From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Indeed, but the movie gives no reason as to why Smaug would   
   > > destroy lake town at that point in time. He has let it sit there   
   > > for some 170 years without giving it a second thought, but now   
   > > when his greatest enemy is at his doorstep, nay - in his house! He   
   > > flies away. Why?   
   >   
   > > In the book, Smaug smells the lake from Bilbo's feet, so assumes   
   > > that he is from lake town or has had help from them, greating the   
   > > base of the animosity towards them.   
   >   
   > Smelling the lake from Bilbo's feet (in the film) I don't know   
   > about, but Smaug (in the film) clearly blames the Lakemen for the   
   > presence of Bilbo in his treasure chamber and Dwarves on his   
   > Mountain.   
      
   Well, more or less - he sort of alludes to this being scheming from the   
   lake town, which might have been a valid guess unless Thorin was *right   
   there*. Of all the people in Middle Earth, the one that would be the   
   greatest danger and the greatest schemer possible is Thrain or Thorin,   
   coming back to reclaimi their throne. The people of lake town would mean   
   absolutely nothing with Thorin standing right there in front of him.   
      
   > He is then distracted from his revenge by Thorin's taunts, leading   
   > (eventually) to his molten-gold bath. He then flies away. I had no   
   > problem with this, actually   
      
   I did - there was nothing in the movie that established any animosity from   
   Smaug towards lake town, and since lake town was founded after the fall of   
   Dale, as far as we - the movie audience - knows, Smaug didn't even know   
   there WAS a lake town. Why he starts talking about the lake town is totally   
   random at this point in time.   
      
   He has been taunted by Thoring for some hours running around in Erebor, he   
   has chased them up and down trying to kill them all, and then out of the   
   sky he goes "Meh, whatever, I'll go kill the guys in lake town instead",   
   because why again?   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > No it isn't. Smaug crashes the front door of Ertebor and vanishes.   
   > > This is when Bilbo and the dwarves enter the montain together and   
   > > no one knows where or why Smaug left. When they are busy filling   
   > > their pockets with gold and jewels, Smaug flies to lake town. Then   
   > > he's killed by Bard, end of story. It all happenes in three pages   
   > > of text, very undramatically :)   
   >   
   > That sounds quite familiar.   
      
   > As to JRRTs battle scenes: in /TH/, at least, he is writing a   
   > children's book, and may have felt that the less detail the better.   
      
   Well, to be fair towards JRR, he does describe buildings being on fire and   
   people being in danger for about two paragraphs before Bard off him :)   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Perhaps you are underestimating just how deeply PJ and   
   > > > accomplices misunderstand JRRT. I, on the other hand, see no   
   > > > bottom to the depth of their lack of perception.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > This has nothing to do with Peter Jackson, he's not writing the   
   > > script. Well, at least not alone. And this isn't about   
   > > "perception" either, it's not like they somehow missed this, or   
   > > didn't look deep enough. I can assure you that they know full well   
   > > the source and origin of the ring wraiths (given the fact that   
   > > they are talked about in narration and by Gandalf in the LOTR   
   > > trilog), but this is an active choice to disregard what we know   
   > > and what they had already said.   
   >   
   > First, I said "PJ & accomplices". PJ was not considered solely at   
   > fault.   
      
   Right, sorry. :)   
      
   > Second, it is "lack of perception", and you may be right -- if they   
   > remember what they wrote in the /LOTR/ films.   
      
   And I claim it isn't about lack of perception, but rather, a change of   
   heart. Or a feeling that this would further mystify the ring wraiths and   
   their relationship with Sauron. I don't know, I think your theories came a   
   long way to reconcile this tomb idea with what we already know.   
      
   > Third, if the story here is that the Nazgul, dead or alive, were   
   > entombed until recently and are now free, that says nothing about   
   > their origin.   
      
   Exactly - at first I equated a "tomb" with the final resting place of a   
   mortal man. It seems from TH:DOS that it can indeed be interpreted that the   
   "tombs" were merely enchanted prisons for the nazgul.   
      
   > Keep in mind that my prior theory, that this was the   
   > story of the origin of the Nazgul, has clearly been shown to be   
   > wrong. This is, at best, the story of the return of the Nazgul to   
   > active duty.   
      
   Which is something I can fly with, actually. It wouldn't contradict   
   anything from Tolkien as far as I'm aware of (other than timing - the White   
   Council thought the darkness in Dol Goldur was the nazgul at first).   
      
   > Finally, the perception they lack may be, precisely, that required   
   > to realize that to disregard what we know and what they had already   
   > said is a very stupid thing to do. But stupid is as stupid does, and   
   > there is no help for it.   
      
   Well, with your interpretation, I think they can have it both ways,   
   actually.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, maybe... So the White Council at some point captured and   
   > > imprisoned all the Nazgul by some spells, in tombs. Well, it's   
   > > possible I suppose, isn't it? I mean, it's not in the actual LOTR   
   > > lore, but then again, it doesn't mean they were men before they   
   > > we're locked up, nor that they weren't already wraiths. Indeed,   
   > > they have been wraiths for 4,100 years when these events occur.   
   >   
   > Of course, one might think that, if they could imprison them, they   
   > could kill them.   
      
   Or rather, if they couldn't kill them, imprisoning was the only way they   
   could control them.   
      
   > Actually, that's strange also: the prophecy is that the Witch King   
   > "cannot be slain by the hand of man", or something to that effect,   
   > but surely, having tried the hand of Elf instead of the hand of Man   
   > and finding it of no more use, it would have occurred to them that   
   > "man" was a reference to gender and not race, and tried an Elf   
   > Warrier Maiden. And, if it had worked once, then surely by the time   
   > of /LOTR/ everyone would know what the prophecy actually meant, and   
   > you'd have every female who could get her hands on a sword practice   
   > her swordswomenship just in case she could get close enough to him.   
      
   Now, that's a bit TOO much logic for both the film makers AND Tolkien :)   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > As to the fight, well, he was dumb enough to fight Saruman (in   
   > > > the movie; he was smarter in the book), so he as well be dumb   
   > > > enough to fight Sauron (in the movie).   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, he wasn't *sure* in DOS if it was Sauron, but he assumed as   
   > > much at least, which makes it pretty stupid to send Radagast on   
   > > his way right before.   
   >   
   > He knew Sauron was back when he learned that the Nazgul were free:   
   > "they only answer to one master". And what do Necromancers do? They   
   > bring the dead back to life. So I'd say he was pretty much   
   > convinced.   
      
   Agreed. So Gandalf is just stupid, then :-D   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)