The Oliphaunts

[hectorberlioz]

so anybody have a problem with the ize of the oliphaunts in the movie? i mean in TTT they were half the size that they were in RotK.
Tolkien describes them as bieng larger than a house, but he didnt say bigger(or as big) as a mansion since the average house is not as tall as the oliphaunts in rotk.
and it was coming from sam's perspective in the TTT book, so if you ask me; tolkien meant bigger than a hobbit house.
in the movies, you have these huge city size oliphaunts who are exaggerated for a bigger effect in the movies.

Originally posted by Dunadain
Nice try, but they weren't unrealistically huge. Tolkien describes them to carry HOUSES and TOWERS on their backs, which is exactly what was shown in the movie. No modern elephant would be able to carry HOUSES and TOWERS on their backs, thus Oliphaunts would have to be giant in comparision to Elephants.

not giant though. larger, and stronger than a regular elephant. but not a huge collassal sized monster. surely tolkien wanted more real sized creatures.
lotr is after all a more human story than a fantasy one.


so the question is: were the oliphaunts in the films the right size?

[Cirdan]

I would have too say maybe twice as big as would be reasonable. They were bigger than dinosaur big. I thought this since TTT some more of the same was no big deal.

[hectorberlioz]

i always figure they were under dino size. not dramatically so, but smaller in height definitely.

[Tolman Muggworts]

Bigger than a house doesn't exclude bigger than a dinosaur it doesn't exclude anything bigger than a house; so they could be that big.
Personally I thought they were awesome!

[hectorberlioz]

ok, you enjoyed them. they were big and definitely something cool to see in a movie. but thats just one of PJ's over spectacular exaggerations meant to have an effect on you because of their size. if they are too big to be killed by people--which these were--then they are too big. if they had been smaller, Legolas' little stunt may have been appreciated. because it would've been realistic. watching the movie, i really felt that it would not have been possible to control these monsters OR kill them with arrows.

[jerseydevil]

I do think they were overly big and as has been pointed out in previous threads - they did remind me of the walkers in Empire Strikes Back - especially when they fell into each other.

And I thought legolas looked completely fake climbing up the leg. As I said with the legolas and Merry/Pippin on the troll in FotR - if you can't get the computer graphics to look good - then DO NOT do it. Legolas looked like he was made of rubber.

[jellyfishannah]

I know it! How can LotR fans be satisfied with this?

[Dúnedain]

Quote from Sam in The Two Towers:

But I've heard tales of the big folk down away in the Sunlands. Swertings we call 'em in our tales; and they ride on oliphaunts, 'tis said, when they fight. They puts houses and towers on the oliphauntses backs and all, and the oliphaunts throw rocks and trees at one another.

Then later on we see this:

Sam saw a vast shape crash out of the trees and come careering down the slope. Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey-clad moving hill...

...rocking the ground beneath their feet: his great legs like trees, enormous sail-like ears spread out, long snout upraised like a huge serpent about to strike, his small red eyes raging. His upturned hornlike tusks were bond with bands of gold and dripping with blood. His trappings of scarlet and gold flapped about him in wild tatters. The ruins of what seemed a very war-tower lay upon his heaving back, smashed his furious passage through the woods; and high upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure - the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings.

They are also described the same way in Return of the King...

Ok there are some key points in the passages. Of course the most obvious in the first is "They puts houses and towers on the oliphauntses backs and all, and the oliphaunts throw rocks and trees at one another." From there we see "Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey-clad moving hill." So with that we have a comparision to it being as big as a house at least. It is also described as a moving-hill. So it's safe to assume we are talking about something that is fairly enormous. Then the physical descriptions go on. "Legs like trees" that can be debatably as trees vary a lot. The next description however says "enormous sail-like ears spread out". I think it's pretty safe to say that we are talking about sails of the boats of Middle-Earth, which we all know are pretty large, as they didn't have tiny sailboats. Now if the Ears are described as being as big as Sails, then it is probably safe to assume the Oliphaunts are largely enormous in order to be anatomically correct, otherwise they would be tripping over their ears, plus the description of the house like size fits with that. Moving on it says "smashed his furious passage through the woods". It must be a pretty damn big creature to be able to smash through woods. Then the last part says "high upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure - the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings." If this warrior was a Giant among them and yet appeared tiny on the beast, then we know it has to be huge in comparison to an Elephant. As we know people do NOT look tiny on Elephants.

So to sum it up, the Oliphaunts are descibably huge, gigantic actually. Those in RotK were not even half the height of the outter walls of Minas Tirith. Not to mention, their proportion compared to the towers on their backs and the horses running under them are all within the reasonable confines of their description. If they have towers on their backs then it is safe to say they will have to be big enough to make people and horses look tiny in comparison, as the movie depicted...

[jerseydevil]

It's crashing OUT of the trees though - which means it's smaller than trees. The ones in the movies - seem to be larger than trees.

What were there - about 10 - 20+ people on their backs though in the movie?

The Oliphaunts weren't that bad in my mind, but I do think they are larger than what they are described in the books.

[hectorberlioz]

well, if they were so big and huge, then why didnt the enemy use them to crush men without a second thought?
plus, sam heard tales about the oliphaunts, so you can imagine they were a bit exaggerated.
as for crashing through the woods, a smaller version of an oliphaunt could crash through as well.
once again, it isnt Tolkiens description I'm complaining about, its Jacksons interpretation.

[Cirdan]

Houses and trees come in a wide range of sizes, so the relative description is close and PJ definitely chose to err on the large side (ie Hampton Mansions and redwoods vs cabins and dogwoods).

What is your guess on the true measure of them?

I 'm guessing ~50-60 feet based on the size of the horses.

Another relative note is that Sam is a Hobbit and he and his things are rather smaller than we.

btw, what is descibably?

[hectorberlioz]

hey Cirdan, great avatar
and yes, sam is a hobbit; so his perspective would be different than a man's.
thanks for that bit Cirdan
well i fugure the tallness of two full grown elephants+a smaller child one.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Another relative note is that Sam is a Hobbit and he and his things are rather smaller than we.

His smallness still shouldn't change much of a perspective, he isn't an ant, lol. And besides he still describes a "Giant Warrior" as being tiny on the Oliphaunt...

[Dúnedain]

I guess it just comes down to what you personally picture them as. I know when I read the books I have always pictured Oliphaunts as being gargantuan, kinda like Dinosaur big, but that's just been my impression of them from the descriptions we are given...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
And besides he still describes a "Giant Warrior" as being tiny on the Oliphaunt...

He doesn't say "Giant Warrior" he says "the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings.

The thing is - we have no idea how big the Swertings were. Since they're easterlings, I don't think they were as tall as the people of the west.

[Falagar]

His smallness still shouldn't change much of a perspective, he isn't an ant, lol. And besides he still describes a "Giant Warrior" as being tiny on the Oliphaunt...

But he wasn't used to high buildings. Remember in Bree, when they arrived at the Prancing Pony:
"He [Sam] had imagined himself meeting giants taller than trees, ... some time or other in the course of their long journey; but at the moment he was finding his sight of Men and their tall houses quite enough, indeed to much for the dark end of a tiring day."

Still, the giant warrior implies that the Oliphants were large, much larger than our own elephants. How much larger is a matter of debate, but I don't think Jackson exaggarated much.

[macmico]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
His smallness still shouldn't change much of a perspective, he isn't an ant, lol. And besides he still describes a "Giant Warrior" as being tiny on the Oliphaunt...

i agree Dunedain i think the important thing in the quote is tolkiens style of perspective

he uses words like "great, vast, enormous, huge" to describe his size.
and a man which tolkien descibes as "a giant among swertings"
as "tiny"

although there is no exact measurable distance between "great, vast, enormous, huge" and "tiny" it does tell me that this creature is very big.
tolkien describes it movements as "careering" that also tells me this creature is very big.
also in ttt was sam not looking at the oliphaunt from an elevated position, a cliff i think and it was incredibly big.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
hey Cirdan, great avatar

Thanks. It's a cutout of "The lampo of the Valar".

and yes, sam is a hobbit; so his perspective would be different than a man's.
well i fugure the tallness of two full grown elephants+a smaller child one.

The African Elephant is about 4 meters (~17 feet) in height.

I would say your estimate is just over 40 feet.

What apparent heght do you est. for the movie version?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
His smallness still shouldn't change much of a perspective, he isn't an ant, lol. And besides he still describes a "Giant Warrior" as being tiny on the Oliphaunt...

Well, hobbit size would be 50% smaller. A 10 meter versus a 20 meter oliphant would be a significant difference. Again, giant is a relative term. Does that mean 7 feet tall or 12 feet tall?

I think that while on the large side, the movie oliphaunts are in the ballpark by the book description but on the large side. I think it may be the book description that is over the top. Imagine the praticals of taming this thing. "Easy, big fella"

So, how tall do you think the are as described and as they appear in the movie, in absolute measurements?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Cirdan

The African Elephant is about 4 meters (~17 feet) in height.

I would say your estimate is just over 40 feet.

What apparent heght do you est. for the movie version?

*pssst - 4 meters is about 13 feet!*

Anyway, I just love Sam's poem in the book:

Gray as a mouse,
Big as a house,
Nose like a snake,
I make the earth shake,
As I walk on the grass,
Trees crack as I pass.
With horns in my mouth,
I walk in the south...

That's from memory, so I may have some lines wrong or out of place. One of my favorite poems in LOTR!