Talk:Balrog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Thanks, Zoe.

You're welcome. Please edit as necessary on any of my Middle-earth entries. -- Zoe

Contents 1 "Bali Raj"? 2 Wings Argument 3 Why remove "and Gandalf"? 4 Wings in the Battle For Middle-Earth 5 NPOV attempt 6 Picture? 7 Image of Balrog too dark? 8 Lungothrin 9 Dinosaur 10 The Picture of the Balrog 11 You are all intimidatingly serious 12 Could not fly? 13 Gandalf vs. Durin's Bane 14 Isn't this wrong? 15 Spellcasting worth mentioning? 16 Trivia section ("Popular culture")

[edit] "Bali Raj"?

Is there any evidence of a connection between the Balrogs and Bali Raj other than the similarity of their names? I'll happily accept it if there is, but I'm really not sure that Tolkien worked this way, and the entry on Bali Raj doesn't sound at all like a Balrog to me. I think I'll remove the comment from the main article until more evidence is given; at that point, I would suggest that information like this might fit better in the "Miscellaneous" section. --Steuard 19:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Are the names even that similar? IIRC "Raj" is pronounced "Raash", not "Rog" or "Rajg". [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 21:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wings Argument

I've been cleaning up this section. I don't want to unbalance it further...I already feel that there's too many references in the "against wings" camp and not enough in the "for wings" camp, based on size alone. However, the fact is most of the "for wings" section were actually "against" counterarguments. I've cleaned up a lot of it, but further "for" references would be very helpful, since I'm not an expert.--MikeJ9919 03:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask what people would think of removing the forth sentence in the first paragraph of the against wings section, "A person would have to be pretty stupid to buy this argument though." as it seems to serve no purpose other then to insult. Considering that 5th sentence accomplishes what other auxiliary value it may yield, I don't feel that helps the argument against wings in way.

I personally have no oppinion on this matter otherwise.

That sentence is pointless and detrimental to the argument and my only guess would be that it was from someone who truly believed that Balrogs had wings, as an act of vandalism or did not understand that Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion or did not know the difference between fact and opinion. I'll remove that sentence, seeing as it doesn't add anything to the page whatsoever.

Thanks!=)

I haven't read this article before, but it's clear that the 'wings' argument is way too long. It's longer than the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's one of the oldest and most consistant sources of flamewars on the net. People get into the largest, stupidest arguements, and no one's ever yet come up with anything more to add to it. They go through the same very few arguements that's everyone's heard, and then there's nothing else left when nobody changes their mind, so it turns into mass flamage. Hence why the section is so large. Honestly it's a notable enough controversy to be quite worth including. In the end it's a simple case of there not being enough available info for there to be an undoubted 'right' answer.

For my personal feelings on the subject, I take a bent somewhere between both camps, that manages to take BOTH of the two controversial lines literally. Being creatures of shadow and flame, just as the first line suggests, they do have wings...formed out of the shadow that is one of their two main elements(the other being fire). They're probably not 'physical' wings(which would explain the no-flying), but they are indeed definetly wings, and quite present as part of their form, but mainly cosmetic(to inspire fear, most likely). -Graptor 66.161.205.26 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need counter- and pro-arguments in this article? It seems to be original research no matter what, and we may be best off pointing to some of the excellent discussions online such as Steuard's Tolkien FAQ (which addresses both sides). This article should not attempt to push either POV but at most report on the issue very briefly: if the argument must be adressed in the Wikipedia it should probably be another article (Balrog wings argument or whatever). -- Jordi·✆ 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It does feel like the arguments about the Balrog's wings and appearance here take up a disproportionate fraction of the article: there's no need to subject casual readers to the obsessive nitpicking of us fans. :) I appreciate your compliment on my FAQ, and I agree that a link to that brief discussion might be the best bet here (self-promoting though my vote might appear). On the other hand, I know at least one "pro-wing" proponent who (as I recall) thinks that my FAQ is hopelessly biased in the anti-wing direction, so presenting a handful of links on the subject could be reasonable. (I've included a few of them along with Conrad Dunkerson's Balrog essays on my website.)--Steuard 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove "and Gandalf"?

A recent revision of the article by Pav removed the words "and Gandalf" that came after "The Balrogs were originally Maiar, of the same order as Sauron". I'm curious to know why. It's not that I'm dead set against the change, but I felt that mentioning two different "familiar examples" of Maiar to illustrate the concept was a good thing. How do other people feel about this change?--Steuard 16:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would go for "and Gandalf" as well. Not just because it balances the example (a good guy and a bad guy, as well as giving some inkling that Maiar have different levels of power) but because it is extremely relevant. In fact, more relevant, since Gandalf is the one who ends up fighting the balrog, at which point it is extremely useful to note that they both of the same order of being. I'll give someone else a chance to comment before reinstating it, though. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with this as well. I think that people reading about Balrog may not neccesarily go off and read about the Maiar to find out the Gandalf is also one of them. Those two little words can yield a much deeper understanding pertaining to the Balrogs origin and relation to rest of Middle Earth and it's characters that the reader may not of had otherwise.

[edit] Wings in the Battle For Middle-Earth

I just added a few lines in the argument for their being wings, pointing out that in the game The Battle for Middle-Earth, the Balrog definitely has wings and uses them to fly for short periods. However I am not sure if this is legitimate evidence because details like this were decided by New Line Cinema, not by Tolkien. User:68.83.248.11

It's not legitimate evidence. No one disputes that the movie version had wings. The question is whether Tolkien originally intended for balrogs to have wings. —Lowellian (talk) 07:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It still might be a good thing to note just to be thorough, although maybe in the paragraph introducing the reason why people are arguing about this in the first place ie "In the game and the movie balrog had wings, yet whether or not tolkien intended for the bal...". Not as an argument.

It's worth mentioning that Peter Jackson's Balrog has wings. Briefly. All derivatitve material does not need to be enumerated. That particular game is really only a minor blip on the radar of the Tolkien fan community. The argument predates the films (and will probably outlive them). -Aranel (Sarah) 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

makes sense.

I believe that the Balrog should have wings in BFME, and that Tolkien intended for them to have wings. But, Tolkien's ideas aside, EA only got rights for the movies, and so could only use the Balrog as seen in the movies-with wings. Also, it says it does not appear that the Balrog could fly in the movie, but it could. As it was falling, the crack it was falling through was too small to allow it's wings to function and you see it attempt to take flight as it falls towards the water int Two Towers, but it doesn't have enough time to take full flight and crashes.Cetanu 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be noteworthy to mention interpretations in the media, however it should be made clear that interpretations are not always accurate. (Miguel Wonham 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV attempt

As somebody who has no preference of winged Balrogs over non-winged Balrogs, i'd like to try an NPOV-ing of this article. Also, it would be nice (especially for those readers who only know the Balrog from the LotR films), to clearly differentiate between LotR and Silmarillion mentionings of Balrogs. Therefore, I'd suggest restructuring the article as follows:

• General introduction to Balrogs (both in LotR and as a species)
• Balrogs in the Silmarillion (using 'Balrogs Briefly' as basis, though it would be nice if someone could expand on it)
• The Balrog in LotR (anybody want to volunteer to make this a nice piece?)
• The Ambiguous Appearance of the Balrog (including the mention of wings of course!)
• Miscellaneous

Does this look like a good compromise? --The Minister of War 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

After hearing no objections, Reworked the article to focus on topics rather than arguments. Removed NPOV tag; thought this was a stretch of the NPOV idea anyway... --The Minister of War 10:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Is this the best picture we can find? The balrog in Jackson's LotR was a triumph of CG - and answered my speculation as to whether a balrog could even be represented satisfactorily in a movie - but this picture barely features the balrog at all! MrCheshire 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with using a movie picture is that the movie balrog had discrepencies with the literary discription. However, a better picture would be beneficial, if one can be found. (Miguel Wonham 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Image of Balrog too dark?

On my screen, the Balrog is too dark to properly see. This might be appropriate for Balrog but it's not so good if some people can't see what it looks like... --Jonathan Drain 19:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[1]

Agreed. I also can hardly see the image on my computer. Pnkrockr 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye. Too Dark. A clearer image would be preferable. --Steerpike 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lungothrin

Does Lungothrin really have to be linked, since it redirects here? And for that matter, could we make an actual page on Lungothrin? I've read that he was Melkor's chief bodyguard, but I don't know if that is canon or not. -- SFH 19:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Didnt know it was redirected! Sure, you can write an article on Lungothrin. Sad to say, dont know anything about him (/her?) :-) The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur

The balrog is suppossed to be the last of an ancient spieces. It could have been a Dinosaur Batzarro 10:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Picture of the Balrog

I would suggest that we remove the image of the Balrog, as the movie Balrog does not remotely resemble the textual Balrog. It would only serve to misguide viewers of the article. Enough people have been misguided by movie stills, especially in the case of Ents and Balrogs. Barnikel

I suggest moving the picture down to the "Portrayals" section )or whatever it has been called here), and balancing it with an alternative interpretation, if that is possible. I agree that this picture should not be up front. Carcharoth 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are all intimidatingly serious

I am struck by the resemblance to the Balrog of the "Monster From The Id" from Forbidden Planet. --Harrylentil 04:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could not fly?

In the "Adaptations" section:

"However, during the fight with Gandalf, the Balrog could not fly because the physical characteristics of the wing did not permit flight (they did not have any sort of flesh on them, but like the rest of the Balrog's body appeared to be made out of shadow)."

I don't know exactly what the books have to say about this, but my impression from watching the film is that the Balrog could fly (as we see in his entrance). The reason he could not fly while fighting Gandalf was that the abyss was too narrow for him to properly orient himself and flap his wings, not to mention the continual bashing against the cliff face. We don't know what happened after the pair finally hit the underground lake.

-- Anon (11:50, 09 September 2006 (AEST))

[edit] Gandalf vs. Durin's Bane

The wiki states that Gandalf slew the Balrog. But if my memory serves, Gandalf only managed to slay the Balrog in the movie adaptation. I seem to remember the book stating that they fought for a time and then the Balrog fled into the darkness under the earth. Could someone with a copy of FotR please confirm this?

--Bsigil 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The movie version is fairly faithful to the events outlined in the book—however highly abridged. Some of Gandalf's voice over in the film is taken verbatim from the text. The film omits Gandalf tracking the balrog through the dungeons and the slime, but alludes to it with Frodo's dream/vision at the begining of the film. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf did indeed slay the Balrog…in fact the movie version is somewhat toned down. If I recall correctly, when Gandalf cast the Balrog down from the top of the mountain, it broke down the side of the mountain:

I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place, and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin.

– Gandalf, Balrogs at The Encyclopedia of Arda

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this wrong?

While some contend that such a doorway seems unlikely to be passable for a creature much larger than man-sized without destroying the passage, others take this as Tolkien's reference to the vast number of orcs being channelled through a particularly large passageway fit for an immense Balrog.

I just can't picture the italicised bit. Jackson-influenced, possibly? The Orc attackers fled after thirteen of them had fallen. They can't be possibly in the hundreds, as this apparently implies... I just rephrased it to " others interpret this as a vast number of orcs passing through a particularly large passageway, through which a Balrog could fit.", though. This might be all speculation, though, unless we can cite sources, as in the wing issue... Uthanc 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spellcasting worth mentioning?

In the novel of Fellowship, at one point Gandalf tries to magically seal a door against the unknown (at that time) terror, but the door is shattered and he is thrown backwards, by a "counterspell." I think the ability of the balrog to use magic is worth noting in the article, as it gives different impression of what would otherewise just seem to be a big firery monster.

[edit] Trivia section ("Popular culture")

I removed it. Almost none of those facts could ever be integrated into the article, and there's no need to start writing about the Balrog's influence on popular culture: that should be discussed along with Tolkein's other influences on modern fantasy. Almost none of the items even had to do specifically with the Tolkein creature. However, there was this one:

• The Balrog in Peter Jackson's film bears a strong resemblance to the classic demon-skull drawing by Glenn Danzig, used on the album covers for the bands Samhain and Danzig (band), in addition to resembling the eponymous character from the Diablo computer games. In Diablo and Diablo 2 (in Hell (Act IV)), one of the creatures is the Balrog.

That might be relevant to the article, but it needs sourcing from something reliable, because any demon you create will probably look somewhat like something. Mangojuice^talk 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)