In the trilogy Lord Of the Rings, Legolas always seems to never run out of arrows. Why is that?
455113
They mentioned him retrieving his arrows a couple times in the books. In the movies, I suppose they had to cut out a lot more important things for time. Legolas scavenging the dead for arrows doesn't seem like a big deal compared to major events of the plot.
835489
She didn't stab herself or eat poisoned berries. Arwen simply lost the will to live after Aragorn died (they did have a long life together). She bid her children goodbye and faded away as there were no ships to Valinor to take her to the Elves.
46262
The Avro CF-105 Arrow was a supersonic interceptor fighter plane designed and built in Canada's government owned facility, A. V. Roe Canada in the 1950's (during the cold war). It was a stellar accomplishment compared to other planes available at the time, not only in performance but also in its low cost to manufacture.\n\nThe Arrow never saw combat.  This was not as much because of the plane's design as it was tied to Sparrow missile development, also going on in Canada at the time, because the Avro Arrow was intended to carry only missle armament and its hopes for successful deployment became tied to the Sparrow missles.  The Sparrow missle project got stalled after the CRAF decided to marry it to the Arrow.  But Canadair and Westinghouse Canada picked it up (probably in an effort to save the Avro Arrow). Even with their help, the project never got legs before the costs made it infeasible to continue.  There were similar events going on with the Arrow's fire control system as well.  The impact of both projects failing was to doom the future of the Avro Arrow.\n\nThe finished Avro Arrows were unceremoniously dismantled.\n\nGiven the apparent idiocy to cancel such a winning design has created many versions about what really happened.  What is typically lacking from the most notorious versions is an understanding of the grotesque spending and decision waffling that was occurring in military leadership in both the US and Canada at the time.  As well, an understanding of the political (within the military leadership) linkages between seemingly separate projects.\n\nTo link this series of events to US's ranking as a world power leaves me perplexed.  Canada at the time was the third largest army in terms of men and equipment.
868624
LOL ... the other answers are humorous!!\n\nMy husband and I watch LOTR extended versions back to back at least once a week.  Yeah, really.  Total running time is about 12 hours if you watch the credits (for the music) and such.  That gives you a bathroom break or two also.  I imagine the approx 11 hours of actual movie is pretty accurate.\n\nAnd no, we aren't totally nuts .. we just love the story and it's like new to us no matter how many times we watch it.  We also read the books through a couple times a year.\n\nWe have been tolkein fans since 1970.
867891
The movies were fairly similar to the books.  There were notable omissions...\n-Tom Bombadil...but the whole focus on him really does nothing to advance the story.  And for Hollywood, things that don't advance a story are usually not in the movie.\n-The Scouring of the Shire...an interesting chapter in the last book, but would have caused confusion in the movies.  The ring has already been destroyed at this point, which essentially "saves the world", so adding another "climax" to the movie would not have allowed the movie to flow properly.  Books can get away with stuff like that...movies not so much.  \n\nThere were also some notable changes.  For example, whereas the movie portrays Boramir dying in the first film, he actually doesn't die until the 2nd book (The Two Towers)...though it is towards the beginning.  Arwen is at best a minor character in the books. So when you see Arwen trying to save Frodo, the book character was actually Glorfindel...and it was Gandalf and Elrond who sent the flood of waters.  SHe is a very minor character in the actual story...only appearing four times and a romance between Aragorn and Arwen is only hinted at.  Arwen doesn't play a role in the books except for the Appendices in which her relationship with Aragorn is described.  Eowyn has more of a role than Arwen did...and in "The History of Middle Earth" it is revealed that Aragorn was supposed to marry her.  Her role in the books, however, are still minor.  \n\nIt's been said that the Tolkien family didn't approve of how Jackson made the story.  First of all, not all the Tolkien family was bothered by it.  J.R.R. Tolkien's grandson was in support of it.  J.R.R. Tolkien's son was not.  His son was not upset by the screenplays, just the fact that it was made into a movie.  He felt that it shouldn't be made into a movie.  Of course, that's inconsistent with the fact that there has been another, albeit animated, adaptation.  But J.R.R. Tolkien's son was very much like J.R.R. Tolkien himself...in that he didn't really like technology.  This is why the stories are very much against machines, etc...and you see those things destroying nature and a simple way of life.  It was Tolkien's beliefs and feelings reflecting into his writings.  \n\nAny nitpicky fan will tear the movies apart and point out its flaws.  But for the most part, the movies are pretty consistent with the books.  Nitpicky fans are going to one day have to realize that if everything was done exactly how the book was written, just one movie would last for HOURS.  And Jackson already was turned away by one movie company (Miramax) for simply wanting to makee three movies.
979285
I guess I would have to know what a gix or avantar is first....lemme see....gix, wasnt that a character in Lord of the Rings? Avantar? I believe that was a car name in the seventies....no, that was Avanti!
140326
The extended version of a movie includes scenes that were removed for the theatrical version (the version shown in theatres). In the case of the LOTR, I felt that the extended versions were better than the theatrical - the story benefited from the extra storytelling. This isn't true for all movies, though.
410605
Archery Due to its history in particular Medieval European archery:\n\nDuring the Middle Ages, archery in warfare was not as prevalent and dominant in Western Europe as popular myth dictates. Archers were quite often the lowest paid soldiers in an army or conscripted from the peasantry. This was due to the cheap nature of the bow and arrow as compared to the expense needed to equip a professional man-at-arms with good armour and a sword. The bow was seldom used to decide battles and viewed as a "lower class weapon" or a toy by the nobility. This disdain was countered by the Vikings, whose widespread use of archery gave them success in their numerous raiding expeditions all over the Western European seaboard (and even well into the Mediterranean) in the 9th and 10th centuries.\n\nBy the time of the Hundred Years' War, the English had learned how to employ massed archery (as opposed to dispersed skirmishing) as an instrument of tactical dominance with their English longbows. Archers were drawn from the freeholding farmers known as yeomen, and trained rigorously from childhood. Every boy was given a bow of his own height and was required to train with it. Tournaments were sponsored to encourage proficiency.\n\nIn combat, they would often shoot two arrows, one on a high trajectory, and one on a low trajectory. These two arrows would hit the enemy simultaneously from two different angles, making defense difficult. The advent of the bodkin point also gave arrows better penetrative power.\n\nThe crossbow, while dating from classical times, became quite popular during the Middle Ages. While it took many years to train a longbowman, someone could become proficient with a crossbow with remarkably little training. The crossbow had about the same power and range as a longbow. Its major drawback however was that it took a long time to reload. The renowned armour piercing power of the crossbow caused fear amongst the well armoured nobility, and it was banned by the Second Council of the Lateran (at least between Christians), although to little avail.\n\nThe advent of firearms rendered bows obsolete in warfare. Although bows had a longer range and could shoot much more frequently than the earliest guns, guns could penetrate most armour and required minimal training. Later development gradually gave firearms advantages over bows in range, accuracy and eventually in reload time. An illustration of the declining popularity of the bow could be seen in the various edicts promulgated by 16th-century English monarch to make archery a mandatory practice for all men of fighting age, including Henry VIII's famous ban against the practice of all sports other than archery on Sundays.\n\n\nPS\n\nAnd the fact it is fun and could be useful in order to protect/feed yourself if need be.
985593
its just an urban myth. some people say that someone in the crew hung themselves from a tree during one of the scenes in the dwarf village, but its really just a bird taking flight. sorry if i ruined it for you.
1029708
The movies are very hard to make because of all the effects. The next movie, Order of the Phoenix, will be released February 2007. So, it shouldn't be much longer. They would have the movies out much sooner if they could. Also, the seventh book is going to be released about summer 2007, so it's all coming right around the corner. It is totally still fabulous.
221534
If this is true, then you may be aware of the "fact" that if someone shoots an arrow at you, it will never hit you, because after a certain amount of time after being shot, the arrow is halfway to you; then more time goes by and the arrow is half of that distance, then more time and half of that, etc. so there is always half of some distance left and some time left so it never hits you.
905764
Robin Hood and Green Arrow are both exceptional archers, but Hawkeye is a mutant.  His power is enhanced vision, reflexes, speed and, depending on the writer, he's shown the ability to, well, not slow time around him, but speed his perception, giving him more time to focus on a shot.  Basically, he gets his skill from his powers.  I'd have to say that gives him the edge.  I'd go for Green Arrow next, since his training regiem is much more intense than Robin Hood's would be, simply because Ollie will spend whatever it takes to get the best in the world to train him.\n\n*edit* In recent years, Marvel seems to be wavering on whether or not Hawkeye is a mutant.  He has been officially called that in the past, trying to differentiate him from Green Arrow, but after checking today, it seems that Marvel has reversed this decision.  His status is one that has changed in the past, and may change in the future.
520243
OMG! I finally finished watching all of them. I really liked the Goblet of Fire, but I think that was the 4th huh? I get them all mixed up. Then I would say 3rd one. They get better each time!
473595
I can't wait for it to come out. the next movie outa be good to i just hope they stick to the books as much as they have in the others only thing i've seen wrong with the movies is that dumbledore is getting mad in the books he never gets mad he is always like whatever he's just firm while being whatever but i can live it that i guess.(if you read the last book you know why)
488047
Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers!!! I love that movie!! I love the Lord the Rings!!! Eomer says that to Legolas, Aragorn, and Gimli when they are trying to find Merry and Pippin.
24366
There's been rumors that Peter Jackson is interested in updating the Hobbit. I think he said he was interested in doing it, if it is decided that it would be made. If I remember correctly, I think I saw something on www.imdb.com about it.
386704
Go online and look up longbow or if you really feel up to it, fly to Wales, England and find armories that still produce said weapon for Archery clubs.Since the Welsh first used them in combat against the English during the 11th century hey still have a few people who actually make them by hand.It's a dying art and very,very very expensive.\nHave fun.