Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Even though Jackson was wrong, he did a good job at making it look cool. Of course that is absolutely no excuse for him so have done it.

Actually, I think it was a perfectly good excuse. Film being a visual medium, I think that he was perfectly justified in portraying it the way he did. And, as obloquy correctly pointed out, it was based largely on John Howe's pre-exisiting Balrog imagery.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Actually, I think it was a perfectly good excuse. Film being a visual medium, I think that he was perfectly justified in portraying it the way he did. And, as obloquy correctly pointed out, it was based largely on John Howe's pre-exisiting Balrog imagery.

Okay, then John Howe had no right to do that. I have great respect for John Howe, he is a great artist, but I kind of have to wonder where he got his image. I mean horns?

[Finduilas]

Oh, and Elfchick, if you read the last two pages of the thread, it should be able to answer your question.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Okay, then John Howe had no right to do that. I have great respect for John Howe, he is a great artist, but I kind of have to wonder where he got his image. I mean horns?

I suppose this is the specific conundrum about illustrators: do they have complete artistic freedom to interpret a text or are they bound literally and only to what the words specifically claim? That is, should an image inspire an imaginative sense of the text or is it only a visual xerox of the words?

My sense is that the illustrators of Tolkien who are the most highly regarded are those who aspire to be fully imaginative artists, interpreters and not merely reproductionists. Their work has touched a chord with readers' imaginations.