forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Interesting information about the balrog. Is there any illustrator that despicted him in a purist way?

fbnaulin wrote:Interesting information about the balrog. Is there any illustrator that despicted him in a purist way?

The problem is that there is no singular "purist" way (e.g. wings vs. no-wings).

I can't find any pictures online that depict the balrog as Tolkien described it.

Must not be a particularly inspiring view of it, then. The Balor=Balrog depiction is the one that seems to bring the crowds. And ultimately, it's the depiction that brings in the most money for Middle Earth Enterprises and/or Tolkien Estates and/or Peter Jackson that matters.

Well we need something similar to the way Sauron was depicted in the latest 'Hobbit' film considering their somewhat shared heritage. So, lets go with this...

Rich that was very naughty!

Angelalex242 wrote:Must not be a particularly inspiring view of it, then.

Damn that Tolkien guy for getting it wrong!

The Balor=Balrog depiction is the one that seems to bring the crowds.

And just how did you determine that?

Maybe this balrog will do:
http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wiw ... wship+1998

Simaruk wrote:Maybe this balrog will do:
http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wiw ... wship+1998

Actually, that is pretty damn close to how I imagine the Balrog - great find, Simaruk.

I'd have loved to have seen that on screen but I do think it would have been scarier than the Balor-esque creature Jackson did - far more disturbing, especially if it moved on screen how Stormcrow described earlier in this thread; the lack of sound, or more subtle sounds, can be more discomforting in the hands of a clever filmmaker than more bombastic ones. Therefore with that in mind, Jackson simply isn't a subtle enough filmmaker to bring that to life, and even if he was (and they had gone with something along the line of the above image) I think the film would have received a higher classification that it did - which New Line would obviously want to avoid.

For what it's worth I did really like the Bridge of Khazad-dûm scene in FotR. The Balrog wasn't how I imagined but I did think it largely worked as a powerful scene and had some great imagery, composition, and cinematography. There were some elements that I didn't like (eg, the yawn inducing Aragorn/Frodo broken stair balancing act before it, Gandalf hanging onto the bridge then letting go, the annoying slow motion afterwards) but on the whole it was a strong scene and set up the second half of the film pretty well.

Angelalex242 wrote:And ultimately, it's the depiction that brings in the most money for Middle Earth Enterprises and/or Tolkien Estates and/or Peter Jackson that matters.

That is a poor point of view. Sadly if a Balrog is depicted from the films Tolkien Estates gets 0% or any revinue from it... they got 0% of film revenue - they (and thus Tolkiens family) only get money on things derived from the books, not the films...

On of the reason's I'm not a lover of Tolkien Enterprises; now I understand it they are just about money. Tolkien Estates is about Tolkiens work, preserving it and letting it flourish as intended...

Tolkien wrote his books to enrich the literately world; because it was objectively good (and enjoyable no doubt)... Tolkien enterprises exists to enrich themselves. I should not judge Saul, but I do not love his company in the slightest.