/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21682614]

Did the Balrog look the way you imagined it the first time? Did you like it or were you underwhelmed? I know people have problems with the wings

[Anonymous No.21682853]

>>21682614
What does the movie have to do with the novels?

[Anonymous No.21682984]

>>21682853
>How'd the book make you picture this mythical creature
>Bro this is off topic I'm calling the jannies as we speak not cool bro

[Anonymous No.21683048]

>>21682614
>randomly gives it hooves and horns like a cow
resembled nothing to me but a cheap satan parody

[Anonymous No.21683058]

>>21682614
I’m not enough of a nerd to care. I just enjoyed the fight scenes and CGI

[Anonymous No.21683067]

>>21683048
The etymology of the word means "cruel"+"demon"

[Anonymous No.21683088]

>>21683067
It's closer to mighty demon. And so what? Balrogs explicitly have hair for example. which is clearly missing here. Jackson takes massive liberties with the material for a lazy audience. I mean the thing shouldn't be taller than a man, but it towers over Gandalf.

[Anonymous No.21683445]

>>21682614
I hope there will be some Balrogs in Amazon Prime Video's The Lord of the Rings : The Rings of Power, season 2!

[Anonymous No.21683652]

>>21683088
>I mean the thing shouldn't be taller than a man
>the description is literally "of man shape maybe, but greater"
didn't read the book confirmed

[Anonymous No.21683656]

>>21682614
valauraka

[Anonymous No.21683672]

>>21682614
Saw the films then read the books. The Films are superior. I have no hate for Tolkien. The books are great. But Peter Jackson elevates them. The art design of the bad guys are incredible.

P.s. you never hear anyone say the books are "based" because they are just as HIV positive with female empowerment nonsense as the films. And in fact the movies are less doomer because they don't have the scouring of the shire.

[Anonymous No.21683690]

>>21683672
>they are just as HIV positive with female empowerment nonsense as the films.
When? "I am no man" is literally just there because Tolkien thought Shakespeare was a hack for his "no man of woman born" asspull. same reason for the Ents at Isengard and Huorns at Helm's Deep and pretty much the only other two named females are Galadriel, who does next to nothing in the LoTR books and Arwen who does even less

[Anonymous No.21683695]

>>21683690
Lord of the Rings is basically pure female empowerment with barely any male characters

[Anonymous No.21683773]

>>21682853
Fpbp. Movie adaptation don’t matter for book readers.

[Anonymous No.21683850]

>>21682853
>>21683773
Kys newfags

[Anonymous No.21684423]

They fucked it up

[Anonymous No.21685027]

>>21683652
Greater doesn't refer to size here, it is suggestive of the creatures presence and power - the shadow it emanates suggests said greatness. Which is clearer in the full context you left out, probably on purpose.
>It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it
Also you can't step to me, little faggot. You're going to just cite TFotR? I laugh at you.
>A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes from afar; its arms were very long; it had a red [?tongue]. Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure. The flames leaped up to great it and wreathed about it. Its streaming hair seemed to catch fire, and the sword that it held turned to flame. In its other hand it held a whip of many thongs.
>Histories of Middle Earth VII

[Anonymous No.21685040]

>>21682614

[Anonymous No.21685051]

>>21685027
That would have looked gay as fuck on screen bro

[Anonymous No.21685370]

>>21682614
I always imagined the balrog as a shadowy figure that can barely be made out in detail, something that cn barely be seen even if it emits fire. It's far more intimidating than the movie adaptation which just looks like a creature from diablo.
Similar to Ted Nasmith's drawings, except a little darker.

[Anonymous No.21685377]

>>21685370
Here's a better pic. Other than him being short (I imagined him taller), it's more accurate to my vision.

[Anonymous No.21685481]

>>21685027
>histories of middle earth
>literally quoting an obsolete version of the text that was superseded by the rewrite
Okay then going by your logic, the character of Strider was butchered in the film, he should have been a hobbit named Trotter, it's blatant hobbit erasure.

[Anonymous No.21685491]

>>21685481
The so called rewrite is perfectly in line with the 'history' which is offered as extra detail. By your logic the histories contain nothing that made it into the stories, but of course this is completely untrue for the vast majority of said content, and it is also obvious where it isn't true, and not so in the particulars we here discuss.

Anything else stupid you want to add?

[Anonymous No.21685787]

>>21685491
Okay then we'll go with the histories being the source if you like.
Volume 10 clearly states Balrogs to be twice the height of elves.

[Anonymous No.21685792]

>>21685787
Not this particular Balrog, moron.

[Anonymous No.21685809]

>>21685792
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest all Balrogs were not the same sort of height, no other race in the books has the sort of height variations you're talking about where one would be literally less than half the size of another

[Anonymous No.21685830]

>>21685809
Are you demented? The Balrog of Moria is the same "race" as Gandalf. They are both Maiar, who vary enormously in size, shape, and appearance.

[Anonymous No.21685846]

>>21685809
Why would Balrogs be uniform in appearance? Like most spirits they are shapeshifters, but like Sauron they lose their ability to manipulate their external selves and become "stuck" in whatever forms they last or most used.