• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I've completed my 20th re-reading of The Lord of the Rings.

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I first discovered Lord of the Rings probably as a kid when watching The Hobbit Rankin Bass on cable, but it wasn't until 2001 that I really got into it when the Fellowship of the Ring came out in theaters. I got into Lord of the Rings pretty hard. The Peter Jackson movies came out at a really difficult time in my life, and it really resonated.

Themes and Story
I think that the single most important theme of Lord of the Rings, and the one that really resonates with me, even as a child, is the idea of enduring in the face of hopelessness really gave me courage as a child. But the book is not all bright eyed about it. Sometimes the pain is too deep. Things can get better, but can't go back to the way they were. And that stood out to me the most. Of course, that was always a major theme of the original, but I guess as a middle-aged man who has passed beyond trauma, I relate with Frodo heavily in that regard.

The story is as good as ever. While most people seem to prefer the Aragorn and Co portions of the story, my favorite sections are actually the Frodo and Sam parts. I loved the dynamics between him and Gollum. There is the truest sense of urgency in his parts. I think my utmost favorite segment though is the first half of Fellowship. Frodo's journey from the Shire to Rivendell is thrilling. And Tolkien's sense of care in describing the country side, from the familiar aspects of the Shire to the lonely road between weathertop and Rivendell was great.

Characters
As a teenagers, characters like Aragorn and Samwise appealed to me. After this most recent reading, Pipping jumped up drastically in my rankings. Sure, of the hobbits he's the least achieved. But there is one aspect of his character that I don't think any of the adaptations have really captured. Peter Jackson portrayed him as sort of an idiot, or clueless. Tolkien envisioned him as a teenager. He has not yet come of age, and is such he is portrayed as the least "world ready" of the Hobbits. He's a fun character when you think of him that way. Kind of dumb, preoccupied and clumsy like an awkward 16 year old. Not baffoonish.

Of course Gandalf, is the best though.

Strangely enough, Aragorn dropped a bit in my estimations after this reading. He's still pretty awesome, but quite a few decisions he makes turn out disasterous. Especially early on. Still love the dude though.

Frodo... I feel for Frodo and love him. I think he's a wonderful character. I love how he represents the sort of educated class Tolkien inhabited. Yes, he fails. But I love his vibe. I really appreciate his "normal person doing extraordinary things"

World Building

I've read a ton of fantasy and sci fi since reading LotR, and I've yet to see anyone do it better. Tolkien was master class at it. It might seem kinda of basic now, but there is so much depth there. So much little attention to detail. It might seems sort of basic now, but it still feels so realized. I wish I could write a world like he could.

Certain things do stand out though. The world does feel somewhat empty in places. Like the lands between Rohan and the Shire. We're told there are villages in places such as Rohan, but never really hear any details and the characters go through great stretches of isolation. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bug in the text. Just gives Middle-earth a sort of lonely feeling.

Adaptations
Peter Jackson's trilogy mostly hits the mark, but it's not the end all be all. I think there are worth parts of all adaptations. I think he misses the mark on a few things, but what he pulled off is commendable. I think my biggest problem is how he handled Denethor... but minor squabbles.

People are down on the Bakshi film... Honestly, I don't think it's terrible. There are certainly awkward things about it, but it's not the worst thing ever made. Just kinda clumsy. Ditto for Rankin Bass's movie.

In fact, regarding the Rankin Bass movie, it does quite a few things WELL. But it was a mistake just to do an adaptation of RotK. I adore Orson Bean as Frodo (He's a wonderful Bilbo too). And I'll be god damned if its songs aren't bangers (Their Hobbit had better songs). I love "It's so Easy Not to Try".

My favorite adaptation is the 1981 BBC radio broadcast. Ian Holm is my favorite Frodo, and Bill Nighy is fantastic as Sam (I think Sean Astin probably scribed some of Nighy's choices).
 

Scotty W

Banned
I am reading them for the first time. Got stuck on Return of the King and need to restart.

The movies are good, but the books are so much better. The scale is totally off in the films, so everything always feels massively epic. This is not how the books are. I suspect this is why most of the psychological interest of Gollum in the film version is destroyed.
 
Congratulations. Though I made it through the Hobbit in under a day and had set a good pace reading Fellowship I ended up slowing down and stalled when we got to Tom Bombadil.

25 years on now and I've never been able to get by that since.

That part just sapped all my interest.
 

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I think it would be very interesting to know, what have you bought/had more of?

A. Copies of LOTR
B. Passport renewals
C. Cars
D. Divorce papers

Copies of LOTR for me!

Hmm...

A - I think I've had 4 copies of LotR. I had a box set of each book individually that came out when the movies were released. Eventually those fell apart, from water damage (I would would them while waiting for the bus while reading). I've had 3 single volume editons. Most recently, I got editions of LotR that feature artwork from Tolkien himself. They're pretty classy.

B - I've only renewed once! I gotta renew again

C - Hmm... 4 cars. So tied for LotR

D - No divorces yet!
 

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
Congratulations. Though I made it through the Hobbit in under a day and had set a good pace reading Fellowship I ended up slowing down and stalled when we got to Tom Bombadil.

25 years on now and I've never been able to get by that since.

That part just sapped all my interest.

The Tom Bombadil part was kinda weird when I got to it the first time, but now I enjoy it. There is a sort of eeriness to some of the scenes. Particularly some of the conversations they have with Goldberry.
 
I just finished reading it for maybe the twentieth time, although this was the first time for seven or so years.

As a much older man I realise how much of the story is about ageing. From the largest themes to the smallest poems written by Bilbo. I also had a lump in my throat for about a third of it. It really is the greatest piece of art an Englishman has produced. If everything goes to hell, this book will still exist.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Frodo... I feel for Frodo and love him. I think he's a wonderful character. I love how he represents the sort of educated class Tolkien inhabited. Yes, he fails. But I love his vibe. I really appreciate his "normal person doing extraordinary things"

That's never been my reading of what happens, to be honest. Yes, he allows the ring to eventually overcome him, after fighting it for so damned long. But in his compassion for Gollum, in his love for Sam, and in his strength of character that goes far beyond any human in resisting the ring, he does everything necessary for the ending to play out the way it does, and for the ring to be destroyed. In being the person he is, he triumphs.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
And here I am not even finding time to read stuff I really want to read (I have no interest in LOTR at all).
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
Visiting Hobbiton in New Zealand is pretty magical if you ever get the chance. Yeah, it’s a movie set, but they picked the right spot, and there’s the tree and the lake from the movie…go see it
 

Toots

Gold Member
My mom read it to me and my brother when we were kids, there's no better version than that.
I remember vividly being in the car going to Spain on holidays, my dad driving, my mom singing the elf song that Legolas sang while sending Boromir remains towards the waterfalls. She'd always stop halfway through to prevent herself from crying (unsuccessfully).
There's two things im pretty sure i'll keep with me to the grave, this memory and Sonic up down left right A+START level select code.

That being said, even with my experience i cannot even begin to fathom the degree of autistic love OP has for LOTR, and i love it !
I hope you read it 20 times more and still enjoy it as much as you do :messenger_blowing_kiss:
 

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
Visiting Hobbiton in New Zealand is pretty magical if you ever get the chance. Yeah, it’s a movie set, but they picked the right spot, and there’s the tree and the lake from the movie…go see it
I'm actually set to go this year. It should be a great time. Been wanting to go for years.
My mom read it to me and my brother when we were kids, there's no better version than that.
I remember vividly being in the car going to Spain on holidays, my dad driving, my mom singing the elf song that Legolas sang while sending Boromir remains towards the waterfalls. She'd always stop halfway through to prevent herself from crying (unsuccessfully).
There's two things im pretty sure i'll keep with me to the grave, this memory and Sonic up down left right A+START level select code.

That being said, even with my experience i cannot even begin to fathom the degree of autistic love OP has for LOTR, and i love it !
I hope you read it 20 times more and still enjoy it as much as you do :messenger_blowing_kiss:
Your mom sounds like a lovely person
 

Oberstein

Member
As I've gotten older, I've come to enjoy reading the long descriptions of the environments, something that used to be rather constricting to read. I'm more familiar with the vocabulary used, and it's great to see Tolkien's overflowing imagination literally creating a world from start to finish. I couldn't do it, and I tried.

On the other hand, we can't thank Christopher Tolkien enough for giving us The Silmarillion and other "reconstructed" texts, but fortunately he has taken on this ungrateful role. I always enjoy re-reading Turin.

Visiting Hobbiton in New Zealand is pretty magical if you ever get the chance. Yeah, it’s a movie set, but they picked the right spot, and there’s the tree and the lake from the movie…go see it

I'm also planning to go there one of these days... I don't know when, but I'll go sooner or later. I'd also like to go to Switzerland, where Tolkien took his inspiration for Rivendell, the site is incredible.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I only know Lotr from watching the 3 main movies. Only saw bits of one of the hobbit movies. I don’t know if those are even real Tolkien stories or modern day creations. Never knew about the Lotr series or Tolkien before that aside from barely remembering hits of the old movie with actors combined with special effects. It was actually kinda cool.

I know I can google the answer. But for sake of discussion what are some big differences between the books and movies in terms of story?

What are some things the books do better, and what are some the moves do better?

The movies are an odd but well to do combo of killing, realistikish battle scenes but also cheeky stuff like Sam and Frodo, and Legolas and the dwarf ragging on each other or doing comedy bits in fight scenes. Are the books similar or more serious?

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I only know Lotr from watching the 3 main movies. Only saw bits of one of the hobbit movies. I don’t know if those are even real Tolkien stories or modern day creations. Never knew about the Lotr series or Tolkien before that aside from barely remembering hits of the old movie with actors combined with special effects. It was actually kinda cool.

I know I can google the answer. But for sake of discussion what are some big differences between the books and movies in terms of story?

What are some things the books do better, and what are some the moves do better?

The movies are an odd but well to do combo of killing, realistikish battle scenes but also cheeky stuff like Sam and Frodo, and Legolas and the dwarf ragging on each other or doing comedy bits in fight scenes. Are the books similar or more serious?

Cheers!
There are a few key changes. Open spoilers but what do you expect from 20 year movies and 70 year old books.

- There is a 17 year gap between Bilbo's birthday disappearance and Frodo finding out the ring is evil. Frodo stops aging in this time.

- Gandalf warns Frodo not to just disappear. As such he comes up with a plan to sell Bagend and move to the eastern borders of the shire. Sam gets recruited much like he did in the movie, but Merry and Pippin are there to help him move. They reveal they know hes planning on leaving and want to come with him.

- There is an arc they cut out before the hobbits make it to Bree where they go through a creepy forest and saved by a mysterious dude named tom bombadil. They stay at his house. The next day they leave and are captured by undead creatures, tom saves them again and gives him swords made for fighting ringwraiths.

- Council of Elrond is very long. They talk alot about the history of the world.

- Two towers and Return of the King are divided by half. First half is Aragorn and everyones wars. The second half is is Frodo and Sams journey

- Aragorn is not a reluctant leader. In fact he has been waiting a long time for the appointed time to become king so he can marry Arwen

- Ghosts arent autowin in pelennor

- Faramir doesnt try to take Frodo to Gondor

- Frodo doesnt turn on Sam before Shelob's cave.

- Denethor is very different in the book. Still a dick, but not negligent. Hes trying his best but loses hope due to being mislead

- The ending is MUCH longer. The hobbits come home and find out Saruman took pver the Shire. They have to use their newfound talents to raise and army and drive out Sarumans lackeys
 
Last edited:
I don't really have much to say in response to the OP other than Sir Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the movies, was well known for re-reading LOTR annually. We don't know when he started doing this, but he must have read it many times before he passed. He actually met Tolkien as a boy so it's possible he's read it 70-80 times...
 

Oberstein

Member
There are a few key changes.

- The hobbits come home and find out Saruman took pver the Shire. They have to use their newfound talents to raise and army and drive out Sarumans lackeys

This is probably the part of the film I would have really liked to see. I know many will tell you that after the destruction of the Ring, it's anti-climactic, but it shows just how much the Hobbits have evolved and are no longer the same. Not just "survivors" as shown in the trilogy, because this experience has taught them how to defend themselves.

Gimli is also too much of a comic relief, which is not really the case in the books.

Boromir also freaks out the Balrog with his horn.

77w36e1ogha81.jpg
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
- The ending is MUCH longer. The hobbits come home and find out Saruman took pver the Shire. They have to use their newfound talents to raise and army and drive out Sarumans lackeys

For all the pointless. greed fuelled IP squeezing going on with Lord Of The Rings right now thanks to Simon Tolkien's utter fucking mercenary bullshit... I would dearly love to see an entire film made of The Scouring Of The Shire.

The whole concept of a small group of battle weary, combat hardened ordinary folk coming home to face one last enemy, on a much smaller, but still incredibly important scale, is a great story in and of itself.
 

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I don't really have much to say in response to the OP other than Sir Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the movies, was well known for re-reading LOTR annually. We don't know when he started doing this, but he must have read it many times before he passed. He actually met Tolkien as a boy so it's possible he's read it 70-80 times...
Not as a boy. He was already a grown man when he met Tolkien. A WW2 vet in fact.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
What you lose out by not reading the novels, relying on just the films, is mostly the worldbuilding and sense of depth and purpose. There are numerous poems, songs, use of language, and descriptions of things that give a weight and color to Middle-Earth that the films simply can not do. The characterizations are also different in many aspects, the novels have a much more mythic sense of destiny and drive, that this battle has been THOUSANDS OF YEARS in the making, and there is a reason for it all. There are more wild and unexplainable beings in the world and a richer spiritualist side (mostly christian, but also anchoring scandinavian and british lore). Even the core Fellowship differ a lot, the reasons Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, or Sam and Frodo do the things they do have a clarity and focus that the films give up for more "in the moment" emotional beats and themes.

I love the films (Hobbit less so for all it's bloat) but the books are just spectacular, and when you consider them along with the Silmarillion and the TITANS work Christopher did going through all the notes and letters to pull out other stories, it's just astounding. It irks me to no end that we perpetually circle the ring when there is SO MUCH else to consider. Alas the most popular representation of LOTR is well established now so I suspect they would work the rings into anything, even stories set before their creation. Even the visual aesthetic has been etched in stone by Jackson, with the high renaissance level of armor and architecture when I think the intent was an earlier level of that stuff.
 

John Marston

GAF's very own treasure goblin
I've read a lot of good books but 20 re-reads is a Milestone.
I salute your Passion or maybe you're just insane 😆
 

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I've read a lot of good books but 20 re-reads is a Milestone.
I salute your Passion or maybe you're just insane 😆
Lol for what its worth, 10 of those rereads were within the first 5 years. My pace slowed down considerable after.

Oddly enough, I havent read HoME in its entirity. Just snippets I found interesting. Maybe I should
 

Mossybrew

Gold Member
That's a lot of rereads OP. I reread the books several times in my youth, I think about 7 readthroughs, then I had a long 20 years or so where I stopped going back, but recently re-read them again last year. Reading these books always takes me back to the summer of '84 when I first read them when I was 11 - and they just blew my mind, truly a magical experience. It's good to return to that state of mind sometimes.
 

ÆMNE22A!C

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Impressive.

I know my mother owns The Silmarillion so she's based.

Wish I had the calmness to read.
 

ÆMNE22A!C

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
I tried to read this as a teen and just could not get into it. Quit maybe a quarter of the way through and never went back. Maybe should give it another chance someday.

Ah! I clearly remember my mom saying it was (just) a LOT of lore and shit. It was a long time ago.

I did read The Hobbit.

Vague recollection.

I was 9 or something.
 
Last edited:

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
I tried to read this as a teen and just could not get into it. Quit maybe a quarter of the way through and never went back. Maybe should give it another chance someday.
I love the Silmarillion, but I think the biggest problem people have with it is that a lot of peoples haves are similar.

And I think Tolkien did that on purpose. In the Silm family relations are very VERY important, so people with similar names are probably related.

But it can be confusing at first keeping track of people like Finwe, Finarfin, Fingon, Finrod, and Fingolfin.
 
Last edited:

Artoris

Gold Member
This is probably the part of the film I would have really liked to see. I know many will tell you that after the destruction of the Ring, it's anti-climactic, but it shows just how much the Hobbits have evolved and are no longer the same. Not just "survivors" as shown in the trilogy, because this experience has taught them how to defend themselves.

Gimli is also too much of a comic relief, which is not really the case in the books.

Boromir also freaks out the Balrog with his horn.

77w36e1ogha81.jpg
GnW7kLG.jpeg


Aragorn and Arwen
 
Anyone tried the audiobooks? Which one is the best?
I listened to one in the early 2000s, switching back and forth between reading the books. It was fine, but I'd go for the new ones with Andy Serkis reading. He does great dramatic voices for all the characters (not just gollum).
 
I'm currently reading the Silmarillion, after reading The Great Tales (Children of Hurin, Beren and Luthien, Fall of Gondor) and the Fall of Numenor. For anyone interested in reading the Silmarillion, I'd actually recommend reading those other books first. They give more context and desire to delve into what happened leading up to them, and make the Silmarillion less daunting. Now that I've gotten to the point in the Silarillion where those tales are taking place, it is much more exciting and interesting to read them this time around, with all the added context.

I was planning on re-reading the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings over the summer. Now I'm going to extend that plan out until October, so I can grab the 70th Anniversary Deluxe Trilogy with new stuff from Alan Lee. I'll probably read Unfinished Tales next and then perhaps start HOME with the 2 books of Lost Tales.

Three-volume, deluxe slipcased hardback set of The Lord of the Rings, illustrated throughout by acclaimed Tolkien artist, Alan Lee. Features exclusive new paintings and dozens of pencil drawings appearing for the very first time, together with three removable art cards and two foldout maps.

Since it was first published, The Lord of the Rings has been a book people have treasured. Steeped in unrivalled magic and otherworldliness, this work of sweeping fantasy has touched the hearts of young and old alike. Across its many editions, in the region of 100 million copies have been sold around the world. And no edition has proved more popular than the Centenary edition illustrated by award-winning artist, Alan Lee.

Now, for the first time since its publication in 1992, this illustrated edition has been revised and expanded, with a number of brand-new paintings and more than 50 pencil drawings added by the artist.

Readers will be able to follow the complete story of the Hobbits and their part in the quest of the Ring – beginning with Bilbo’s Long-expected Party and culminating in the dramatic climax between Frodo and Gollum atop Mount Doom – while also enjoying more than fifty full-page colour paintings and numerous illustrations which accompany this epic tale.

This new hardback set of this beautifully illustrated work has been bound in cloth and leather and features brand-new cover designs by the artist. The three volumes are housed in a custom-built illustrated slipcase stamped in silver foil with designs created exclusively by Alan Lee and are accompanied by three removable art cards, and two foldout maps of Middle-earth drawn by Christopher Tolkien.

"
PJVf2TL.jpeg
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Three-volume, deluxe slipcased hardback set of The Lord of the Rings, illustrated throughout by acclaimed Tolkien artist, Alan Lee. Features exclusive new paintings and dozens of pencil drawings appearing for the very first time, together with three removable art cards and two foldout maps.

Since it was first published, The Lord of the Rings has been a book people have treasured. Steeped in unrivalled magic and otherworldliness, this work of sweeping fantasy has touched the hearts of young and old alike. Across its many editions, in the region of 100 million copies have been sold around the world. And no edition has proved more popular than the Centenary edition illustrated by award-winning artist, Alan Lee.

Now, for the first time since its publication in 1992, this illustrated edition has been revised and expanded, with a number of brand-new paintings and more than 50 pencil drawings added by the artist.

Readers will be able to follow the complete story of the Hobbits and their part in the quest of the Ring – beginning with Bilbo’s Long-expected Party and culminating in the dramatic climax between Frodo and Gollum atop Mount Doom – while also enjoying more than fifty full-page colour paintings and numerous illustrations which accompany this epic tale.

This new hardback set of this beautifully illustrated work has been bound in cloth and leather and features brand-new cover designs by the artist. The three volumes are housed in a custom-built illustrated slipcase stamped in silver foil with designs created exclusively by Alan Lee and are accompanied by three removable art cards, and two foldout maps of Middle-earth drawn by Christopher Tolkien.


"
PJVf2TL.jpeg
Huh, how the hell did they manage to break LOTR into three volumes each as large as LOTR itself? Must have a larger font or thicker paper. I think i have at least 2 alan lee illustrated LOTR but they are all single volume editions. I'll have to look into these though I'm not sure where I'll put them. My main display Tolkein library has the red, green, blue bound deluxe editions of LOTR, hobbit, and the silmarilion along with all the deluxe slipcase editions of the expanded works, even my secondary backup display library has 2 good copies of LOTR, hobbit, and the Silmarillion. Not to mention the digital library and the third mass market paperback travel library :p
 

Oberstein

Member
What you lose out by not reading the novels, relying on just the films, is mostly the worldbuilding and sense of depth and purpose. There are numerous poems, songs, use of language, and descriptions of things that give a weight and color to Middle-Earth that the films simply can not do. The characterizations are also different in many aspects, the novels have a much more mythic sense of destiny and drive, that this battle has been THOUSANDS OF YEARS in the making, and there is a reason for it all. There are more wild and unexplainable beings in the world and a richer spiritualist side (mostly christian, but also anchoring scandinavian and british lore). Even the core Fellowship differ a lot, the reasons Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, or Sam and Frodo do the things they do have a clarity and focus that the films give up for more "in the moment" emotional beats and themes.

I love the films (Hobbit less so for all it's bloat) but the books are just spectacular, and when you consider them along with the Silmarillion and the TITANS work Christopher did going through all the notes and letters to pull out other stories, it's just astounding. It irks me to no end that we perpetually circle the ring when there is SO MUCH else to consider. Alas the most popular representation of LOTR is well established now so I suspect they would work the rings into anything, even stories set before their creation. Even the visual aesthetic has been etched in stone by Jackson, with the high renaissance level of armor and architecture when I think the intent was an earlier level of that stuff.

Yes, that's my feeling too: Jackson's first trilogy is a real miracle, especially when it came out in 2001, but it misses out on a lot of the substance of Tolkien's lore. That's not a criticism of the films, it's just that the books are teeming with detail and you can't fit them all into one adaptation.

On the other hand, there's such care for the environments, the world-building, the exploration and discovery of new places. No wonder so many artists have immersed themselves in this universe, sometimes making it their sole career goal.

In fact, the aesthetics of Jackson's films can sometimes make you forget that they are, in many cases, inventions, like Sauron's eye at the top of Barad-Dur. It's iconic and cool, but it's not in the books. Besides, there's a Lego set coming out soon, proof that it's made an impression on people.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
I know I can google the answer. But for sake of discussion what are some big differences between the books and movies in terms of story?
Jesus fuck.

This is the most important fantasy book ever written, there is no competition.
It’s like asking what’s the difference between War and Peace the book and the film?

Just read it ffs.

But if you want a short version: one important theme is how the most insignificant people can change the course of history. Hobbits save Middle-Earth. Second: kindness - the party had multiple chances to just kill Gollum while knowing very well he will always desire the Ring. Pity and compassion made them not do so and in the end it was due to Gollum that the One Ring was destroyed.

Tom Bombadil is completely omitted from the movies, this to me is incredibly powerful plot point on so many levels.

Dwarves greed being their downfall is also much more pronounced in the book.

Finally you have the very ending that was never mentioned - how Sam was allowed to go to the West, together with Gimli since Galadriel asked personally for him to be allowed to pass into Valinor.
 
Last edited:

Darkmakaimura

Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
In fact, the aesthetics of Jackson's films can sometimes make you forget that they are, in many cases, inventions, like Sauron's eye at the top of Barad-Dur. It's iconic and cool, but it's not in the books. Besides, there's a Lego set coming out soon, proof that it's made an impression on people.
In the books I think it's just an insignia.

I've heard some adoptions or theories that claim Barad Dur is the actual body of Sauron.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Unfortunately I can't find any paintings he made of balrogs, but here is one he did of Taniquetil and the Halls of Manwe. It's my favorite of his paintings.
It was a joke, I don't think there is one, as the raging ongoing debate of whether or not Balrogs have ACTUAL wings (as in the film) or the "smoke like wings" description was metaphorical.
 
Top Bottom