Ian makes a glaring mistake at a fan E-mail site!

ringbearer · 12-28-2001, 12:35 AM

Perhaps we should forgive him because of his excellent job portraying Gandalf, but he really messed up on the question about "Bill the pony". Go here to view. If you don't catch it he says that "in the novel Bill is eaten by the watcher in the water!

here is the question...

From: Nathan Bowles nabowles@hotmail.com

Q: I have some questions about a few omissions from the film, however, and wonder if those scenes were shot and left out of the final print, or never shot at all. Specifically, why didn't Galadriel give gifts when the Fellowship left Lorien, why didn't we see Narsil reforged, and why wasn't Sam's relationship to Bill the Pony explained before Sam unwillingly leaves him at the entrance to Moria.

here is his response...

A: As far as I know these scenes were not included in the screenplay. As for Bill, I wonder whether he makes it safely home to Hobbiton as Aragorn promises in the film or whether, as in the novel, he succumbs to the Watcher outside the Moria doors.

***HOBBIT*** · 12-28-2001, 12:54 AM

lol. i sent him an e-post.

ringbearer · 12-28-2001, 12:58 AM

Yeah, me to, but I just told him what a good job he did, I did not call him out for the error. Who knows, maybe he does not really answer these...some lackey, possibly!

Ñólendil · 12-28-2001, 01:20 AM

He was probably influenced in one way or another by Ralph Bakshi's movie in the 70s, in which poor Bill is last seen with a tentacle wrapped around him.

ringbearer · 12-28-2001, 01:23 AM

"Safely home to Hobbiton" is wrong, too! Bill came from Bree!

Darth Tater · 12-28-2001, 10:17 AM

I noticed that as well, but hey, it's sir Ian, he deserves our forgiveness!

bropous · 12-28-2001, 03:39 PM

I, for one, forgive this oversight by Sir Ian. Heck, I've read the books twenty-four times now, and I wasn't quite sure who the heck "Lurtz" was. I'm not even sure if he is named in the books. I remember Ugluk and Grishnakh, but no Lurtz.

***HOBBIT*** · 12-28-2001, 03:47 PM

That is because they made him up. IMO there is no need for the presence of lurtz......in the movie his name isn't even mentioned! He was not needed in the least...the rest of the Uruk-hai were just fine.

bropous · 12-28-2001, 04:06 PM

Thanks, Hobbit! For a second there I thought it totally slipped past me. I do recall that the captain of the Uruk-Hai in the movie was not named. It was only when I was looking at the movie books at B&N this morning that I saw him named by photo.

I hope to Hannah that the exchanges between Ugluk and Grishnakh, and furthermore the strain between the orcs of the White Hand and those of the Red Eye carry well in the next film.

***Ben*** · 12-28-2001, 04:15 PM

Quote:

I hope to Hannah that the exchanges between Ugluk and Grishnakh, and furthermore the strain between the orcs of the White Hand and those of the Red Eye carry well in the next film.

Considering that in the movie Saruman is in league with Sauron from the start, I don't see how they could fit that in without confusing people.

bropous · 12-28-2001, 04:29 PM

I can see your point, bmilder, but Saruman is, in my opinion, still out for himself, and the whole "allegiance with Sauron" may be shown, in the next film, to be the true treachery it is.

Saruman betrayed everyone, and I had taken from the books that Saruman HAD actually pledged his allegiance to Sauron, through the palantir of Orthanc, with the specific pupose of betraying that allegiance whilst buying himself time and freedom to do as he would concerning the search for the One Ring wihtout Sauron's active resistance.

Recall, for instance, Pippin's words, relating what Sauron told him after being seen by the Dark One in the palantir, after telling Sauron he was a hobbit:

"But he said, 'Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Just say that!' "

This, to me, seems to point out a subservient role for Saruman in the mind of Sauron, indicating that through previous conversations Saruman HAD accepted a role as a Servant of the Dark One, and not as a rival.

What are your thoughts?

12-28-2001, 12:35 AM	#1
ringbearer Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St. Louis, Mo. USA Posts: 561	Ian Mckellen makes a glaring mistake at a fan E-mail site! Perhaps we should forgive him because of his excellent job portraying Gandalf, but he really messed up on the question about "Bill the pony". Go here to view. If you don't catch it he says that "in the novel Bill is eaten by the watcher in the water! here is the question... From: Nathan Bowles nabowles@hotmail.com Q: I have some questions about a few omissions from the film, however, and wonder if those scenes were shot and left out of the final print, or never shot at all. Specifically, why didn't Galadriel give gifts when the Fellowship left Lorien, why didn't we see Narsil reforged, and why wasn't Sam's relationship to Bill the Pony explained before Sam unwillingly leaves him at the entrance to Moria. here is his response... A: As far as I know these scenes were not included in the screenplay. As for Bill, I wonder whether he makes it safely home to Hobbiton as Aragorn promises in the film or whether, as in the novel, he succumbs to the Watcher outside the Moria doors. __________________ Ringbearer Hide Witch, hide! The Good Folks come to burn thee! Their keen enjoyment hid behind A Gothic mask of duty! Last edited by ringbearer : 12-28-2001 at 12:55 AM.

12-28-2001, 12:54 AM	#2
*HOBBIT* Saviour of Entmoot Admiral Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.) Posts: 61,986	lol. i sent him an e-post. __________________ President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares!

12-28-2001, 12:58 AM	#3
ringbearer Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St. Louis, Mo. USA Posts: 561	Yeah, me to, but I just told him what a good job he did, I did not call him out for the error. Who knows, maybe he does not really answer these...some lackey, possibly! __________________ Ringbearer Hide Witch, hide! The Good Folks come to burn thee! Their keen enjoyment hid behind A Gothic mask of duty!

12-28-2001, 01:20 AM	#4
Ñólendil Elf Lord Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: California Posts: 60,865	He was probably influenced in one way or another by Ralph Bakshi's movie in the 70s, in which poor Bill is last seen with a tentacle wrapped around him. __________________ Falmon -- Dylan

12-28-2001, 01:23 AM	#5
ringbearer Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St. Louis, Mo. USA Posts: 561	"Safely home to Hobbiton" is wrong, too! Bill came from Bree! __________________ Ringbearer Hide Witch, hide! The Good Folks come to burn thee! Their keen enjoyment hid behind A Gothic mask of duty!

12-28-2001, 10:17 AM	#6
Darth Tater The man Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: MA Posts: 4,572	I noticed that as well, but hey, it's sir Ian, he deserves our forgiveness! __________________ Visit the worlds greatest webpage! No, not The Tolkien Trail! Just click this! The Tolkien Trail ~Camelot

12-28-2001, 03:39 PM	#7
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	I, for one, forgive this oversight by Sir Ian. Heck, I've read the books twenty-four times now, and I wasn't quite sure who the heck "Lurtz" was. I'm not even sure if he is named in the books. I remember Ugluk and Grishnakh, but no Lurtz. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

12-28-2001, 03:47 PM	#8
*HOBBIT* Saviour of Entmoot Admiral Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.) Posts: 61,986	That is because they made him up. IMO there is no need for the presence of lurtz......in the movie his name isn't even mentioned! He was not needed in the least...the rest of the Uruk-hai were just fine. __________________ President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares!

12-28-2001, 04:06 PM	#9
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Thanks, Hobbit! For a second there I thought it totally slipped past me. I do recall that the captain of the Uruk-Hai in the movie was not named. It was only when I was looking at the movie books at B&N this morning that I saw him named by photo. I hope to Hannah that the exchanges between Ugluk and Grishnakh, and furthermore the strain between the orcs of the White Hand and those of the Red Eye carry well in the next film. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

12-28-2001, 04:29 PM	#11
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	I can see your point, bmilder, but Saruman is, in my opinion, still out for himself, and the whole "allegiance with Sauron" may be shown, in the next film, to be the true treachery it is. Saruman betrayed everyone, and I had taken from the books that Saruman HAD actually pledged his allegiance to Sauron, through the palantir of Orthanc, with the specific pupose of betraying that allegiance whilst buying himself time and freedom to do as he would concerning the search for the One Ring wihtout Sauron's active resistance. Recall, for instance, Pippin's words, relating what Sauron told him after being seen by the Dark One in the palantir, after telling Sauron he was a hobbit: "But he said, 'Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Just say that!' " This, to me, seems to point out a subservient role for Saruman in the mind of Sauron, indicating that through previous conversations Saruman HAD accepted a role as a Servant of the Dark One, and not as a rival. What are your thoughts? __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.