PDA

View Full Version : Lurtz



Griti
16-12-2009, 18:15
I have been reading through the two first books(not quite finished though with Two Towers), and I began wondering:
Where did the name for the Uruk-Hai leader at Amon-Hen come from? Did Peter jackson come up with it for the film or what? Because I havent seen it mentioned there either?
Please shed some light on this mystery of mine.

Thanks :)

doc_cthulhu
16-12-2009, 18:31
He made that up (at least to my knowledge) as well as a whole lot of stuff in Return of the King.

spacewolf_sven
20-12-2009, 21:27
The way I see it they needed a name for various important orcs/uruk hai for scripting purposes etc and so lurtz among others was born.

Condottiere
20-12-2009, 22:37
Must be the sound the birth bag made as it split open.

jprp
21-03-2014, 22:09
Made up crap like most of the film contents.

The bearded one
26-03-2014, 13:31
Made up crap like most of the film contents.

Lovely cheerful disposition.


The LotR fandom is the only fandom I know to be ranting and raving because it got a trio of high-budget, critically acclaimed, award winning movies. Other fandoms would kill for movies of their quality, but have to do with legitimately terrible ones, or none at all.

Verm1s
27-03-2014, 01:30
Jprp, why are you threadomancing like a maniac?


The LotR fandom is the only fandom I know to be ranting and raving because it got a trio of high-budget, critically acclaimed, award winning movies. Other fandoms would kill for movies of their quality, but have to do with legitimately terrible ones, or none at all.

I'll continue to contend that critical acclaim and awards are the result of Weta and residual Tolkien peeking through 'Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings'. Let's have a trio of high-budget films that's a bit more faithful to the books and see the grumbling die back considerably. (faithful, not as in, 'include every song and spend hours on Tom Bombadil', but as is 'no Lurtz, no dwarf-tossing, no propping up Liv 'woody wooden wood' Tyler's stillborn career, no cheap-ass camera-twirling Watcher effects, no introduction of Treebeard and Faramir as uncaring jerks, no bad-daddy-Elrond subplot shoehorned in, no Legolas sk8er-boi tricks, no green ghosts doing all the work on the Pelennor field, no wargs that look like surly sheep, no over-the-top antics and utter lack of subtlety that is 'Pyjamas' wont, and so on, and so on.)

Nubl0
27-03-2014, 11:04
Did the inclusion of Lurtz really ruin the first film all that much? He's just a big leader for the Uruk scouts, it's not like he changed anything significantly.

Karak Norn Clansman
29-03-2014, 00:40
Lovely cheerful disposition.


The LotR fandom is the only fandom I know to be ranting and raving because it got a trio of high-budget, critically acclaimed, award winning movies. Other fandoms would kill for movies of their quality, but have to do with legitimately terrible ones, or none at all.

Exactly. There are a few things worth critiscising in the movies (particularly the third), but Lurtz isn't one of them. On the contrary, he reinforces the events at Amon Sul. Lurtz works in Lotr.

Verm1s
09-04-2014, 16:31
On the contrary, he reinforces the events at Amon Sul. Lurtz works in Lotr.


He looks influential and then he dies.

He's maybe better suited to the Games of Thrones adaptation than LotR. :evilgrin:

Whitwort Stormbringer
11-04-2014, 21:47
Been a while since I've read the books, but don't most of the events in which Lurtz takes part in the movie happen "off-screen" in the books, and aren't described in much detail?

Admittedly, I'm sure Tolkien didn't intend for Lurtz, or a Lurtz-like character, to be at Amon-Sul, but his inclusion in the movie doesn't change what is written so much so as (somewhat liberally) fills in what isn't written, without ultimately changing the events or outcome of Amon Sul.

In the end, it seems like a silly thing to be hung up on.

cornonthecob
09-06-2014, 09:05
Lurtz is merely a merging of a bunch of redshirts into a superior character who creates a decent antagonist for a film lacking one. A-ok by me.

mdauben
10-06-2014, 17:46
Sorry for responding to a months old post, but there is so little activity in the LOTR section of the forum these days, I don't stop by here much anymore.


I'll continue to contend that critical acclaim and awards are the result of Weta and residual Tolkien peeking through 'Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings'.
I think there are things to legitimately criticize Jackson for in the LOTR trilogy, but not as many as some seem to feel. Many of the changes either had no real impact on the story, or actually made it better as a movie for a modern audience.


'no Lurtz,
This is one of those changes I don't see the problem with. It created an actual character that the audience could focus on as an active, on-screen opponent for the Fellowship and Boromir in particular, and his death created a feeling of catharsis for the audience in association with Boromir's death that could not have been served by just killing a bunch of nameless Uruk-hai extras.


no dwarf-tossing,
Meh. It was a silly little throw away joke, to provide a brief break in the action of the attack on Helms Deep. I could have lived without it but it hardly ruined the scene.


no propping up Liv 'woody wooden wood' Tyler's stillborn career,
I honestly believed that they needed to flesh out Arwen in the movies. While it got little "screen time" in the books, it was Aragon's main motivation and actually a hugely important event on the history of Middle Earth, as it reunited the two branches of the "half-elven" family tree. Plus, as done in the book most modern audiences would have been totally unsatisfied with the minimal screen time the love interest for one of the main characters would have gotten.


no cheap-ass camera-twirling Watcher effects,
Not quite sure what the complaint is here. In the books, the watcher is a mysterious, never fully seen danger that comes upon the Fellowship suddenly and drives then in confusion into the Mines of Moria, taking the decision out of their hands. I thought the film portrayed the confusion and panic of that scene pretty well.


no introduction of Treebeard and Faramir as uncaring jerks,
Again, not sure I fully understand the complaint. While I was not totally satisfied with way Jackson portrayed the whole Ents vs Isenguard subplot, I don't recall being particularly unhappy with Treebeard, or Faramir for that matter. Perhaps I just need to re-watch the movies?


no bad-daddy-Elrond subplot shoehorned in,
In the books, Elrond was not entirely happy about Arwen's romance with Aragorn, as if she chose him, her father and his people would lose her forever when they finally traveled to the Undying Lands. He told them he would not allow them to marry unless Aragorn was able to reclaim the crown, and would not let Arwen forsake her immortal life for anything less than that.


no Legolas sk8er-boi tricks,
Okay, this was a bit OTT, I'll agree. Of course, he's even worse in The Hobbit. :rolleyes:


no green ghosts doing all the work on the Pelennor field,
In the books, the Army of the Dead followed Aragorn to Pelargir and drove off the Corsairs of Umbar (all "off-screen"), allowing Aragon to sail up Anduin and bring reinforcement to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The Army of the Dead was too cool to just leave out, but Jackson felt (rightly I think) that he didn't really have time to set up and stage a whole nother battle at Pelargir just to use them. So he took them to Pelennor, instead of the human host Aragorn brought to break the siege in the book. It seems a reasonable change to make, to me.


no wargs that look like surly sheep,
Yeah, I wasn't too satisfied with the LOTR Wargs, either. One of the few things I thought they did better in The Hobbit.

194663