PeterDavid.net

I have to agree with you. Actually, so does Peter Jackson. He mentions this several times on the commentaries and interviews, speculating that the forces of evil should have won at Minas Tirith. But Jackson figured that's one departure from the book that would have brought him a lot of criticism.

Don't forget: they also allowed Gollum to escape, which ultimately led to Sauron's defeat.

That's why I missed, though I understood why it was left out, "The Scouring of the Shire" segment at the end of The Return of the King (the book, not the movie). "Sharkey" and a handful of corrupt hobbits actually did more to succeed in taking over the territory of the good guys than the Dark Lord did in three books. You have to admire that in a guy I now picture as Christopher Lee, as well as Tolkien's macabre pun of calling the new Bagshot Row "Sharkey's End."

I miss the Scouring too.

There is, come to think of it, a stated reason why Mount Doom wasn't guarded. That Sauron couldn't possibly conceive of anyone destroying the ring. Being a power-mad and corrupt guy, he figures that anyone who got the ring would want to use it to bend things to their will. Giving up power -- Sauron couldn't imagine that idea.

It's sort of the same logic that allowed Lex Luthor to dismiss evidence that Clark Kent was Superman back in the early Byrne years. Luthor couldn't imagine anyone with that power chosing to live as an ordinary joe.

Allen

Let this be a lesson to us all:

CRIME DOESN'T PAY!

I hear they also lost the battle at Fallujah, the battle at Mosul, the battle at... oh no wait, those are different villains...

Here's the ending you'd get if you followed PAD's suggestions:

http://mysite.verizon.net/glennerd/lotr_badending.jpg

(created by Photoshopper "oddlife" on the Fark.com thread "Unlikely scenes from the extended DVD version of 'The Return of the King'." It's hilarious and many entries are absolutely beautifully Photoshopped. Warning: lots of images; extensive loading time)

I hear they also lost the battle at Fallujah, the battle at Mosul, the battle at... oh no wait, those are different villains...

Life imitates art. ;)

I don't know if it's "win" as much as the amount of destruction the bad guys visit upon Middle Earth. The tearing down and burning of the forest around Isengard, for example, would be a defeat in Tolien's eyes. The raizing of Osgiliath would be another. And , of course, the industrialization of the Shire, although temporary, has a negative impact.

This could all tie back to Tolkien's Catholic ethos, through suffering comes redemption. And while the baddies never win outright (in the limited sense of actual battles) they do cause a considerable amount of suffering.

Mark

As legendary as the books might be, the movies were just . . . blah. I mean, the Star Wars prequel actors looked more enthusiastic and involved in front of a green screen than these guys did (and that's saying something). And I can only stomach so much mixed-pseudo-inconsistent-faux Euro accent in a movie before I have to puke.

The only pretty good one was Towers.

And for those who didn't mind the sleep-inducing epilogue at the end because "that's the way it is in the book", that doesn't mean it worked for the book, nor does it mean it would work for the movie (in fact, it worked for neither).

I'm not a huge LOTR geek (Star Wars is where I have no objectivity whatsoever) but I thought the good guys got quite the smackdown in Fellowship. Borrimir gets turned into swiss cheese, and the fellowship falls apart (though that was more due to the Ring itself that anything - however the ring is a bad guy). That was a pretty rough ending.

Speaking of downer endings, Episode 3 is going to pretty much rule all in that department.

I'm also quite the Star Wars geek, and I can't wait for EpIII. I'm looking forward to the darkenss of it all. And c'mon, first time in 20 or so years we get to see/hear Vader? Even if it is only for five minutes.

Hmm. That wasn't the subject of the thread. Uh, I liked LotR. Actually, LotR and Star Wars are probably my two biggest creative influences, as they have been in my life the longest (I have of course come across other artists and writers who have impacted my own art, and many of them could be deemed "better" then LotR or SW on some level, but those two have been with me so long I don't think they'll ever be topped).

Monkeys.

Wow. I have read the books 3 times and seen the movies, but your comment never occured to me. I am impressed then on one level in that both the book and the movie kept you under the constant threat that they could fail and all would be lost.

This could all tie back to Tolkien's Catholic ethos, through suffering comes redemption. And while the baddies never win outright (in the limited sense of actual battles) they do cause a considerable amount of suffering.

I think there is some truth to this comment. I have not memorized the books, but I thought that in the past the bad guys had won (for example they had taken over the dwarves home in the mountains for many years). This story is of the unlikely events that turned the tide and brought them victory. Kind of like tuning in to a football game when the home team is down by 4 touchdowns and comes back in the last 10 minutes to win the game. For 3 quarters and 5 mintues, they can't do anything right, then for the last 10 minutes, including the final hail mary pass that is caught in the end zone as time runs out, they can do nothing wrong.

Tolkien's religious perspective permeates his stories.

Iowa Jim

"And Sauron, for pity's sake, should have had guards on Mt. Doom 24/7. If that was the only place where the ring could be destroyed, wouldn't you want the ringbearer to walk into an ambush instead of a clear shot at the lava flow?"

See? SEE?! Even TOLKIEN wasn't immune from Saturday Morning Cartoon logistics!

Now, if I had been Sauron, I would've ditched the whole "Mines of Moria" thing, and slapped the Balrog RIGHT IN FRONT OF MT. DOOM'S ENTRANCE. Either that, or a dozen cave trolls who were black belts in jujutsu. THAT would have thrown the good guys for a curve!

I'm still curious to know what happened to the Easterlings that were shown marching through the Black Gate in TT. Did they change their minds and go back home?

And dammit, the ents should've accompanied the army to the Black Gate. I wanted to see ent vs. troll action so badly.

"Speaking of downer endings, Episode 3 is going to pretty much rule all in that department."

Yeah, no doubt. If ROTK had, as some have said, more happy endings than a Chinese massage parlor, Revenge of the Sith should be the biggest bummer since Grave Of the Fireflies. Everyone ends up dead, exiled or evil. No amount of dancing Ewoks will make this right.

PAD is quite correct. Of course, as these movies show, evil is often very very stupid. I mean, Obie Wan Kenobi manages to hide from Darth Vader by going to Darth's home planet and adopted the name Ben Kenobi. Wow, I wonder if Vader ever had a chance of breaking that clever code?

All you geeks who love Star Wars are just wannabees. (I include myself in the geek category.) There's a guy here in Seattle who is already camping out for tickets. He's got a small futon couch and a sleeping bag. People bring him coffee all day. Me? I'll wait.

Yeah, no doubt. If ROTK had, as some have said, more happy endings than a Chinese massage parlor, Revenge of the Sith should be the biggest bummer since Grave Of the Fireflies. Everyone ends up dead, exiled or evil. No amount of dancing Ewoks will make this right.

I think the tagline for Episode 3 should be: "Now you see evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

PAD is quite correct. Of course, as these movies show, evil is often very very stupid. I mean, Obie Wan Kenobi manages to hide from Darth Vader by going to Darth's home planet and adopted the name Ben Kenobi. Wow, I wonder if Vader ever had a chance of breaking that clever code?

Don't you get it? Vader didn't want anything to do with that dangbasted rock. HIS MOMMY DIED THERE. or something. Meh, maybe Lucas will do some explainin' about this in Ep. 3, god knows he loves over-exposition.

Either that or any Imperials sent to check out the rumours of "Ben Kenobi - crazy old hermit" on Tatooine got thier asses Jedi Mind Wiped ... Identity Crisis style! whoooo!

Me? I'll wait.

I'm just gonna buy my tickets online a week beforehand. Or maybe drive up to the theatre to get 'em.

On a semi-related note, I have a movie reviewing gig for a local indie paper in my town (www.viewmag.com) and, sight unseen, I'm giving Episode 3 a flat out FIVE out of FIVE star rave. No joke.

I'm gonna preface the review that's printed with something like: "WARNING: This review will contain no objectivity whatsoever. You have been warned."

Benjamin A. wrote...
Now, if I had been Sauron, I would've ditched the whole "Mines of Moria" thing, and slapped the Balrog RIGHT IN FRONT OF MT. DOOM'S ENTRANCE.

If I may put on my geek hat for just a moment, I believe that Sauron had no control whatsoever over the balrog. Wasn't is supposed to be some ancient, primal force, that had walked the (middle) earth for aeons before anything else?

Anyways, when I think about posting guards on Mt. Doom, I have flashbacks to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Picture Sam charging towards two orcish soldiers, an unconscious Frodo on his back. The soldiers stare blankly at Sam until he arrives, runs one of the orcs through, and charges into the mountain. The remaining orc turns around, and says, somewhat sleepily, "hey...."

I loved Grave of the Fireflies. It was so powerful, and a view of the war that we in America often don't see or we forget about.

Hmm. I've begun to notice that I like movies that are depressing or don't have happy endings. I'll pretend it's because I like creative works that hit you like a punch in the gut as opposed to my being sick in the head.

Monkeys.

Actually, speaking of "Monty Python," what breaks me up is that when we did "Monty Sauron's Flying Nasgul," we did the sequence where Aragorn arrives at the Black Gate and calls out Sauron...and up popped a representative of Sauron who taunted them in an outrageous French accent. Then the uncut (or recut) version shows up on DVD, and sure enough, there's a representative of Sauron taunting them...granted, without French accent, but still, I kept waiting for the Mouth of Sauron to say, "Yeewwww stupid son of a thorn. Your mother was an oliphant and your father smelled of pipeweed!"

PAD

For one of the funniest takes on the LOTR, check out the DORK TOWER comic book. Three times, Matt tries to get his players to faithfully play a game where they're the stars of the LOTR series -- and three times they manage to destroy the campaign. (The first strip includes the most famous DORK TOWER line, which I will *not* reveal here, in case anyone's going to read them. Suffice it to say, it's truly laugh-out-loud hysterical!) There's a great compilation -- THE LORD OF THE DINKS -- that collects these 3 strips, along with the individual ones about the movies. Buy it!!!

JEFF,

Aaaah, Sauron could've taken control of the Balrog if he tried. But no, he was more interested in being a giant eye on a tower and saying things like, "IIIIII seeeeee yoooouuuu" instead of doing anything genuinely productive.

Then the uncut (or recut) version shows up on DVD, and sure enough, there's a representative of Sauron taunting them

You know, I think the Mouth of Sauron and the effect they did with it was one of the best in the entire trilogy.

It's friggin creepy to the point you're just fascinated by it. :)

PETER,

You know, the thought of Aragorn and Gandalf being pelted by chickens and cow-dung following the Mouth of Sauron's diatribe just makes me erupt into girlish giggles.

I don't know, I've only ever been mildly impressed by the villians in LOTR anyway. We've got a bunch of dumb orcs, a wizard who dresses all in white and that Wormtongue guy. Not much there, really. I mean, Saruman may have been the major representative of Sauron, but he rarely seemed to do anything but trap Gandalf for a short period of time and oversee an orc factory, or something.

Then there's Sauron himself. He's a big eye on a tower. That's about it. We're supposed to be scared of someone who could moonlight as the CBS logo? Also, maybe it's because I've been an X-geek longer than a LOTR geek (and I'm not much of a LOTR geek, at that) but whenever people talk about Sauron, I can't help imagining a big Pteranodon-man.

I've got the extended version of the trilogy and want to watch it again. (The only other time was in the theaters.) I never seem to have a chunk of time long enough. My relatives will be descending upon me soon. Maybe I can have them take my daughter to the childrens museum for the day and I can make a big bowl of popcorn and plant myself in front of the TV.

Please, forgive if I am getting this wrong since I haven't reread the books in years, but in the novels the bad guys do win some battles.

I think that the reinforcements Gandalf leads into Helm's Deep are the remains of a Rowan army the orcs of Saruman had defeated, a battle we never see but the tales of the survivors help the 'we are doomed' mood. That was completely gone from the movie though.

And then there are the cities guarding the river before Minas Tirith, we do get to see the orcs taking them in the movie.

As for guarding the cave, Sauron was right in thinking that nobody would willingly destroy the ring, after all, nobody did. A simple security fence would have prevented Gollum and Frodo's fall into the lava and meant victory for Sauron.

And anyway, with the destruction of the ring, magic leaks from Middle Earth, it wasn't such a great victory for the good guys either.

Just watched the Extended version of RotK, and you're pretty much right, so far as the movies go. You're also forgetting that Arwen manages to cripple the nine at the borders of Rivendell all by herself.

But there is at least one victory for evil: they manage to kill Theodred, Theoden's son. Sure, it happens off-screen (the battle, anyway) but still, it's bad-guy points.

From my memory of the book (been a couple years since I last read them) the main reason evil don't win many battles is because Gandalf gets the good guys going early enough. It's not so much as Jim suggested, with the good guys coming from behind in the 4th quarter: It's more like it's sudden-death overtime, and while evil was getting ready for the coin toss, good was sneaking the ball down to the 1 yard line for an easy QB/hobbit sneak.

Sauron was still gathering his forces to him through the first 2 movies. He had just started to stir during the time of the Hobbit. By Fellowship, he had re-invested Mordor, but only had enough forces to hold the dark land, and send forth the Nazgul, and influence the orcs Kazad Dum. He needs Sauruman to raise an army during The Two Towers, because Sauron's army isn't ready yet.

Come the siege of Minas Tirath/Osgiliath, his force of orcs is just his preliminary force, and he counted on Sauruman defeating Rohan, since horses aren't evil, apparantly. But Oliphants are, for some reason. Or maybe it's because the Haradrim are ridden by men. I don't know.

Anyway, Sauron's main force is still behind the Black Gates, pretty much guarding the door leading to the Crack of Mount Doom, until Aragorn calls Sauron out, diverting the orc army from the Plains of Gorgorath and allowing Frodo and Sam to call the Hobbit sneak play, and dive into the end zone for the score.

It wasn't made as clear in the movie, but in the books the only thing that saves the Men at the Black Gates is the destruction of the Ring. Sauron's forces at that point are pretty endless, and would have overwhelmed Aragron and Co. given enough time.

I always thought Sam should have pushed Frodo into the Fires of Mount Doom, Sam was, in my mind, the true hero.

Not sure the Sam pushing Frodo is widely held, but many do see Sam as the truly heroic character. He goes along by choice, not by need or destiny or any obligation other than friendship. And while the movies did a good job potraying him, they left out some key moments, especially when he gets to wear the ring while rescuing Frodo.

John Kovalik, in his DORK TOWER comic, had something to say about the relative dim-ness of the heroes of LOTR, too. He notes how Gandalf could have brought things to an end with much less pain and suffering if he'd just held on to that ding-blasted eagle a while longer, located Frodo, and FLEW him to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring before anyone could even think of stopping him!

The problem with the bad guys is that they didn't have names. In the roleplaying game FENG SHUI (based on action-movie jung fu, gun-fu, and sorcery), nameless thugs or underlings are considerably easier to kill than main (named) characters. In the LOTR movies, the only named bad guys didn't get directly involved in the fighting: Sauron watches the action, Saruman was eventually, er, locked away, and Demethor was more of a bureaucrat than a combatant. By contrast, the big heroes were all named, had very few casualties, and could wade into crowds of hundreds of orcs and emerge with little more than scrapes.

I really like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Of course, I've only seen the movies, so I can only judge them in that regard.

That said, I must admit that they're not very good movies in terms of everything that happens making logical sense. You have to watch them in the frame of mind of "Well, in this world, a small, completely unprepared army can mow down thousands of orcs in a fight because they're on the side of good." LoTR is the basis for nearly all modern fantasy, and as any fantasy or D&D fan knows, it's entirely based on unprepared people becoming heroes through circumstance and strength of character.

All this is really just to say that yes, if looked at too closely it will fall apart. Why do the heroes fear Sauron if they destroy his armies so consistently? If Sauron's such a fearsome villain, able to so easily take over the world, why doesn't he prepare a little better?

For a good story about a superior villain who gets beaten by a truly worthy hero, I recommend Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars books. Unlike Sauron, Khan doesn't fall due to so many obvious blunderous oversights.

Aside from Osgiliath, I certainly don't consider Moria to be a victory for Our Heroes -- it's a rout, with loss of a major player (and two if it weren't for some hidden armor).

The forces of evil's victories mostly come offscreen: retaking Moria from the dwarves, seduction of Saruman and Theoden, corruption of the shire, and I believe the books have several other battles in elf territory east of the Misty Mountains which did not go well for the forces of light.

Note to the X-fan: If you go back to the original Neal Adams issues featuring the Sauron character, he took his name from the Tolkien books.

I found the setup to be pretty clear...due to generations of decline and an active program of corruption by Sauron's minions, no one was really ready to fight. One solid victory and mankind would have been toast. So every win for mankind is just a finger in the dike. By the end, Aragorn points out that the strategic situation is still awful, that if it came down to a conventional war Sauron would eventually win by attrition if nothing else. The good guys had to win every battle, the bad guys only had to win one to break the armies of man.

As to Ken's "fly the ring to Mount Doom on Gwaihir's back" plan, I suspect the Eye of Sauron could swat eagles out of the skies at leisure (and that Gwaihir knew that and would refuse to go near Mount Doom). Only after Sauron fell could the eagles safely enter Mordor and rescue the hobbits.

---Dave

As long as the Monty Python jokes are going around:

Every time I see Saurman dealing with building the orc army:

*Saurman walks by*

Orc1: So that's the wizard huh?

Orc2: How do you know that?

Orc1: He's not covered in crap like the rest of us.

As long as the Monty Python jokes are going around:

Every time I see Saurman dealing with building the orc army:

*Saurman walks by*

Orc1: So that's the wizard huh?

Orc2: How do you know that?

Orc1: He's not covered in crap like the rest of us.

He notes how Gandalf could have brought things to an end with much less pain and suffering if he'd just held on to that ding-blasted eagle a while longer, located Frodo, and FLEW him to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring before anyone could even think of stopping him!

That makes for great dramatic tension, doesn't it?

People harp on this stuff too much, imo.

They complain about how the Fellowship survives and all. Well, they're Heroes, aren't they? Just like Kirk and Co are Heroes.

Use the eagles? Ok, backstory: the eagles don't like dealing with people, just like the Ents didn't want to get involved. That Tom Bombadil didn't want to get involved.

It's just more stuff that couldn't get into the movie that gets some semblence of explanation in the novel.

Anyways, I think Peter Jackson does a good job of explaining the situation with Sauron and how difficult it is to deal with a villain you never actually see, thus the physical representation as the eye, the more obvious use of Saruman, etc.

In the long run, it's a style that worked 50 years ago, and obviously still works to this day, but you'll be hard pressed to find anybody else being able to tell a story in the same way today.

The Eagles wouldn't have flown into Mordor before the Ring was destroyed...

... Sauran had AA guns. ;)

(This coming from a fan of LOTR the books, not so much LOTR the movies, and "Bored of the Rings")

Grumble no editing function grumble.

Sauron*

Saurouman the White Eye? Agggggg....

I guess this gives me a chance to vent on two of the changes in the movies from the book that were either unnecessary or for the worst. First, the removal of the scene where Saruman addresses the forces that have beseiged him was, in the book, beyond cool--here was a guy that could lose the fight, and still almost win just by talking the victors into going home. Still, it would have been hard to pull that off credibly in the movie, so I'll let that one go. Second, I'm not entirely sure, but I think in the books Saruman changed his title from Saruman the White to some sort of Rainbow ensemble. This always stuck in my mind, because of the exchange between Gandalf and Saruman on the matter:
Gandalf: I prefer white.
Saruman: White! White is a blank page to be written on.
Or something to that effect. Why bother changing this bit for the movies?

"Note to the X-fan: If you go back to the original Neal Adams issues featuring the Sauron character, he took his name from the Tolkien books."

Hmm, I knew the Tolkien books came first, but I always figured the X-Men character's name was a play on the suffix "saur", as in pterasaur. Also, the obvious connection to the word "soar", which is something the character could do with those big ol' wings of his.

Anyway, it still doesn't help. I still think of a big, energy-draining, hypnotic pterasaur man whenever I think of the name Sauron. When some things get stuck in your psyche, you can't really get them out.

There are three things about the film trilogy that bother me. Two are character-related, one plot-related, and all are because they vary from the books:

1) Aragorn and his best TNG-Alexander voice: "But I don't WANT to be a king!" Aragorn wanted it - badly.
2) Frodo sending Sam away. Nope. No way. Blasphemy of the highest order!
3) The orcs getting into Minas Tirith. PJ likes battle tension, but the book is much more dramatic in that JUST as the Witch-King is about to claim victory by marching into the city (the last real barrier to victory being the gates), Theoden arrives to steal the victory.

As to the bad guys - of course they never won. They're bad guys!

To throw my hat into the geek ring, The Lord of the Rings is technically the end of a long story. The villains have been winning for a long time, with only minor victories by the good guys. Sure, the good guys win the Battle of the Five Armies, but the dwarves pay a big price, as does Lake-town. And prior to that, Sauron won a huge victory with the destruction of Numenor. In The Silmarillion, the elves get their butts kicked a whole lot, and the bad guys only lose when the gods return to Middle-Earth. So at the end of the war, the good guys win, but if Tolkien had put in all the bad stuff before that, the book would have been three times as long. That's according to me, of course.

Well let me put on my "nerd hat" for a moment...
Like Greg Burgas said... the good guys have been loosing all the way up to this point...
before Sauron and Suraman... there was the big bad boss of evil Morgoth... (The Balrog was one of his luitenents... same with Sauron) He held Middle Earth for a whole age and more. And only lost by killing enough elves and men so that Elrond's grandparents got together and created the family line that led to Elrond, Earendel, Isildur and Aragorn.

Even in the books appendices the good guys are loosing battle after battle away from the main story... Sauron does attack and wins much of Mirkwood and the Lonely Mountain, the Iron Hills... all the East lands north or Mordor and he was sweeping down with his forces to join/take Suramans power... and destroy Minas Tirith and Gondor.

This made me think about the fatal flaws of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Now, don't get me wrong, it's a fun flick. But think about it: not only does it have a overly-inflated deux et machina at the end (in fact, probably the most literal version of the story device in the last two thousand years), but it's a movie that, if the hero wasn't even involved, the ending would have been exactly the same -- without Indy's influence, the Nazi's would have got the real medallion, found the real crypt where the Ark was buried, and performed the same ceremony where they all got fried.

A movie where the hero made no difference. Now THERE'S a great flick.

Seeing as how some of the problems people had involved the movie deviating from the book, I just wanna sound off on books being made into movies. My view is that it should be an adaptation of the page onto the screen, not just a film plot that loosely resembles the book. To that end, I HATED "The Lost World". I love the book, but the movie, to me, was just awful. To be fair, I saw it when I was 12 or 13 or something, and I expected to to follow the novel closely. "Timeline", while not strictly adhering to the novel, did a MUCH better job. Then again, I read the book AFTER seeing the movie, so that probably had something to do with it. Still, in my mind, it worked much better as an adaptation. As for changing the book to fit in a movie premise, I don't think it should really be done (such as changing few chapters of a book to make it "work" better as a movie; or trying to fill a gap that the book goes into in detail, but might be problematic to show or explore in a movie by "cleverly" rewriting it into something easier to do). My belief is that people go to movies based on books to see the scenes they envision in their mind, but not see the entire book portrayed. All the key explanatory moments don't have to be there, because you're familiar with them from the book, not trying to rework them into something smaller to fit contenuity, since its there in the book to begin with. I see how this can lead people to shout "plot hole!", but it can be avoided if enough key momentsa are there. At the same time, if you like the movie enough, you go read the book, to get more out of it. (If this doesn't come across understandably I apologize, it's kind of hard for me to find the right words to explain this.) I've always thought the New Frontier series would turn into great movies, but only if the script stays true to the books (in word and spirit) and if Peter is involved in some capacaty.

but only if the script stays true to the books (in word and spirit)

And that's where a) opinion and b) different mediums come into play.

Alot of people think the LotR movies atleast stayed true to the spirit of the books.

Others, of course, disagree.

So, in the end, nobody wins, save New Line & WB, who has made buttloads off the movies.

Same goes for Harry Potter (again, WB).

"Hmm, I knew the Tolkien books came first, but I always figured the X-Men character's name was a play on the suffix "saur", as in pterasaur. Also, the obvious connection to the word "soar", which is something the character could do with those big ol' wings of his."

Those possibly were both reasons why the creators named him Sauron, but it is true that the "in-book" reason is that Karl Lykos was a LOTR geek.

Your reasoning certainly does make more sense!

"Anyway, it still doesn't help. I still think of a big, energy-draining, hypnotic pterasaur man whenever I think of the name Sauron. When some things get stuck in your psyche, you can't really get them out."

I'm with you, frankly. Actually, I think X-Men is a million times cooler than LOTR. There's more bang for the buck in a single page of X-Men Visionaries: Neal Adams than there is in an hour of the Peter Jackson films. (My opinion only, naturally.)

"but it's a movie that, if the hero wasn't even involved, the ending would have been exactly the same -- without Indy's influence, the Nazi's would have got the real medallion, found the real crypt where the Ark was buried, and performed the same ceremony where they all got fried.

A movie where the hero made no difference. Now THERE'S a great flick."

I've seen Raiders at least four times and I never thought of that. Thanks, James.

Earlier comments, "Life imitates art": simplistic much. Are you equating Iraqis with Sauron's horde? If continued, the analogy would have me rereading the book with a mind to questioning Gandalf's motives.

Hopefully the elections will lead to something better.

In keeping with the whole bad guys never being any good at fighting the good guys...anybody remember a farmboy, a smuggler, a walking carpet, a princess and their walking toasters running around a planet sized space station then escaping and blowing up same? I mean, everywhere I've ever seen, the Empire has the best troops anywhere,and they can't even keep from knocking their heads on their own DOORS, for Pete's sake!

If I may put on my geek hat for just a moment, I believe that Sauron had no control whatsoever over the balrog. Wasn't is supposed to be some ancient, primal force, that had walked the (middle) earth for aeons before anything else?

I believe that it was mentioned either in the LotR books or in the Silmarillion that it actually turned out to be fortunate that the Fellowship ran into the balrog, because it kept Sauron from recruiting him. Same deal for Smaug from the Hobbit.

Charlie Martin wrote...
I believe that it was mentioned either in the LotR books or in the Silmarillion that it actually turned out to be fortunate that the Fellowship ran into the balrog, because it kept Sauron from recruiting him. Same deal for Smaug from the Hobbit.

I don't think that's in the trilogy so it must be Silmarillion. I'll have to take your word for it as I haven't read it. I'd say that definitely makes sense for Smaug. I'd buy it with the balrog as well, if only because any ancient being with enough intelligence to forge a flaming sword and whip is surely capable of forming alliances with others.

At the very least Indy saves the girl, the nazis would have killed her, also he saves the people that would have opened the ark after finding it on the Island.

Not to bad for someone without the benefit of hindsight.

You know, the same thing happens in comics too often. The villain never wins. And then it turns from formidable foe to pathetic looser.

Take Emma Frost, since she is so popular lately. In her tenure as a villain, not once did she win against the X-Men or New Mutants. Bad guys should win every once in a while, we should see that more often. And by winning I don't mean just getting away alive, but really inflicting some serious pain.

The Balrog I couldn't say, but I'm pretty sure the mention of Smaug's downfall serving the function of keeping him out of Sauron's hands was in the appendices to LOTR. The film also culled many things from the appendices. Gandalf was seeking a way to get rid of Smaug for this reason, when he bumped into Thoron, who's mind was also much on Smaug. The appendices are well worth reading. It only took me 18 years to get around to it...

Sauron couldn't imagine anyone not trying to use the ring. The point was made in the book and movie.
They didn't win at the black gate, Gollum fell and the ring was destroyed.
So Saurons powers, not yet fully formed without the ring, dissipated along with his lands and servants. Who didn't run away, but were swallowed by the (middle) Earth.
At Helms Deep their losses were huge. I don't think any of the Elves survived.
Which is sad since they that sacrificed their immortality.
The Ent's won at Isenguard, But Saruman either escapes to be killed later by Grima (book), Or gets killed by Grima at Isenguard (movie).