|
|
Post by Michael O'Brien on May 19, 2008 12:53:32 GMT
"Gildor is perfectly correct, in that I am very reluctant to make Sauron in his forms as Necromancer and Dark-lord. By this stage he is incorporeal in any meaningful sense, a terrible and malignant spirit , too awful to set eyes on. I really cannot do justice to that." by Chris Tubb.
Thanks Chris for your assistance in the vote this month. I wish to apologise to all members for the delay in voting, but due to unforseen circumstances I was unable to start the vote until today (or send the newsletter out).
Again all members have one vote, and the vote is blind. As soon as you vote you will see the current results. You will NOT be able to retract your vote so choose carefully. The vote ends on Monday 26th at around 15.53 GMT.
The 2nd round will be open and will start on Tuesday 27th of May. It will run into the first week of June as I am on holiday then. More info will be available on the 27th.
Remember you can submit sketches or photos to support your ideas at any time as well. Just email them to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theobald on May 19, 2008 14:53:14 GMT
I really do like this way of voting by now. To me it seems to be a very positive development.
|
|
|
|
Post by aelfwine on May 19, 2008 15:25:57 GMT
I approve too!
I did, of course, vote for my suggestion, the Shield Maiden of the Horse Lords!
Gavin
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadyt on May 19, 2008 15:44:31 GMT
Two fine orcs to choose from, I voted for the one on the Warg.
|
|
tolwen
Mithril Captain
Posts: 65
|
Post by tolwen on May 19, 2008 19:58:01 GMT
I understand Chris' doubts and do not criticize it in any way. But I have to say that the reasoning behind it is not that clear as it seems. The idea that Sauron is incorporeal until the War of the Ring is - AFAIK - an interpretation fostered and created by the PJ movies. As far as Tolkien's comments go, the situation is at least ambiguous. You can read the relevant quotes that Sauron has a physical form from ca. TA 1000 on or that he gained it by the 29th century TA at the latest. What is clear however, is that the movie version is far from accurate or even canonical. This is of course only a side issue in sculpting questions  Cheers Thomas |
|
|
|
Post by twrich on May 20, 2008 6:49:27 GMT
Hi Thomas, I follow your comments except for "AFAIK." What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Brien on May 20, 2008 9:39:23 GMT
AFAIK = "as far as I know".
|
|
|
|
Post by hsf62 on May 20, 2008 12:19:00 GMT
Two fine girls to choose from, I voted for the one on the horse.lol
|
|
|
|
Post by aelfwine on May 20, 2008 15:03:24 GMT
And the honoured Master Morwinsky is the man to know these things.
I suppose that the easiest thing to do, when portraying Sauron, is to have a lot of ambiguity in his portrayal. Each portrayal should be different. Which means there is no "official" Mithril view of Sauron. Sauron as the warlord fighting Gilgalad, Sauron as Annatar, Sauron as (say) the Necromancer.
Still, the Annatar and Celebrimor vignette looks amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrich on May 22, 2008 4:35:32 GMT
Hello all,
In anticipation of the Knights of Dol Amroth release, wouldn't it be great to see a female character from that fabled city? And as these are going to be "Knights" how about someone who is not part of the established royal hierarchy, but rather one of the Dark Lord's minions?
Vote for FEMALE ASSASSIN OF DOL AMROTH!!![glow=red,2,300][/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by barliman on May 22, 2008 6:29:33 GMT
For myself, I'd much prefer to see a 'real' named character from the books - ideally one that we haven't seen in the Mithril range before. There are still so many of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by bombadil1963 on May 22, 2008 21:15:50 GMT
Yep, Barli!
More real characters! M.r.ch.! M.r.ch.! M.r.ch.!
Please! Lots of them! And some - very special - dozen more!
|
|
|
|
Post by estel on May 23, 2008 19:32:44 GMT
Mae govannen mellon, yes more named characters, there are lots of them to vote for this time, most of them heroes of gondor to supplement our collection, may it be the Royal army of gondor or the fiefdoms.  NAMARIE estel |
|
|
|
Post by Gildor on May 26, 2008 9:14:15 GMT
I understand Chris' doubts and do not criticize it in any way. But I have to say that the reasoning behind it is not that clear as it seems. The idea that Sauron is incorporeal until the War of the Ring is - AFAIK - an interpretation fostered and created by the PJ movies. As far as Tolkien's comments go, the situation is at least ambiguous. You can read the relevant quotes that Sauron has a physical form from ca. TA 1000 on or that he gained it by the 29th century TA at the latest. What is clear however, is that the movie version is far from accurate or even canonical. This is of course only a side issue in sculpting questions Cheers Thomas Several Debates exist about Sauron "true fana" in the third age. After the fall of Numenor, Sauron lost his ability to change physical form at will, and after the loss of the ring, he lacked power to assume a physical body at all... He could be a shadow, a concept, have a spiritual or ethereal form maybe, but that's far from being physical. I agree that the "evil eye" physical form of PJ movie is an extrapolation. In the book, the lidless eye is more a concept and something people see in their mind and spirit than a reality. Still that does not mean Sauron has a tangible body. We have no certitudes at all about how to represent him, so I perfectly understand how hard it can be for a sculptor.... I'm honestly curious to see how they will represent "the necromancer" in the forthcoming "the hobbit" movie... sorry for the out of topic, maybe this discussion can be put elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by barliman on May 26, 2008 16:08:32 GMT
I think Sauron did have a form of some sort - Gandalf at one point describes him as 'taking shape' again, and Gollum was certainly able to count the fingers on Sauron's 'black hand' and know that one was missing...
|
|
