The Beacon Scene
Was that not the stupidest thing you've ever seen?
shareNope.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Discussion > The Beacon Scene
Had to be the most boring job in history for the ones in those isolated mountain peaks.
"What am I watching for?"
"See that mountain way over there with the structure on top of it like this one? Watch for it to start to burn. Then set fire to this one here."
"Sounds simple enough. How often does it happen?"
"Let's see...It last happened in year 1968 of the Second Age, so about 4500 years ago. No napping on the job!"
Exactly I wonder who they pissed off to end up with that job.
Also it's been established in this universe that you can shoot giant glowing beams into the sky to intimidate your enemies, why couldn't Gondor just invent something like that that signals they are calling for aid?
I always assumed that it was considered a Gondirian army punishment detail.
Screw your commanding officer's wife, spend the next ten years on a freezing mountain top...
So they are trusting people who are being punished to deliver vital information? That sounds a bit risky, if I were one of them I'd be pissed off they stuck me up there in the mountains and I would just not light it.
shareHave you ever been on a mountaintop in winter? It'd have been their only chance to be warm in months!
Which begs the question of why the beacon guys didn't light the whole thing earlier, some freezing windy night...
That’s a very good point another plot hole in this dumpster fire
shareWell no, it's not a dumpster fire of a plot point, beacon lines really existed back in the pre-technology days. The only alternative way of transmitting information across long distances was to send someone on a horse, and the trip from Minas Tirith to Edoras would have taken the fastest rider days or weeks, if he didn't get killed on the way. Now in the book the message was delivered by a guy on a horse (with a red arrow), but well. The beacons were plausible given the level of technology available, and they looked was cool on film.
And just to keep being dull and factual, the beacons probably went decades centuries without being staffed. They probably only sent fuel and men up there when there were fears of a large-scale war, something Gondor couldn't handle without help from Rohan. The guys up there were probably okay with being away from the fighting.
I'd guess that there were always beacon lighters. Gondor was a place of tradition. Denethor wound up nuttier than a fruitcake, but he clearly valued tradition and probably kept the traditional defense going. Soldiers from nearby forts probably just take shifts. You go up for a month, you watch the beacon. It's super-dull. Then, in 3018 (3019?) of the T.A., suddenly it's light-it-up time and you bore your great-grandkids with the story every year at, uh...whatever they do for Christmas in Middle Earth.
shareIt's entirely possible that Denethor had staffed the beacons for most of his reign, I vaguely recall that there was something in the appendicies about his realizing that Sauron was planning a massive war hears ahead of anyone... well, years ahead of the other humans. And that he spent much of his reign preparing Gondor for war.
But since the beacons were only meant to be used if Gondor thought they couldn't handle some enemy themselves, and Gondor was THE superpower of the late 3rd age, well. I'm sure there were earlier Stewards who left the beacons unmanned.
There certainly might have been, yeah.
It's most likely that all defenses were shored up by Denethor, even that last-ditch one. He would have done that kind of thing early on when he wasn't so zany and despairing. He would have readied everything, including the beacons.
Or perhaps they were just forgotten about. Some middle-manager army admin guy is just doing his job, not questioning anything, keeping those beacons primed "just because it's on the books".
Still, Middle Earth is a "since time out of mind" kinda place, and those mythological settings tend to have stuff like ever-vigilant beacon-lighters.
Still, Middle Earth is a "since time out of mind" kinda place, and those mythological settings tend to have stuff like ever-vigilant beacon-lighters.
That's it exactly. Tolkien always said that LotR wasn't a novel, but rather an old-fashioned Romance, after the Medieval fashion. Those weren't "realistic" in the way that geek fans expect fantasy to be today; they existed in their own literary & mythic space, apart from the everyday. share
Also, if Sauraon was threatening to invade my country, hell yeah! I'd volunteer for mountaintop duty!
Beats the hell out of facing a million-orc army, or having the Haradrivm burn your ship under you at sea.
It pays well and you get a free home with a great view!
shareBoring? How about the safest job in Gondor? Die in the mud at Osgiliath < maintain beacons.
shareSending a visual message over a long distance and hoping the guy on the receiving end is watching is stupid? Guess that's the batsignal mothballed then.
shareEverything about it was wrong. The music was wrong, Theoden's "and Rohan will answer" line was wrong, the fact that those guys are just supposed to freeze their asses off in the mountains in the rare chance the beacon will be lit was wrong. That scene sucked.
shareThe Chinese never had this problem when building a wall to keep out the Mongol hoards.
shareIt was clearly established in this universe you could shoot a giant beam into the sky that could be seen over great distances, much easier than the stupid beacon plan. Also deflection means you can’t justify it
shareI can't remember reading anything about communication across Middle Earth like that in the books. Can you provide a source?
shareJust watch the movie it literally happened in the previous scene. I know that wasn’t in the book I’m talking about what was established in the movie
shareThat was Mordor that was “shooting a beam of light into the sky” and were obviously using some arcane black magic to accomplish it. You need to pay attention more before criticizing a movie.
shareWhat are you basing this on? How do you know it requires black magic to shoot a beam of light into the sky, Gandalf did it later in the movie himself
share... because Sauron is a Maiar, or basically a fallen angel who can use magic. Gandalf is also a Maiar who can use holy magic. Gondor didn’t have access to that magic to create any “beams of light.” Your complaint is bogus, as you can see.
shareUhhh except we did see him emit a beam of light please show me evidence from the movie that makes it impossible for anyone other than Sauron to emit a beam of light?
shareWho is “him”? I already explained why Gandalf and Sauron, as magical beings, are able to use their powers to emit light. Gondor is run by the race of men. They are not magical beings. Also even if Gondor could emit a beam of fire into the sky, Rohan would still be 3000 miles away, and they wouldn’t be able to see it. That’s like someone in the US shooting a laser beam into the sky and expecting someone in Venezuela to see it.
The “beam of light” you are talking about was emanating from Minas Morgul, which is run by the Witch King of Angmar (also a magical being) as a means of communication with Sauron’s fortress of Baradur, which is only 60 miles away.
Yet Gandalf was at Minas Tirith when the stupid Beacon scene happened, he easily could have shot a beam of light into the sky. It's quite simple he tells Theoden "If I shoot a beam of light into the sky that means come to our aid". I'm still waiting for proof from the movie that a Beam of light can only be emitted from Mordor, if you have to deflect to the book then you just proved that the movie can't stand on its own.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Please prove the range of Gandalf’s light capabilities with evidence from the film, if you can’t then your premise is dismissed Tiny
shareDo you not understand basic geography? Rohan is 3000 miles away from Gondor. Even if he did shoot it into the sky it’s PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEODEN TO SEE IT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.
sharePlease provide proof of Gandalf’s range of light capabilities from the film, until you can your premise has no basis
shareAlso where in the film does it say they are 3000 miles away? If you have to deflect to the book or other references to keep your pathetic excuse of an argument above water then you just proved the film can’t stand on its own
shareHow close does the movie say they are?
shareThe movie says they’re 400 miles from Gondor (3 days ride). That is too far to see a beam of light. You lose.
shareIf you shot a light beam into the air, how far away would it be visible?
shareProbably 100 miles at most.
shareI'm not challenging you here, but how do you know that? I'm curious about the science of it. Is there research or a study or something? I started snooping around, but there's a lot to account for with distance, eyesight, light beams, and the curvature of the earth and stuff like that. Do you have any of those numbers?
share"From a tall building on a clear day, you can see mountains as far away as about 100 miles."
https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/03_25_96_1.pdf
Thanks, man!
shareYou said 3000 miles genius so which is it? Also how do you know it impossible to create a beam of light that can’t be seen over that distance in this universe? I feel like I’m talking to a 3 year old
shareCurvature of the planet, perhaps? Unless, by some chance you're suggesting Middle-Earth, and our own planet, are FLAT, MCU497?
Please show me evidence of the diameter of Middle Earth from the movie. Also strawman I never said Middle Earth was flat. If Middle Earth is a giant planet, far bigger than the Earth then curvature wouldn't be too much of a factor. Also where are we getting this 3000 mile number from?
share"Please show me evidence of the diameter of Middle Earth from the movie."
I have no idea what the diameter of Middle-Earth is, only Tolkien knew that, if he considered such information pertinent.
"Also strawman I never said Middle Earth was flat."
Sorry about that. But assuming that Middle-Earth is on a globe (Tolkien wasn't very clear about that from what I remember) then given a long enough distance, even a very high beam of light will not be visible. That's why there's so many of those beacons that are lit, they're only visible up to a certain distance, especially in the day. And the film showed it going from dusk to dawn during the beacon sequence, so it took hours.
"If Middle Earth is a giant planet, far bigger than the Earth then curvature wouldn't be too much of a factor."
Nah, Tolkien would've made it about the same size as our Earth, his mythology was meant to reflect our world, after all.
"Also where are we getting this 3000 mile number from?"
I think they were talking in leagues, which are not miles, and I don't recall why 3000, myself. I didn't mention that amount.
First of all a lot of this is speculation, secondly if you have to deflect to sources outside of the movie that's proof the movie can't stand on its own and is therefore a pile of garbage. Thank you for proving my point.
share"if you have to deflect to sources outside of the movie that's proof the movie can't stand on its own and is therefore a pile of garbage."
Why? Many, many movies are like this. Does that make them "garbage" too?
What movies are you referring to? And yes if the movie can't stand on its own, if you have to read a book in order for the movie to make sense that is a HUGE problem. Trust me kid, this is far from the only problem the LOTR movie has.
shareIn your opinion. Many millions of people think otherwise.
Physics in the books and films seem pretty Earth-like. I think Occam's Razor would suggest that Arda is about the same size as Earth.
shareStill baseless speculation also if you have to deflect to the book you are proving my point that the movie can't stand on its own.
shareI didn't deflect to the book:
"Physics in the books AND FILMS..."
How's this: everything in the movie is proportional to itself, so we know that the horizon line relative to a beam of light shooting in to the air would be similar to a like-sized beam of light over the horizon on Earth. You can tell just by looking.
None of this is to prove your point or the other guys' points, by the way. I'm just saying that there is no reason to suppose that Arda is anything but Earth-sized.
But is there a reason to suppose it is Earth size? (watch what you say BTW, you can only site the theatrical cut of the movie)
shareYou're trying too hard to hate this movie. I assume it's Earth-sized for the same reason I assume Bruce Wayne could make it from wherever he was back to Gotham in The Dark Knight Rises.
shareFalse comparison: It was clearly established in the first movie Bruce had the capabilities to move around the globe, the size of Arda was never established in the movie (Maybe it was in the appendices of ROTK but that's not the movie that's the book, if you have to deflect to the book then you've already lost)
shareYou can tell it's the same size because the gravity affects the human-sized people the same. They don't float or leap (slowly) greater-than-human distances, nor are they hampered by excessive gravity. If it's not Earth-sized, it's close.
share"It was clearly established in the first movie Bruce had the capabilities to move around the globe,"
"if you have to deflect to sources outside of the movie that's proof the movie can't stand on its own and is therefore a pile of garbage."
So you agree that TDKR is a pile of Garbage then.
No because Batman Begins is part of the same series as TDKR and is in the same continuity, in the context of the lord of the ring movie the book is not canon. Same thing with the Hobbit movie we didn’t need an explanation as to who Sauron was because LOTR explains it and it’s in the same continuity
Edit: also Alfred alluded to Bruce’s travels during those 7 years in TDKR so it’s a non issue
Behold, the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.
sharePlease come back when you learn how to appropriately cite fallacies (and actually know how to recognize them)
shareWikipedia: "No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample."
Your 'universal generalization':
"if you have to deflect to sources outside of the movie that's proof the movie can't stand on its own and is therefore a pile of garbage."
The counter example:
"It was clearly established in the first movie Bruce had the capabilities to move around the globe,"
You changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample:
"No because Batman Begins is part of the same series as TDKR and is in the same continuity, in the context of the lord of the ring movie the book is not canon. Same thing with the Hobbit movie we didn’t need an explanation as to who Sauron was because LOTR explains it and it’s in the same continuity"
We're not talking about the books, nor about The Hobbit.
Both movies are in the same franchise genius, and besides I don't even need to appeal to the first movie because Alfred alluded to Bruce's travels in TDKR. Better luck next time.
share"I don't even need to appeal to the first movie "
You just did.
Irrelevant, his ability to travel around the world was established in the third movie, you are arguing something that doesn’t even matter
shareYet here you are, arguing over Gandalf's non-use of sending a beam of light as a signal. Something that doesn't even matter when there's a row of beacons which are actually shown to be used for their intended purpose.
shareFirst of all i never once said he could have shot a beam into the sky, I said the Beacon was a dumb idea considering there were so many avenues for failure and they never even considered anything else(beam of light is a logical avenue to consider regardless of whether it’s feasible or not) that’s why I don’t complain about Moria because they did consider other options and Moria was the least bad. Please pay attention next time and take your ADD medicine
shareSpot the difference...
"First of all i never once said he could have shot a beam into the sky, "
"How do you know it requires black magic to shoot a beam of light into the sky, Gandalf did it later in the movie himself"
And this isn't the first time you claimed not to have said this.
Kid the quote you just cited doesn’t say that I said a beam of light was possible, I was asking how you knew it was not possible, since the claim by you was it wasn’t possible. You are really bad at this. You are also referring to two different beams: in the first quote I was speaking hypothetically and was referring to the possibility that maybe Gandalf could have shot a beam into the sky that Rohan would see (whether that’s possible or not is irrelevant) in the second quote I was referring to the beam he used to save Faramir from the Nazgul, since he clearly can emit beams I think it’s ridiculous they never considered using this to alert Rohan regardless of whether it would have worked or not
shareLet me help you out with this dense individual. Errors are only dismissed if they are in TDKR. He will create his own logic to try his best to create a plot hole that isn't even there in other films so that he can make TDKR look better. The reason he dislikes LOTR movie trilogy is because it ranks higher than TDK trilogy. That is why he wants to disqualify it as a trilogy. He always claims TDKR stands on its own, but then will always deflect to rebuking criticism by pointing to Batman Begins. If it is standalone you should not need to see Batman Begins in order to get it. Not all films need to be standalone it is just he is hypocritical.
shareIt was a typo genius. They said 300 miles as explained in the film. You can’t see a beam of light from that distance obviously, otherwise everyone in Rohan would have seen the one Mordor shot into the sky. You know, because there’s MOUNTAINS AND STUFF IN THE WAY. I feel like I’m talking to a two year old.
shareWell it's not what you said dingleberry, maybe you should try proof reading your posts before embarrassing yourself.
I'll ask again: What is the range of visibility of Gandalf's light? Please provide evidence from the film.
You need to also proofread your posts, you initiated an entire argument based on your own miscomprehension.
What is the range of visibility of Gandalf's light? Please provide evidence from the film.
The range of visibility is only a few hundred yards at most. As evidenced when he uses his staff. Next question. share
Whay are you basing this on please provide evidence from the movie thank you. What argument did I present? All I asked was that you defend your own argument kiddo
shareThe scene in Fellowship and Return when he uses his staff to emit light.
shareHow do you know that’s the maximum distance?
shareHow do you know it’s not the maximum distance?
shareI never said it wasn't
Also logical fallacy alert: Attempting to shift your burden of proof
So you’re fine with it being the maximum distance then. Good.
Also the burden of proof was always on you. You’re the one making the assertion.
Strawman, I didn't say that.
Please show me where I said that wasn't the maximum distance????
You just agreed it’s the maximum distance.
After you claimed it wasn’t.
Good day sir.
Please show me where I said that? FYI in case you aren't smart enough to understand basic logic: Just because I don't assert that it's not the maximum distance doesn't mean that I am conceding that it is the maximum distance, based on what we see in the movie no one is in a position to know either way but you are claiming it was the maximum distance therefore you have a burden of proof.
Just like how if we both see a big jar full of coins and you say that it is an even number and I say I don't believe you that doesn't mean I believe it's odd, it means that I don't think you can honestly assert that it's even.
Geez you're dumb.
Please show me where I said that?
You assertained that it's not the maximum distance. Please show me proof of it not being the maximum distance.
but you are claiming it was the maximum distance therefore you have a burden of proof.
I do not have to prove any thing, as I am not making any assertion. I am merely going by what the movie's logic dictates, and that Gandalf can only shine a light a maximum of a few hundred yards at most.
it means that I don't think you can honestly assert that it's even.
Except in this case the jar of coins has a sign on it with the exact number, and it's an even number.
Geez you're dumb
Dumb enough to continually annihilate you. share
- I never asserted that wasn't the maximum distance, I didn't believe you when you said it was, there's a difference dingleberry.
- Then you are making baseless speculations and assumptions and they do not contribute to this discussion in a positive manner, if you are trolling me I'd appreciate it if you would take it elsewhere.
- There isn't a sign, I never said there was, you are just making stuff up.
- Whatever you have to tell yourself to be able to sleep at night
FYI having multiple accounts is cowardly and I am pretty sure is a violation of group rules, maybe we should bring a moderator in and get his opinion?????
I never asserted that wasn't the maximum distance, I didn't believe you when you said it was
That means the same thing dingbat.
Then you are making baseless speculations and assumptions and they do not contribute to this discussion in a positive manner
Yes, yes you are. So far you have failed to provide any evidence or proof of your claims. Unlike me.
There isn't a sign, I never said there was, you are just making stuff up
How can you not make up what was made up to begin with?
FYI having multiple accounts is cowardly and I am pretty sure is a violation of group rules, maybe we should bring a moderator in and get his opinion?????
This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Stop deflecting. share
No it isn't you nitwit, I can not accept your claim if I don't think you have a good justification behind it, that doesn't mean I am claiming that your claim is wrong, this is basic logic 101 kid. Again if you claim there is an even number of coins in the jar and I say I don't believe you that doesn't mean I am saying it's an odd number.
I never even made a claim in this matter numb nuts, all I did was ask you to back up yours which you have failed to do.
In the scenario I was referring to there was no way to know the exact number of coins, the point was you just looked at it and said it was even, if I don't believe you that doesn't mean I am saying it's odd, you are the one inventing this alleged sign. Yes if there was a sign then there'd be a reason to believe that it's even but there isn't, all you see is the jar.
You are a coward for having multiple accounts. Do you ever have conversations with yourself to make it seem like other people agree with you?
No it isn't you nitwit
Yet it is witnit. I said, as evidenced by the film, it would be the maximum distance. You said that it's not the maximum distance in the form of a question. "How do you know it's the maxiumum" all I did was ask you to back up yours which you have failed to do.
I never made any "claim." I merely described what happens in the movie.
Yes if there was a sign then there'd be a reason to believe that it's even but there isn't, all you see is the jar.
Except in the scenario the guy already put a sign on the jar saying the total number. This man was Peter Jackson.
You are a coward for having multiple accounts.
Why is that being a coward? share
You still haven't proven that he isn't capable of extending the light any further, again all you are doing is guessing and making stuff up, I am dismissing this point, you lose, sorry kid.
OK if the guy didn't put a sign indicating the number of coins and all we had to go by was looking at the jar if you said it was even and I said I don't believe you am I saying that it's odd?
Because this means you can spout off the same nonsense three times and make it seem like 3 different people believe it. You are a coward.
You still haven't proven that he isn't capable of extending the light any further,
The proof is in those scenes. Anyway, even if he could, then Theoden still couldn't see it. Besides, you still haven't proven that he can extend it further. You're the one who made the first claim. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim first. Anyway, I'm still not sure what your argument is. When you say "extend" do you mean make the light brighter? Because that wouldn't really do anything. If I live in Colorado and someone shines a bright light in New Mexico I still wouldn't be able to see it. Do you mean for Gandalf to do what Minas Morgul did and launch a pillar of fire into the air? Gandalf only has his staff and I doubt it's capable of doing that. And even then, the pillar of fire from Minas Morgul was only extending a few hundred meters into the air. Theoden still couldn't see it. You lose.
spout off the same nonsense three times and make it seem like 3 different people believe it.
WHy is that cowardly? share
Prove to me that he extended his light to its maximum capability in that scene, if you can't then you're just talking out of your anus.
I'll say this again: I NEVER CLAIMED HE COULD EXTEND IT FURTHER!!! THAT IS NOT MY PREMISE!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH YOU NUMBSKULL??? My premise is that he relied on the Beacons (which was a really dumb plan) immediately.
Because you are inflating your own opinion, it's like someone who votes for President three times.
Prove to me that he extended his light to its maximum capability in that scene
What do you mean extend? You mean shine brighter? If he did it would probably blind everyone permanently. Theoden still wouldn't be able to see it.
I NEVER CLAIMED HE COULD EXTEND IT FURTHER!!! THAT IS NOT MY PREMISE!!!
Don't play stupid, it clearly is. But if you're backpeddling already, then what is your premise?
Because you are inflating your own opinion
How am I inflating my own opinon? Everyone knows I'm the same guy. share
Prove to me that was the brightest and the furthest his light was capable of shining, if you can't then you have nothing kid.
Show me where I said that was not the fullest extent of his light, I'll wait.
So everyone on this forum knows you have three accounts? Please show me confirmation from every single movie chat user. I'll wait.
Prove to me that was the brightest and the furthest his light was capable of shiningAgain, what do you mean by "further"? Do you mean brither? Or doy ou mean the pillar of fire thing?
Show me where I said that was not the fullest extent of his light, I'll wait.Saying you don't believe it's the fullest extent is the same as saying it's not.
So everyone on this forum knows you have three accounts?Yes because everyone can clearly see I have been using the same name. share
Prove to me he could not have extended the light to Rohan and don't engage in assumptions or speculation.
No it isn't genius, I can not accept your premise because I don't think you have a justification for it without asserting that it's wrong, I do not believe that there is a giant oil deposit under my house but that does not mean that I am claiming there isn't a giant oil deposit under my house, that just means that I don't see a logical reason to believe there is.Even my 4 year old niece understands this, it's quite odd that I have to talk to someone who apparently is smart enough to operate a computer kindergarten logic but here we are.
Are you going to prove that everyone knows you have three accounts or are you ready to admit defeat on this one?
I'm going to continue the convo further down as there's no more room on this threaed.
shareGandalf didn't work for Gondor, you nitwit! And Sauron worked against them!
Gondor didn't have anyone on staff who could use magic. The beacon system was set up by two groups of humans who had neither advanced technology nor magic at their disposal. It would have worked well enough, as I said beacon lines existed in the past and they worked,
Only of course, in reality they would have worked rather slower. In the movie we see every beacon going up one second after the previous one, in real life some beacons wouldn't be lit until one lookout woke up from his nap, and the next got back from the outhouse, and the next managed to get the wood to catch fire after the last night's snowfall...
I already explained this before he left all he had to say was “Theoden if I need you to come aid Gondor I’ll shoot a beam of light into the sky” that would have been a hell of a lot easier
shareAs I recall, the wizards in Middle-Earth never used their magic UNLESS THEY ABSOLUTELY HAD TO, so this explains why Gandalf was fighting with swords like the others instead of blasting magical curse after curse from his staff, which, to be honest, would've looked silly. Besides, he was giving Men a chance to prove themselves with absolutely no intervention on his part.
I dread to think of what you will think of the Eagles at the climax, you'll no doubt throw a wobbly over that as well.
So it's not absolutely necessary to use his magic to call for aid when Mordor is about to wipe out the city of Minas Tirith?
shareI don't know how the wizards of Middle-Earth operated, and even Gandalf was forbidden from doing certain things by his superior, Saruman, earlier in the movies. Even after Gandalf was "promoted" to White Wizard, taking Saruman's place, there were probably still restrictions.
I just like to think of it as Gandalf trusting in Men to do the right thing for themselves, in spite of themselves in some cases (Denethor probably forbidding the lighting of the first beacon, but Gandalf doing it with the help of Pippin anyway).
Now you’re just speculating
shareClaiming a beam of light sent from Minias Tirith is visible in Edoras is speculating.
shareDid I say that? Pretty sure I didn't. I said it was dumb that they never considered any other option other than the Beacon option which had a very small chance of success from the getgo. I also don't appreciate the strawman.
shareThe whole quest had barely a chance, they're constantly forced to take the best, implausible option (Moria, for instance). So, it's almost thematic at that point.
Perhaps it was not your intention to state or imply that a light beam would be visible at that distance, but from what I can tell reading the conversation, it seems like you were making that statement. I'm not accusing you or arguing, just for the record, but I don't think this is strawmanning in the sense that it seems like that was what your statement was.
That wasn't my premise, I never said that a beam of light was possible, I said it was dumb they didn't consider a beam of light or any other alternative because A) Beams of light are clearly possible in this universe and B) The Beacon plan had so many avenues for failure. I never said a beam of light was possible.
I get that they went with a plan that had a small probability of success by going to Moria but there was a discussion where they contemplated other ideas, Moria was the least bad and going through Moria had consequences (Gandalf dying)
I'm not saying it was your premise, but I understand why a reading of your early messages would give that impression. I was trying to defuse some of the tension of the argument and, hopefully, steer it towards an amicable conclusion; I was at least hoping to provide some forward momentum so it wasn't this continuous feedback loop that it has become.
I disagree with you on the beacon stuff in general, but I'm not going to debate that here. My sole purpose of the comment was to hopefully maybe clarify why ProgsReturn, Foebane, Otter, the Eberts (et al.) seem to think you did say that. I'm saying that a reading of those messages suggests that.
Perhaps re-stating your original position and getting off the beam of light thing would open up new areas of conversation?
It’s bizarre they would think that considering I never said that.
shareRegardless, if you want the conversation to advance in a meaningful way, I would suggest changing tack.
shareWell he hadn't pre-arranged the signal with Theooden, whoop! And it was far faster to use the beacons, than to send a guy on a horse to set up the signal.
Plus, while we see Gandalf produce very bright light and fireworks we never see him produce a column of light that can be seen from hundreds of miles away, lplus atmospheric conditions were getting bad and nothing could be seen over that distance, and THERE WAS A HUGE MOUNTAIN RANGE BETWEEN MINIAS TIRITH AND EDORAS. For Gandalf to make a signal in Minas Tirith that could be seen in Edoras, it'd have had to reach to the moon, and see above. We never saw any evidence he could do that.
He could have prearranged it because he knew there was a good chance Gondor would need aid, so basically Gandalf and Theoden were stupid
shareThey are NOT stupid, in both the book and the movie the messages got through in time, and Minas Tirith was saved. There's really no point in bitching about alternate methods of doing the same thing, as we have no idea whether Gandalf could have produced a light signal that could have been seen over a mountain range, with the atmospheric conditions at the time.
FYI in the book, Denethor officially summoned the Rohirrim with no beacons or signal, but it took Theoden so long to summon his vassals from the open grasslands that it seemed impossible for the Riders of Rohan to arrive in time to save the city.
And in the movie, the beacon was *better* than that hypothetical beam of light for practical reasons... the people of Minas Tirith were terrified and morale was low, they'd know what the beacons meant but not the beam of light! They could see the beacon and knew it meant that help was on the way, and that their leader had done something sane and it would have made them think that maybe staying to fight for the city wasn't futile. But a strange, supernatural beam of light that reached all the way to the moon? They would have panicked at the sight, they wouldn't have known it came from Gandalf or that it meant help was on the way, for all they knew it meant that Sauron's minions had killed Denethor and had taken over the Citadel, and they'd better flee while they could.
They were stupid, the Beacon plan had so many chances of failure because if one person failed to light their fire, or if lets say they used the oil to burn earlier so they wouldn't freeze to death then Theoden would never have known that Gondor needed aid. I'm not even saying the beam of light was plausible I'm saying that it's dumb that in a universe where a beam of light is possible they didn't even bother exploring other options.
shareWe don't know what a beam of light was possible FOR GANDALF. All we ever saw from him were fireworks, stafflights, and a bright Nazgul-repelling flash. For all we know, making a bright beam of light that can be seen over a n intervening mountain range, requires the use of a pet volcano - which Gandalf definitely didn't have.
Give it up! I know infinitely more about Middle Earth than you do - you don't even know where the mountain ranges are and how they'd affect the kind of light signals you won't shut up about.
OK for the last time: I never claimed that the beam of light was a legitimate alternative, I said it was dumb to completely pin all of their hopes to the Beacons when there are so many pathways to failure. I said it was dumb they didn't even bother considering other ways to alert Theoden especially considering in this universe it is possible to emit giant beams of light into the sky.
shareMaybe they did consider other things, but just didn't show it on film. It wouldn't have been very exciting if they brought in a scene in that point in the story where the gang sat around debating the best way to alert Rohan:
Gandalf: I'm for lighting the beacons that were designed ages ago for such a purpose.
Denethor: Poppycock! I don't want no beacons lit. Theodan sucks ballz!
Faramir: Maybe you can shoot a neato beam of light in the sky, in case the beaconers are asleep or not around.
Pippin: Or how bouts if you throw your voice all the way to Rohan and say "Theodan, get over here now!" We know you can throw your voice cuz that's how you tricked those trolls into turning into stone before.
Gondor passerby: I gots some pigeons you can use. You can tie a message on their leg and send it over.
Gandalf: Hmmmm….Let's go over those options once more, and then we can vote on the best way...
Actually it would have made the Beacon scene more meaningful if we knew for a fact that had to be the way to do it. Also if there is no evidence of such discussion you don't get to deflect to it and use it as an excuse for poor writing.
shareI don't think the method of how Rohan got the message was the point of the scene. I believe it had to do with what would Theodan do? Would he honor age old pacts, or would he ignore them and think only of Rohan, the rest of the world be damned.
shareOh I get the point of the scene, it was just poorly written and poorly executed and it makes the characters look stupid
sharePlus...
GANDALF: You already sent the red arrow, what else do you need!
You don't know that Gandalf didn't consider other alternatives, you only know the beacons worked.
shareIf it's not in the film then you're just guessing
shareOh, right, someone who has no idea what Gandalf's capabilities really are, suddenly has a problem with "just guessing"!
shareThe movie never told us Gandalf's capabilities, I know the book goes into more detail but I'm talking about the movie genius. The point was they automatically relied on only the Beacons and the Beacons had a very small chance of success.
shareAlso "him" is Gandalf, learn how to read kid.
shareLearn to read yourself, I never even said that Gandalf couldn’t use magic. In fact I said the opposite.
shareYou have failed to demonstrate your premise I am dismissing your case
share[deleted]
Naw that means that you have stopped arguing all together and you didn’t even give me anything to debunk in your last post. Clearly you’ve been boxed into a corner and therefore the logical course of action is to dismiss your case, better luck next time son
shareWow the projection is strong with you. I literally replied to and debunked all your points in my comment above. Stop running away like a coward kid.
shareThe post I am referring to contained a strawman and nothing else of any substance that is a concession, not that I blame you. Do your homework next time and it’s probably past your bedtime kiddo
shareI’m not sure you even know what a strawman is. Would be funny to see you try and explain how. Now stick to the main points and stop deflecting like a little p-ssy.
shareYour pathetic attempts at personal insults and your deflections are dismissed. Your concession remains noted
Edit: you asking me to explain to you what a strawman is just shows how in over your head you are, just give it up while you still have a chance kid
You’re claiming a strawman where there wasn’t one. That is deflection. You stopped arguing the point long ago. Why don’t you get back on topic instead of veering off into a tangent. You can’t even explain where the “strawman” was. You obviously have no clue what it means.
shareHe strawmaned me when he said that I said that he said Gandalf couldn’t use magic, I never asserted that so yes it was a strawman, I am willing to discuss the facts but when you stop posting anything on topic and instead choose to go with middle school level insults I will quit taking you seriously . Obviously you have no clue what your talking about
shareI think it's also worth considering *why* Gandalf uses his magic. Gandalf was sent as a beacon himself, in a way, to inspire the peoples of Middle Earth (and Arda) to stand up and fulfill their potential. He likely would have considered it more valuable to spark bravery in Pippin as it was to rally the troops. Either way the message is sent, but in one path he fulfills his mission to ignite - not simply beacons of fire - but fire within.
I'm also unclear: is this about the ray of light shot from Gandalf's staff while riding against the Nazgul? Because that beam wasn't a cloud-piercing laser, it was lumination that traveled for a few hundred metres and seemed diffused to me. From far away, it would likely just look like a really sunny patch in the distance.
Yes that is what I’m referring to and your rebuttal is beside the point, In this universe it is clearly possibly to emit bright beams of light that can be seen over great distances seems a lot easier than that beacon nonsense
shareNo attempt at rebuttal, I just wanted clarification on what was being discussed.
shareExcept only a wizard can emit such a beam, yet anyone can build a line of beacons. Also, the smoke from the fire will be far easier to spot on a clear day.
shareAgain what are you basing this on? Why does it require magic to emit a beam of light?
share????
When did Gandalf "shoot a beam of light into the sky" like Minas Morgul?
First show me where I said he did. I said considering what we've seen it doesn't seem too far out of reason that Gandalf could have done it.
share"[–] MovieChatUser497 (5112) a day ago
What are you basing this on? How do you know it requires black magic to shoot a beam of light into the sky, Gandalf did it later in the movie himself
reply share ignore"
Full post quoted as requested.
hordes
It was a stirring, great, scene.
shareI thought so, too. It was a great way to show the connection between Gondor and Rohan being literally rekindled as the beacons light up. It also built anticipation like crazy: ooh! Now they'll team up! It sets up the "cavalry" moments later in the film, so the payoff is juicier. Finally, it's a neat addition to Pippin's storyline and gives him something kinda heroic to do. Plus it showcases Gandalf mentoring Pippin into being a bit braver than he once was. Gandalf's role in the story is as an inspiration to the mortals around him, and this illustrates that in a dramatic way.
share2 girls, 1 cup
shareProve to me he could not have extended the light to Rohan and don't engage in assumptions or speculation.Wat do you mean "extend the light to Rohan"? That doesn't make any sense.
I do not believe that there is a giant oil deposit under my house but that does not mean that I am claiming there isn't a giant oil deposit under my houseThat literally means the same thing. Not believing in something is the same as claiming it isn't true.
Are you going to prove that everyone knows you have three accounts or are you ready to admit defeat on this one?I already have. Anyone can see I have been using the same name. It's only you who's too stupid to realize. share
Shined the light so Rohan could see it numbskull
No it doesn't, seriously this isn't hard. Not believing a claim is not the same as asserting the claim is wrong. I don't believe you have a good reason to say there is an even number of coins so I don't believe that there is an even number of coins in the jar, I am not saying that it's odd, I don't know if it's even or odd nor am I in any position to make an educated prediction. Same thing with the oil deposit, I don't think there is a justification to say there is a crapload of oil under my house but I'm also not in a position to say there isn't as I have not fully examined the geologic structures beneath me, but if there person saying there is oil (or that there is an even number of coins) hasn't met their burden of proof then it's logical to not believe the claim (that's not saying the claim is wrong). Am I getting through this time? I am really starting to think you are trolling me.
This is your last chance to prove everyone knows you have three accounts, or else the topic is going to be tabled until you can provide proof.
Shined the light so Rohan could see it numbskull
And what do you mean by shine the light so Rohan could see it? You mean the pillar of fire or do you mean like creating a light as bright as the sun?
Not believing a claim is not the same as asserting the claim is wrong.
Yes it is, if you say "I don't believe in God," then it's the same as saying God doesn't exist.
This is your last chance to prove everyone knows you have three accounts, or else the topic is going to be tabled until you can provide proof.
The proof is that I've been using the same name. share
Emitted a light that could be seen from Rohan
No it’s not kid, it’s a neutral position , if neither side has proven their assertions then it’s logical to say “I don’t know”
Premise dismissed
[deleted]
Not my burden of proof, it's your burden of proof to prove he couldn't see anything Gandalf nor anyone else could emit
Believe means to accept something as true (it doesn't mean to claim to have full absolute certainty), if you don't accept something as true then you don't believe it. Just like how I don't accept God as true nor your premise but I can't prove that God doesn't exist, I also don't have to prove he doesn't exist because I never accepted that burden of proof. If you were to say that you know for a fact that Joe Biden is going to win tonight I would logically say I don't believe you because you cannot possibly know for a fact unless you can see the future, that doesn't mean I am asserting that the President is going to win. (I personally don't know who I think is going to win, the polls say one thing but history says something else so therefore I don't feel I am in a position to make an honest prediction). By your logic is someone asked me "do you think Joe Biden is going to win" and I said "I don't know" that would mean I think the President is going to win, but then a minute later someone else could come up to me and say "do you think the President is going to win" and I would again say "I don't know" and by your logic that would mean I just asserted Biden is going to win, your own logic contradicts itself. Are you mentally challenged? That isn't meant to be a put down it's a serious question because if you are that means I need to lay off because that would make me a bully.
LOL you lost that one a long time ago when you refused to provide proof for the claim you asserted.
[deleted]
Show me what claim I made?
No if you so believe something you simply don’t accept it, it’s not the claim that it’s false. Again I have proven your logic is by its own nature contradictory. If something hasn’t been demonstrated it’s logical to not believe it but it could still be true.
A statement you can’t back up, sorry your own logic bites you in the ass kid but that’s no ones fault but yours. Also who is “Shelton”?
Edit: how could everyone possibly know you are the same person on all three accounts? Your first post on this one was by your own accounts posting history today
[deleted]
No I said it hadn’t been proven that he couldn’t emit a light Rohan could see, strawman on your part.
No it means you don’t think the person making the claim has proven it. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
Then it should be pretty easy to demonstrate which you haven’t
[deleted]
I don't see the problem. I know the idea of magical searchlights has been suggested and the difficult nature of maintaining watch on these remote mountain tops as well, but... Historically this sort of thing was used, the movie exaggerates the scale of everything but what we see seems reasonable in the context of the film version of high fantasy. We know this would work. I mean,your tough luck if you happen to be one of the guys who get the highly honorable and perhaps much respected job of freezing your balls off waiting to do something that may never be needed. Reminds me of the Watchers in GOT, but that is a modern, cynical view.
In the world of LOTR we can see in the films that magic is not common. There are just a few palantir, which could serve as long distance communication. Nothing else like that is seen to exist. This is not a world where anyone could expect to have a powerful magic user on hand when the need arises. So they prepared the beacon system, knowledge of which was apparently widespread enough that it could serve to call many various groups of isolated people... People who might not have been notified if, say Gandalf had told someone "Hey, remember that treaty you guys have and the beacon system? Well, forget that, just come if you see a bright shaft of light."
Also, I do have greater confidence that a line of beacons on mountains 50 of 60 miles apart will be seen eight beacons distant (400 miles) than a magical bat signal from the same distance.
What are they supposed to do if one of the Beacon's lost their oil or froze to death?
shareWell, then they would be shit outta luck and some scions of noble families will probably lose their honor for letting it happen. I'm willing to assume that trustworthy people are in charge of important things.
I suppose they could just rely on having one of Middle Earths far from reliable wizards turn up to do the job, but I'm guessing they would take pains to keep the system working.
I'm thinking the same people who oversee the beacons being tended and ready to go are probably the same army administrators who make sure the trebuchets aren't rotting or rusting, their ropes are oiled and ready to fling, and there are boulders nearby for ammunition.
shareWe really can't know. I sorta thought that the beacons might be entrusted to second sons of noble families and treated as a sort of honorable responsibility. A task of almost religious significance as it would have to be reliably carried out for generations.
Ultimately, though, we have lots of tasks that we have to assume are carried out with some care over long periods. You sure found one with the big-ass artillery, that would only be needed about as often as the beacons, but there are probably a lot of things like that. Do they really open and close the city gates every day when threats are distant? Cuz, that's another thing that would require maintenance for all the gears and chains. And are the pitch barrels full? Did the quartermaster or ordinance officer or whoever make sure there were enough arrows stocked on the parapets? Is the city properly supplied with food for a siege?
Right on the money. It's a little strange of the O.P. to say that a film is flawed because a defense mechanism worked.
Now, of course it would be possible (and really fun!) to tell a story about a kingdom getting invaded long after they've gotten slack in their maintenance of their defenses. Imagine seeing them load up a catapult and the rope has stretched out: it won't hold the weapon down any more. That'd be fun, but it's not this movie, book, or story.
You're right on the money.