and remorse for not being there to help Boromir when
he was attacked. This plot revision cannot help but substantially
diminish the potrayal of Aragorn's feelings of remorse over various
"mistakes" he makes through the first two books.
In others words, it is a dilution of the "failure" component of
Aragorn's character--a component that, I might add, adds a great deal of
richness to his character.
Characters in modern literature and film hardly ever fail, particularly
men. When the rare exception *does* come along and is given thoughtful
treatment by a decent author, the results are amazing. Example: in
Larry McMurtry's Streets of Laredo, the legendary Ranger Captain Woodrow
Call sets out to catch a renegade Indian train robber, and fails
miserably. McMurtry's treatment of Call's psychological journey and
resultant despair is a masterpiece of investigation into the male
psyche. The coda of the book is remarkable: the phenomenal image of
Call reduced to whittling pieces of wood because of severe injuries he
sustained, resultant from his own stupidity.
Too many works are about men succeeding. Writing about, portraying, and
dealing with failure is a far more difficult.
It's easy to win; it's much harder to fail (and learn live with it).
The beauty of Tolkien's construction of Aragorn as a character is his
immense complexity. He is strong, yet makes many mistakes. Not only is
the reader told at some length about his mistakes, we are given a window
into the feelings of anguish that Aragorn has over his failures. This
makes his character infinitely more rich.
To show Aragorn killing Lurtz is absurdly reductionistic and deprives
the viewer of a major component of Aragorn's psychological backstory.
Dave Mansell
(Sandy Santra) wrote:
>
>
> Lars Haugseth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPOILER BELOW!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To show Aragorn killing Lurtz is absurdly reductionistic and deprives
> the viewer of a major component of Aragorn's psychological backstory.
>
Firstly you have no idea how Aragorn is played in the rest of the film,
this is a film not the book. This aspect of Aragorns character might still
be explored.
Secondly, *as a film* there has to be at least some sense of closure. When
he wrote LOTR Tolkien concieved it as one volume. Even as three volumes
you can immediately move on the the second one. As a three part movie that
won't be continued for another year, the ending needs to leave the
audience with at least some sense that a part of the story has completed.
Thirdly, this ending allows (as I've heard) for a much stronger portrayal
of Boromir's final redemption, something that is otherwise difficult to
show in the setting of the movie.
Graeme
viewer of a major component of Aragorn's psychological backstory.
>>
Yeah, I agree. If you want to say that the orc who killed Boromir was named
Lurtz, no harm done there.
But having Aragorn actually present during Boromir's last fight creates
problems. Are we to believe that the Orcs eluded Aragorn when he was right on
top of them? He's sure not going to run away from them.
>
Dave Mansell
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:
> But having Aragorn actually present during Boromir's last fight creates
> problems. Are we to believe that the Orcs eluded Aragorn when he was
> right on top of them? He's sure not going to run away from them.
I've not seen the film, but I see no reason why the orcs could not have
split up once they had Merry and Pippin. On comimg across Boromir, Aragorn
would not even know of the hobbits fate.
Graeme
split up once they had Merry and Pippin. On comimg across Boromir, Aragorn
would not even know of the hobbits fate.
>>
Yeah, I guess they could do it that way. Aragorn could overcome all the Orcs
in his immediate vicinity, but Merry and Pippin are already gone when he gets
there. I don't like that as much, as long as Boromir is dying, he might as
well keep the limelight that Tolkien gave him rather than having Aragorn claim
it. But it's not a critical change, just an annoying one.
Öjevind Lång
>>>To show Aragorn killing Lurtz is absurdly reductionistic and deprives the
>viewer of a major component of Aragorn's psychological backstory.
>>>
>
>Yeah, I agree. If you want to say that the orc who killed Boromir was
named
>Lurtz, no harm done there.
Actually, the Orc in question was called Schultz. Reinhard Schultz.
Öjevind
Dave Mansell
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:
From what I've heard Borimir definately has the limelight, and it is one
of the most affecting parts of the whole movie.
Lars Haugseth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SPOILER BELOW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| the viewer of a major component of Aragorn's psychological backstory.
You make a few good points here, but I think you should see how it is
done in the film before commenting further.
--
Lars Haugseth
Graeme
the most affecting parts of the whole movie.
Dave
>>
Having seen it now, I can say you're right about that. It doesn't feel like
Boromir gets shoved aside. Nevertheless, both as a purist and from a story
point of view, I like it better Tolkien's way. Boromir is already "avenged"
before the pursuit even begins. That takes away a little of the zing to me.
lazarus
I and most of the audience tonight were getting tears at that scene,
however. Remember, the vengeance would take a year, in our time.
Some satisfaction now is a good thing.
--
lazarus
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -- Ambrose Bierce
StanMann
lazarus wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2001 23:28:49 GMT, graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:
>
> >>>From what I've heard Borimir definately has the limelight, and it is one of
> >the most affecting parts of the whole movie.
> >
> >Dave
> >>>
> >
> >Having seen it now, I can say you're right about that. It doesn't feel like
> >Boromir gets shoved aside. Nevertheless, both as a purist and from a story
> >point of view, I like it better Tolkien's way. Boromir is already "avenged"
> >before the pursuit even begins. That takes away a little of the zing to me.
>
> I and most of the audience tonight were getting tears at that scene,
> however. Remember, the vengeance would take a year, in our time.
> Some satisfaction now is a good thing.
>
And the Hobbits must be rescued.
StanMann
--
To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.To be
incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely
the domesticated.-- Trefor Thomas
Graeme
<lazaru...@msn.com> writes:
>I and most of the audience tonight were getting tears at that scene,
>however. Remember, the vengeance would take a year, in our time.
>Some satisfaction now is a good thing.
>
Yeah, though I sort of miss the feeling of utter disarray that the book ends
with. And remember that the original audience for the book had to put up with
the same thing. They couldn't just pick up The Two Towers immediately, they
had to wait months for it to be released. Still, from a movie point of view it
might be necessary to end on a slightly higher note than the book does.
~
"We will fight to the next-to-last man." -- M. Mohammed Omar
"Dying in a Jihad is a game for the young." -- Osama bin-Laden
"My son is guilty as sin. There's a tape where I claim the opposite, but
it's a forgery." -- Richard Atta