Statue The Crack of Doom Diorama

[Darth Caedus]

Funny, I always thought this was the crack of doom....

 

[tomandshell]

Nah, that's just Bodie's Executive Finger Holder.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Nah, that's just Bodie's Executive Finger Holder.

Apologizes, too many sleepness nights playing gears of war, my mind isn't working...

 

[customizerwannabe]

Sweet dio. Depends on the size of it and the price. As usual, the prototype looks great.

 

[tomandshell]

Anybody have a guess as to the size? Sounds like it is indeed smaller than 1/6. So this will be smaller than the average Sideshow diorama. How much do you think the price will be?

 

[Darth Caedus]

May be offbase, but I would say nothing less than $250...

 

[lcummins]

Not that I'm completely invested in more modern literary criticism, but taking into consideration even the stated intention of the author sometimes detracts from the work itself. Isn't it better to let each consumer, be it for a movie or a book, take what they can from it rather than have an interpretation forced down their throat?...

Dave has made the best point so far! This is a piece from the movie, not the book, period! If you dislike it because it wasn't in the book, that's fine.


As for what Tolkien intented, I like to go by what he himself stated in the foreword of the book...

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical..."


"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

 

[bonsey]

OOOOHHHH..don't get me started on parties..whichever one it is..especially the Libertarians..ARRRRGGGGHHHH.

THATS GREAT!!!

 

[tomandshell]

Tolkien was a friend of C.S. Lewis and was very clear about not wanting LOTR to be the kind of allegory found in Lewis' Narnia books, since he was not fond of such an approach. The story is the story and you are to take from it what you will--there is no "secret" allegorical level of meaning attributed to the characters. Gandalf and Aslan both die and are resurrected, but where Lewis intended Aslan to be an explicit Christ figure, Tolkien did not intend the same for Gandalf. This is not to say that his views and beliefs did not find their way into LOTR--there are quite a lot of important themes and events that reflect not only his religious background, but his feelings on war, politics, and the environment. He just weaves them into the story without making explicit allegorical parallels. The Ring could symbolically represent the sinful nature, it could represent atomic weaponry, it could just be a random McGuffin to move the plot forward. Tolkien leaves the interpretation in the mind and heart of the reader. That is why I believe the book has been so well received over the years--he allows you to take out of the story something of what you brought into it. The story can mean different things to different people, like all good works of art.

Including, apparently, this new diorama!!

 

[The Josh]

Dave has made the best point so far! This is a piece from the movie, not the book, period! If you dislike it because it wasn't in the book, that's fine.


As for what Tolkien intented, I like to go by what he himself stated in the foreword of the book...

Correct! That's what was getting me worked up some. The complaints about the book. Well, this line is from the MOVIE if you feel wronged by it then you have only yourself to blame for expecting something of this piece to be both book and movie.

If Tolkien said it then it's good for me.

 

[Seretur]

Things got a bit heated last night, didn't they? Perhaps needlessly so. I hope I learned my lesson.

Anyway, congratulations to the sculptors on the amazing likenesses, and I hope all of you who like the piece get to order it easily, and affordably. It's the fourth Sideshow LOTR line I won't be collecting, but perhaps that's also for the best.

Cheers!

 

[The Josh]

Tolkien was a friend of C.S. Lewis and was very clear about not wanting LOTR to be the kind of allegory found in Lewis' Narnia books, since he was not fond of such an approach. The story is the story and you are to take from it what you will--there is no "secret" allegorical level of meaning attributed to the characters. Gandalf and Aslan both die and are resurrected, but where Lewis intended Aslan to be an explicit Christ figure, Tolkien did not intend the same for Gandalf. This is not to say that his views and beliefs did not find their way into LOTR--there are quite a lot of important themes and events that reflect not only his religious background, but his feelings on war, politics, and the environment. He just weaves them into the story without making explicit allegorical parallels. The Ring could symbolically represent the sinful nature, it could represent atomic weaponry, it could just be a random McGuffin to move the plot forward. Tolkien leaves the interpretation in the mind and heart of the reader. That is why I believe the book has been so well received over the years--he allows you to take out of the story something of what you brought into it. The story can mean different things to different people, like all good works of art.

I totally agree. The story is so magical in a sense that it allows you to be yourself and take from it what you will. It doesn't force any preconcieved notions on you.

 

[Darth Caedus]

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical..."


"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

I always find that funny, because the lost continent of Numenor is clearly an allegory to the last and sunken city of Atlantis in myth. So when Tolkien says he dislikes allegory, which I do too, he clearly doesn't mention Numenor...

 

[crazytrain]

Without wishing to prolong this so-called "Christianity" issue we seem to have stumbled on, there is a huge difference between allegory and writing as a Christian. As has been pointed out, Tolkien didn't like allegory, hence LotR is not about representing the story of Christ, however, as was pointed out earlier the part when Gollum gets the ring etc has been widely referred to by Tolkien and he does allude to connections with his Christianity when writing that section. Just because it isn't allegorical, doesn't mean it isn't based on his Christian beliefs. As I read the posts, I didn't see anyone trying to ram any forms of belief down anyones throat, just a few over-reactions to some of the comments posted. Whilst I can understand reasons for producing more of a cliff-hanger ending (quite literally!), I personally didn't like that particular change that PJ made. The bottom line for me is that some of the changes had more of an impact on my enjoyment than others. Take Lurtz for example - there's nothing in Tolkien's story to suggest that there wasn't one particular Uruk that took a dislike to Boromir, and whether or not he was finished off by Aragorn is almost irrelevant, so I have no problem with the film makers introducing this character. I have the PF Lurtz and think its a wonderful piece. However, Tolkien had specific reasons for writing the Crack of Doom section as he did, and the change that PJ and friends made spoilt it for me. Tolkiens reasons were nothing to do with allegory, but they were to do with his Christianity; again, for me thats irrelevant - I just preferred it the way Tolkien wrote it. So, overall, yes, the bottom line is if you don't like the piece don't buy it - I certainly won't. However, Sideshow could have prevented this "problem" by producing, what I feel would have been a much better piece (not because it is true to the book, but because I think it would look better); that is when Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and holds the ring aloft in (initial) triumph. The fact that this is in the book would have helped me, but as I said before I would probably have bought it more because I think it would look better than the piece currently on offer. All of us have opinions, that each of us is allowed to express, hopefully without offending anyone else on the board... I have to say that some of the comments appear to have been expressed in a way to put down or belittle other members of the board for expressing their beliefs and I personally find that offensive no matter who it is directed at or for what reason it has been done (unless the intial comments were offensive and someone is then rebuked for expressing offensive comments).

 

[tomandshell]

Stop ramming your beliefs down my throat!!

(I mean, sharing your personal opinion in a calm, courteous and level headed way on a public message board.)

 

[Bannister]

Stop ramming your beliefs down my throat!!

(I mean, sharing your personal opinion in a calm, courteous and level headed way on a public message board.)

Yeah, seriously. There is no place for that here. We are all 8 year olds, so ACT LIKE IT. I will go first. ****s.

 

[tomandshell]

Yeah, seriously. There is no place for that here. We are all 8 year olds, so ACT LIKE IT. I will go first. ****s.

Wee wee!!!

 

[El Roranous]

Yeah, seriously. There is no place for that here. We are all 8 year olds, so ACT LIKE IT. I will go first. ****s.

****IES! WHERE!?

 

[Khev]

However, Tolkien had specific reasons for writing the Crack of Doom section as he did, and the change that PJ and friends made spoilt it for me. Tolkiens reasons were nothing to do with allegory, but they were to do with his Christianity; again, for me thats irrelevant - I just preferred it the way Tolkien wrote it.

I'm just curious, how was Tolkien's version more "Christian", so to speak, than Jackson's? I ask because I'm a Christian and don't have a problem with the film version. I haven't read the books (except for The Hobbit) but my understanding was that the scene in the book was like the cartoon; Gollum takes the ring, dances around and just slips off the edge without any further struggle with Frodo.

Frodo still gives in to the power of the Ring in both versions, he battles Gollum over it in both versions, what's wrong with him struggling all the way till Gollum goes over the side? I know PJ actually filmed an alternate version of the scene where Frodo *pushes* Gollum off the edge, but that isn't what happened in the final movie.

 

[Bannister]

Wee wee!!!

poo.