Characterization in the movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!

[aragil]

Well, now that I have your attention I would like to issue my own challenge. There has been much debate on these boards regarding whether or not Peter Jackson's addaptation has accurately portrayed the characters of Middle Earth as they were penned by Tolkien. The quote which Greymantle has placed in his signature has frequently been used to illustrate the single largest objection that many who populate these boards have to the Film. What bothers me about this is that it is often (not always) used as a blanket statement referring to all the characters in the movie, with very few specifics given. I (and especially others) have gone through some pains to quote extensively from the book in defense of Peter Jackson's interpretations of the major characters. In some cases our work has been acknowledged- i.e., 'Peter did some funky stuff that isn't how I saw it, but having looked at what Tolkien wrote, maybe it could have been interpreted that way.' In some cases our defenses have been debated, sometimes with a resolution, often-times without. But what is distressing is that in many cases our arguments have been completely ignored, and I find that after spending several hours looking through the books and then typing the relevant material in a post, someone else two posts later makes the same offending remark about characterization without even addressing the counter-argument.
I propose that we (the collective members of the forum) use this thread to discuss when characters in the movie have been (perhaps loosely) interpreted from the book, and when PJ has horribly misrepresented the characters of Tolkien. The point of debate is whether the characters are the result of plausible interpretations from what Tolkien has penned, not whether PJ portrays the characters exactly as we interpreted them, or even whether he portrayed them as Tolkien intended them to be. To hammer in the point, here is what Tolkien himself stated (in the context of addressing another screen adaptation in no way related to that of Mr. Jackson's):

"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment." (Borrowed from Greymantle's sig)

Some rules that I would ask posters to follow, though I have no power to enforce them:
1) Address specifics of the characters as portrayed in the movie, i.e., 'Arwen should not be waving a sword', or 'Arwen's lips should not appear to be borrowed from Julia Roberts' rather than 'Arwen was wrong in the movie.'
2) Please, no offensive remarks regarding fellow posters. I'm pretty sure that this is a rule of the forum, but I'd like to make special mention just so that it is fresh in our minds. In fact, I'd like people to refrain from addressing each-other at all, except for clarification purposes when responding to a previous post. I would also like posters to abstain from using the terms NPW, FAD, newbie, and purist, when possible.

Some notes on how I plan to defend the movie:
1) Tolkien's works are ones of the imagination. I hardly think it is fair for us to enjoy such an imaginitive piece of literature, and then insist on the most narrow possible interpretations of the movie. To illustrate this, I will point out that many members of these boards seem to think that movie-Aragorn spent the time from Bree to Weathertop toting around four hobbit-sized swords, when he just as easily could have discovered them at Weathertop. All of us here have the imaginitive power to realize that events could have happened beyond what was given screen time. Because of this, I may ask us all to give PJ a little faith and imagine a little. Of course any of you can refuse to do this, and then I will violate my own rule #2 above and claim that you are unimiganitive.;)
2) I (and especially others) have spent a lot of time addressing these issues in previous posts. If I feel that any issue has been properly addressed elsewhere, I will respond with a link to that post. Others are invited to do this as well.
3) All debate on the degree to which Saruman is being controlled by Sauron will be met with 'Wait until the next movie'. Of course, that is my mantra, others may reply as they see fit.

[ReadWryt]

Then I certainly hope that you will not mind me quoting some more from the same letter (#210 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)that your Tolkien quote is from....


Gandalf, please, should not ‘splutter’. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity. The description on I p. 239 should never be forgotten.

I know that I have used this in other threads, but I feel it has great bearing. Alas, the only copy of The Lord of the Rings I possess is the "All in one volume" edition, and so none of the references in Tolkien's letters, nor in Foster's "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth" apply. (The math for the conversions are something that awaits another day....week....year!) Otherwise I would post the description that Tolkien sites here. None the less, I personally feel that the above quote flies in the face of the characterization of Gandalf in several scenes, making him seem more like a mere man...akin to one of the Shamen of Finnish mythology.

His actions after discovering to his own satisfaction that the Ring his dear friend Bilbo had passed on to Frodo was indeed the One Ring, cleaved from the hand of Sauron himself, is less than those of one of "noble authority", and indeed would have been chastised comming from any of several other characters for the fact that they would have called undue attention to that part of "The Hill". After all, what in the world could cause such distress in a Wizard (Istari) of Gandlaf's renown?

As for if it portrayed the character according to the description in the book, aside from the reference that Prof. Tolkien makes in his quote, I feel that should someone read the acount of the meeting between Gandalf and Frodo though, I would say that the fact that in the book Gandalf appears, chats with Frodo, spends the night and has breakfast with the Halfling and THEN tells him of the Ring are a good example of the dignity with which he carries himself. "...you told me such things were best left until daylight..." Frodo quotes the Wizard, showing that Gandalf was INDEED concerned gravely about the Ring, and understood that the Nazgul might well be about. "It is far more powerfull then I ever dared to think at first, so powerfull that in the end it would utterly overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it."

Unless doom is impending there is indeed noplace in all of The Lord of the Rings in which Gandalf is portrayed as Frantic or Manic. It may work as a cheap device to create a sense of danger, but the damage that it does to the character is imense. How is it that the rest of the Fellowship should trust that someone who can be provoked to such a crazed and aggravated state? Would he hop upon Shadofax and ride for the hills, or perhaps he is not returning to aid them at all, off ranting on a ship far to the west...?

Here you have someone who is the authorative equivelent of Elrond and Galadriel, who later stares down Kings and wins battles of wit with them. Here is someone who had the presence of mind to send the party off while he stayed to fight the Balrog, who balked not at the journey through the mountains and through the storm. Intead of running, or frantically worrying, he comments by writing in flame in the sky for all in Rivendel who might observe it to see that Gandalf is here.

There is a fine line between making something easier for an audience to understand, and removing dimentionality, or worse adding dimentions that never existed as was done here. Instead of trusting that a character who acts with dignity and expresses their urgency and fear in terms other then "over the top" melodrama or frenetic spluttering would be believable to the public, we see hackneyed and cliche actions from a character with little or no regard for the ability of the viewer to sit back and realize that this is a person of great nobility and presence who need not actually concern himself with the well being of Hobbits and Trees, but who has made it his business to place himself in harm's way and who makes personal his quest to see the One Ring never fall into the hands of the Necromancer.

[Greenwood]

Aragil

The change that I disagree with the most is that as the Fellowship trys to go over the mountains Gandalf is portrayed as reluctant to take the "short-cut" through Moria while Aragorn and others are willing to. In the book Moria is Gandalf's suggestion and Aragorn argues against it. Indeed in the book after the retreat from the pass Aragorn says: "You followed my lead almost to disaster in the snow, and have said no word of blame. I will follow your lead now -- if this last warnig does not move you. It is not of the Ring, nor of us others that I am thinking now, but of you Gandalf. And I say to you: if you pass the doors of Moria, beware!" I can see no easily justifiable reason for reversing the positions of Gandalf and Aragorn in the movie.

[Greenleaf]

My biggest complaint is with Arwen. Her character is much to elaborated one. The whole scene @ the ford was not right. And her line 'If you wont him come and get him" was really corny, almost laughable

[Pops]

Greenleaf, that line was actually Frodo's line. He, however, was referring to the ring with that line. So, was it laughable in the book as well? If not, then what makes it different?

I have both positive and negative reaction to that scene. While I believe it worked beautifully in the movie and was great character progression for Arwen I love Liv!!, I also think it did so at the expense of Frodo's character progression. So, it's pretty much a loved it/hated it feeling for me.

[Foe-Hammer]

rw,

Gandalf, please, should not ‘splutter’. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity. The description on I p. 239 should never be forgotten

Yet gandalf looks like an incompetent boob at the gates to moria. And to make matters worse, he can't remember the way when he is the one who wanted to go there? I'd thrown him down the well with pippen if I were to hold to Tolkiens very rigid discription that you have quoted. It is entirely more likely that you have this quote out of context or Tolkien had gone senial and forgot who stupid he made gandalf appear.

[Tar-Steve]

Ignoring that,


I didn't like the portayal of Galadriel. I realize that Galadriel has an air about her that places her a bit above it all but I thought the film version of her was all cold, superior, and practically heartless. Completely gone was the side of Galadriel that addresses each member of the company individually with respect and an air of fellowship. The side of her that's marks her as the LADY of the GOLDEN wood. What's left without that side is just a callous, scary, *****.

Is this movie portrayal really the same woman who warmly captures Gimli's heart? No ... it isn't.

(I didn't appreciate the special effects after she was offered the ring. I would've much rather seen Cate given a chance to act there. One of my favorite moments in the entire story swept aside for an oppurtunity to abuse CG's).


I enjoyed some of the embellishments of Boromir's character. It was nice to see both his noble and gentler sides. I think the literary Boromir is often sadly misunderstood.

I would've liked to have seen Merry's common-sense and on-the-ball characteristic not tossed away as they were in this first film. I hope the upcoming films reclaim the better qualities of this fine and worthy Hobbit. The use of Merry and Pippin as comic relief in this film reminded me of how the brownies were used in "Willow". I found it cheaply contrived, annoying, and distracting in that film and also (thankfully to a lesser degree) in this one. However, "it comes in pints?!" was one of my favorites things in the movie.

I'm re-reading my post and it sounds kind of pompus. I don't mean it to be. I had a really great time with the movie. I will at least buy the dvd even if I don't make it make to the theater to see it again. I like a lot of things about the film and am looking forward to the next segments.

In spite of his "sputter"ing (which I agree with rw about), I thought Ian M. was a great Gandalf.

[Foe-Hammer]

Naw, you didn't sound pompus.
Nit-picky for sure, but not pompus.

[Greenwood]

My biggest complaint is with Arwen. Her character is much to elaborated one. The whole scene @ the ford was not right. And her line 'If you wont him come and get him" was really corny, almost laughable

Greenlef

The exact wording of the line was: "If you want him, come and claim him!" I realize it is only a one word difference, but I think it does make a significant difference in how the line comes across. I also think the line works well on several levels. It shows defiance of the Ringwraiths. It also shows that this descendent of Luthien Tinuviel is not afraid of the Ringwraiths. I also took it to be a challenge to the Ringwraiths, in response to which they attempt to cross the river and are swept away by the flood. I did not get a feeling of "Oh my God! They took me seriously and are coming over!" after Arwen issues this challenge, but rather that she calmly and immediately calls for the flood that is the Ringwraiths (temporary) undoing. I did think the next part of the scene was overdone.

[chrome_rocknave]

Originally posted by Pops
Greenleaf, that line was actually Frodo's line. He, however, was referring to the ring with that line. So, was it laughable in the book as well? If not, then what makes it different?

I have both positive and negative reaction to that scene. While I believe it worked beautifully in the movie and was great character progression for Arwen I love Liv!!, I also think it did so at the expense of Frodo's character progression. So, it's pretty much a loved it/hated it feeling for me.

Hmmm.....what makes it different? Could it possibly be that Frodo didn't say "his line" and instead Arwen said it? Or maybe its different because Arwen wasn't even supposed to be in that scene, let alone saying Frodo's lines! Then again, it could be different because instead of Frodo facing the Riders by himself, he had the help of a spell-chanting Elf with an Ent-battle scar (anyone notice that slash on her face came from a tree? lol)

[Pops]

The scar came from a whip-wielding Black Rider.

:rolleyes:

[aragil]

ReadWryt- I agree with you that without impending doom Gandalf should not be sputtering about. I just ask you to remember that in the movie 'The shadow of the past' takes place in a different context than in the books. In the movie the scene immediately follows on the heels of some poor hobbit getting his head lopped off by a furiously galloping black rider, so I would say that in the movie there should be a lot greater sense of urgency than in the book. The meeting in the book takes place in the spring, several months before the black riders reach the Shire (September, I think). And I'll remind you that movie-Gandalf does still portray all of the noble actions such as facing the Balrog alone, leading up Caradhras and later into Moria (though in the movie there is no explicit mention that he has been there before). Not to mention that I think Sir Ian did an excellent job expressing his warmth towards hobbits, in particular Bilbo and Frodo.

Greenwood- I agree that the movie got Gandalf wrong for wanting/fearing to go through Moria. They at least could have used his line about 'staying out of sight for a while', especially since they bothered to show the crebain. But I don't think that portrayal falls into the 'mangling of character' class.

Harad- To me Viggo didn't appear as young as he did to everybody else, apparently. I felt that in the books his grizzled appearance was mainly due to the fact that he did not wish to be recognized. Certainly there are excerpts from the books where Aragorn seems to have years drop away from him, with the bit at Cerin Amroth springing immediately to mind. Remember, in Aragorn the blood of the Dunadan was resurrected nearly back to the days of Numenor, when 80 years wandering the earth did not necessarily make a man look or feel so old. Regarding your second point, I'm not trying to prove that the characters were perfectly portrayed from the books, but that many of the things that people object to do not contradict the books.

Greanleaf- Elaborating on a character is not the same as twisting a character. I'm looking for specifics as to how the character in the movie was wrongly portrayed (ReadWryt might want to warn you about what's going to come here).

Pops- I agree that the ford scene detracted from Frodo's character progression. Hopefully Frodo's bravery came through at the end of the movie where Frodo decides to forsake the fellowship in order to go to Mordor alone. For that matter, I thought Frodo could have been a little braver on weathertop- all of the other hobbits actually tried to fight the Ringwraiths. But the question for this thread is: 'Was it out of the character of Arwen to ride on the horse with Frodo?', or 'Was it out of the character of Frodo to let Arwen ride with him?' Nothing in the book makes me think so.

Foe-hammer- Thanks for the help in defense, I was beginning to think I was all alone here. But I don't think that Tolkien made Gandalf appear stupid, just rather human. Remember, Gandalf always entered Moria from the East-Gate, so he never knew the password. As to why it took him so long (and Merry's comment) to guess the password, he had forgotten that the gates were forged in a friendlier time. Since discussions of the nature of the Istari are likely to come up again, I would like to take this opportunity to quote from Unfinished Tales:
'For with the consent of Eru they (the Valar) sent members of their own high order, but clad in the bodies as of men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain;'
...
'Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and wearinesses coming from the flesh.'
In my opinion this description does much to explain the actions of the wizards- how Saruman could become so corrupted by power, and how Gandalf could show fear, pleasure in talking with hobbits, smoking Tobacco, etc.

Tar-Steve- I'll remind you that the point of this thread is not whether we liked the character's portrayal, but wether it was justifiable based on what is in the books. I think that we are agreed that Galadriel in the books certainly had the potential to be cold and scary- why else would such brave men as Eomer and Boromir openly display fear at the rumor of her? Does PJ get points for showing half of the character? I can't answer that, but my (admittedly weak) defense is that much of Lorien was edited out of the movie. As a consequence both Lorien and Galadriel seemed to lose their sense of warmth. In the books both land and lady were warm, perilous, and beautiful. In the movie as is, they both just come off rather perilous. I guess I can't defend with what wasn't placed in the final cut of the film, but I still have hope for the director's cut DVD.
I believe that ReadWryt shares your opinion on the portrayal of Merry and Pippin, and I'll admit that the Brownies were the first thing that came to mind when I saw them too. But the movie does portray Merry with a glimpse of his insightfulness. Others on these boards have said it was Merry who distracted the Ringraith in the Shire, but my eyes were not quick enough to see which hobbit did the tossing. If this were the case, then certainly that would be an instance of on-the-ball thinking, especially since in the movie they had just ran into eachother and Merry would have had no prior idea about the peril they were in. Then there's the fact that it is Merry who quickly realizes that their best way of escape is the Buckleberry Ferry, which sort of mirrors his organization of the four hobbits' exit from the Shire in the books. And let's not forget Merry's last bit in the film- reading Frodo's expression to understand that Frodo was leaving them, and then quickly realizing that if the quest is to stand a chance of success then he must try and draw the orcs away from Frodo. That's great stuff for Merry, and despite what others may have said on these boards, movie-Merry does get some licks in on the orcs- it happens while Boromir is fighting, and Merry appears to kill them rather than just lopping off their arms. Let us also remember that it was Merry who immediately recognized the potential for buying beer in pints in Bree! Finally, I'll remind us that much of Merry's insightfulness in the books was only hinted at in FotR, and that it wasn't until the other two books that we saw what a truly great hobbit he was. Let's hope it proves to be the same in the Films.
As a final note I'll just point out that I really liked the fact that Merry and Pippin had Celtic (Scotish? Irish?) accents in the movie (I've said this before). In the books the Took and Brandybuck clans were clearly different from the other more sedentary families- far more adventurous. In the movies all of the other families are voiced with the rather conservative English accent, while Merry and Pippin have that nice rogue-Celt Brogue. Nice touch, whether intentional or not!

[Greenleaf]

Sorry I'm lost. I can't find where in Flight to the ford Frodo say “If you want it come and take it" or something to that effect. Maybe I'm blind. :confused: :confused:

[aragil]

No, the morgul knife used to stab Frodo evaporated in Aragorn's hands. Frodo's blade was later broken at the ford by the Nazgul Lord while Frodo tried to defy him. But none of this has to do with how the characters were mis-portrayed in the movie!!

[Greenleaf]

Thanks for clearing that up but…. that is no the same line as what was in the movie! In the movie Arwen said “If you want him come and claim him". Frodo said "You shale have neither the ring nor me" different lines, different meanings. In the movie you got the impression that Arwen was challenging the riders were as in the book Frodo is stating a fact. I know this is nit pick stuff. I know I’m dicing words. :rolleyes:

[Son_of_Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
"By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair," said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, "you shall have neither the ring nor me."

Hey I thought his sword was evaporated by the Head Nazgul.

yup...that's it. A little more different than the movie than I originally thought.

[Greenwood]

Greenwood- I agree that the movie got Gandalf wrong for wanting/fearing to go through Moria. They at least could have used his line about 'staying out of sight for a while', especially since they bothered to show the crebain. But I don't think that portrayal falls into the 'mangling of character' class.

Aragil

I never said it rose to "mangling of character", just that of all the changes in the movie it is the only one for which I cannot think of a possible justification either from the standpoint of shortening things or making them plainer in a cinematic sense. It certainly didn't destroy the movie for me. I thought the movie was great.


In the movie you got the impression that Arwen was challenging the riders

Greenleaf

I agree. Arwen was challenging the riders. See my earlier post on this thread.

[chrome_rocknave]

Originally posted by Pops
The scar came from a whip-wielding Black Rider.

:rolleyes:

are you sure....I could have sworn an Ent whipped her instead.....

[aragil]

Greenwood- I know that you didn't think that this change was a mangling of characters. There are many different changes to the movies which are objectionable to people. One of the changes which has been most abhorrent to members of these boards, and one which Tolkien himself apparently decried (granted that this was in a quote relating to a different film adaptation) is the 'mis-portrayal of characters'. I have stated that this thread is for addressing whether many of the 'changes' to characters in the movie are actually in contradiction to the books. Complaints about other aspects of the adaptation can go in other threads.
Frankly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more posts to this thread. I know that many people on these boards have objections to how the characters were portrayed, and here is a chance to air them out. In order to help get the ball rolling, I'll list my single biggest characterization complaint:
In the movie, Elrond says a line to the effect that 'He (Aragorn) chose exile!'. In the books, Aragorn is the 16th chief of the Dunedain of the north. This makes him 17 generations removed from any kingship, so it is hardly as if he has 'chosen' anything about his status as king. Also in the books, Aragorn is protecting the lands of Arnor. Since Arnor is the kingdom of his forefathers, it is hardly as if Aragorn is in exile from his land, or in any way dodging his duty towards his people. In a similar manner, Aragorn is descended from Anarion through Firiel, who lived 17 generations prior to Aragorn. Firiel was not a ruling descendant of Anarion, her father Ondoher was. So on the 'Anarion' side of the family, Aragorn is 18 generations removed from kingship, and 17 generations removed from actually living in Gondor. In other words, Aragorn did not 'choose exile' from Gondor, either. Of course, this then leads to a mis-portrayal of his character. Many people who see the movie will have the impression that Aragorn was crowned as a king, and then abdicated and ran off to skulk in the north for however many years, presumably because he was so horrified by the fact that his ancestor (Isildur) did not toss the ring into the fires of Orodruin. In fact, somebody posted something to this effect in the 'Lord of the Rings' section of the forum, and I told them to ignore what it said in the movie.
That is my complaint about characterizations in the movie, I hope that other members of this forum will post regarding which character they felt was mis-portrayed in the movie. If nothing else, this thread should at least be fun for deepening our understanding of how our favorite characters were written into the world of Middle-Earth!

[ReadWryt]

Tar-Steve,

Although it is mostly a suspicion on my part, I think that a good sized chunk of the extra 45 minutes of footage that New Line says will probably end up on the DVD will include a good deal of footage with Galadriel. This may not "Warm her up" in your eyes, but it would go a long way toward portraying her concern for the success of the party, and re-insert the scenes where she bestows her gifts upon the Fellowship, still images of which I have seen about.

[Wide Boy]

Great thread Aragil.

In general I support most of the characterizations.

I didn't perceive some of the characters as portrayed in the way that many others did. I didn't think Gandalf's "is it safe" remarks re the Ring were "sputtering". Consider that he's left the most appallingly powerful artifact in Middle Earth in the care of a hobbit and he's just been given cause to believe that the pursuit is hard on his heels. I don't think that a little trepidation and urgent inquiry is out of place.

Merry and Pippin were not what I had in my mind's eye, but I think PJ came up with a better picture than I had. He captured their adolescence and immaturity very well, and he did make a clear distinction between the two. Merry was clearly more level headed and quicker to realise that a situation was serious and called for serious action.

I'm with you on Aragorn. The Aragorn I saw was fairly weatherbeaten and looked like someone who had spent some hard time in hard places. Although chronologically he is old, he is not old for his bloodline (especially one in whom the blood of Numenor runs more true than in any other for centuries). The books clearly give the impression of not quite middle aged for me. Certainly he should be vigorous and capable. Some of the Aragorn objectors seem to want an old veteran on the verge of collecting his pension. And I don't think JRRT ever used the adjective "grizzled" to describe him.

Elrond was great. He had the stern approach and careworn attitude I was looking for. Galadriel, likewise was good given the limited time on screen. More time would have brought out the softer side of her a bit more.

Sorry to the Orlando fans, but Legolas was boring and colourless. However, that's how he was in FOTR. It wasn't until well into TTT that he developed much of a personality and even then he never set the world on fire.

Gimli was a bit of a D&D stereotype dwarf for me. However, he may warm up when he has a bit more to do.

I hated Boromir to start with but found myself warming to him by the end of the movie. As with Legolas, my reaction to him was exactly how I reacted to him the first time I read the book, so from that perspective, they got his character right.

Sam was great. He had the right mixture of rustic, bucolic ignorance (NOT stupidity) and stubborn loyalty. I did miss the "tall, shapeless felt bag" that he used for a hat though.

I thought Frodo was in some ways was the weakest of the Fellowship. The pathos got a bit close to pathetic and he was a bit too Boy's Own for me. And the CG stuff made his neck look like he was a front row forward (Rugby allusion, I don't know the equivalent American football position). But overall, he was acceptable.

[Bombadillodillo]

I thought PJ did a good job portraying the company of the fellowship. The characterization of non central characters was perhaps a bit dubious.

Concerning Gandalf, I do not remember him being portrayed as spluttering. Everyone seems to site only the one incident when Gandalf fears that the ring may have been taken, in which case his entire mission would have failed. The fact that Gandalf who no where else (except at the meeting of the Balrog) shows signs of trepidation in the face of gravest danger seems to indicate to me that Gandalf was not portrayed as spluttering. In fact I would argue that Tolkien portrayed him in similar distress as Gandalf rushed on Shadowfax to Shire once he had escaped Orthanc. The distress of Gandalf rushing to Bree was not shown by PJ nor his relief as he learned that the hobbits were accompanied by Strider. In PJ's rendition Gandalf is merely far less confident in security of the Shire and therefore he rushes from the libraries of Minas Tirith to the Shire to be sure that it is safe.

In other instances Gandalf was very composed: at the entrance to the mines of Moria he was at a loss but not distressed by the howling of the wolves; on the bridge of Khazad- Dum after his initial surprise by the appearance of a balrog, he was composed and commanding. You can think of other instances for yourselves.

Moreover, he portrayed Gandalf as lighthearted and fond of the hobbits which was a concern of mine. Also Ian portrayed the heaviness of his burden, looking very old and even dotardly at times which is how he appeared to many according to Tolkien's description, so much so that the Theoden's guard allowed him to pass with his staff. Of all the characters I the nuiances of Gandalf's character were best portrayed.

Aragorn is perhaps more subtle than Gandalf in some ways. His knowledge of the wilds was much lost in the movie. And he was a weatherbeaten roadworn man, "all that is gold does not glitter" -- it is a shame that that short poem was left out. I did like the fact that PJ drew out Aragorn's struggle with his own past. He did indeed struggle with it and Elrond makes specific mention that he is chosen because he is Isildur's heir. PJ choose to explicitly state the struggle Aragorn had over the ring, which was implicit in the book.

I don't have time to go into all the characters. I will make mention of two characters I did not like. The only objectionable aspect of Arwen was not her role in saving Frodo (recall that Luthien saved Beren) but her kinky first appearance sneaking up on Strider in the wilds (which also diminished Aragorn's abilities) and putting a sword to his neck. That was just silly. Also Elrond appeared quite bitter. The elves might have become bitter because of Isuldur's poor choice, but they were more magnanimous, especially Elrond. And the homeliness of his house was not manifest in the film.

On the whole I thought the character portrayal was a bright spot in the film. But since most of the characters are not developed until later books, we shall have to see whether his good beginnings do not falter.

[Tar-Steve]

Originally posted by aragil
Tar-Steve- I'll remind you that the point of this thread is not whether we liked the character's portrayal, but wether it was justifiable based on what is in the books.

WTF?

In what way is my Galadriel objection not based on "what's in the books" and where are the "reminders" for all the posts in this thread that ARE simple statements of the "whether we liked/disliked the character's portrayal" variety?

(Just wondering what makes me so special. :) )

[aragil]

I was responding to a lot of people's posts, and in my haste what popped out of your post wast the opening sentence 'I didn't like Galadriel's portrayal in the movie'. That's what I was reffering to- then you backed it up with book quotes, and I gave my weak defence.

[Grond]

Aragil, I just found this thread and apologize for not looking closer, sooner.....:)

Having said that, you and the NLC fanatics (a new name) have me so worn out from other posts in other threads that my brain will not function properly tonight to go through an in-depth analysis of all that has been said. I have read every post now and will respond tomorrow when what little brain I have is working more clearly.

I do have one thought on characterization in the movie and I say it in all sincerity. Did anyone notice Rosie Cotton? My God... I thought she was sooooooooooo hot. I guess it's because she reminds me of a dark and delicate cajun lady from my home state. I know that she didn't play a role in the book until The Scouring of the Shire but I thought her sweet cuteness is exactly what I imagined Rosie would be all about. And as Schwartz... said in Terminator... "I'll be back!!";)

[xgothgrrl]

In case anyone was wondering when my two-cents would be added, be warned. The time is swift approaching. I've been out of town for a few days.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[DGoeij]

The characters in the Fellowship were great IMHO.
Gandalf didn't splutter or anything, he dearly loved hobbits and feared the Ring. In Moria he was the Gandalf I imagined.
Boromir was a noble man, tempted by the Ring, the sword lessons to Merry and Pippin made him look better than in the book to me honestly.
Gimli was the stout-hearthed Dwarf he was supposed to be. To nit-pick: He didn't have a helmet when they left Rivendell. He got a helmet from Theoden before they went to Helms Deep.
Legolas was the friendly, fast moving Elf.
Merry was more thoughtfull than the overly active Pippin, but in the book of FOTR they are not as clearly given character as they were in the movie. The movie did it better for them.
Frodo is the scared but determined Hobbit, some scenes did cut back his courage though.
Sam is the loving friend of Frodo. Simple-minded perhaps, but true in his hearth, as in the books.

[aragil]

Just bringing this back up on the off-hand chance anyone still has objections to character-portrayal in the movies.

[Darth Saruman]

No objections here. The movie did the characters justice.

[Thorin]

C'mon Darth..Don't let your undying praise and admiration for PJ stop you from being somewhat objective...compared to any character you see, yes, the characters were excellent. Compared to Tolkien, most were somewhat lacking...

1) Character wise (personality and overall performance) Boromir and Gandalf (with the exception of about three scenes) were probably the closest to Tolkien.

Arwen, Saruman and Gimli were the worst

Frodo, Aragorn, Bilbo and Legolas were neutral in my mind.

2) Physical wise (looking the part): The Nazgul, Gandalf, Saruman, Sam and Gimli (with the exception of the stupid helmet) were the best fit for the part.

Elrond, Galadriel (though I don't think any actress could do Galadriel justice), and Frodo were the worst cast form a physical perspective.

See, this purist can be objective as well as critical.

[Talimon]

Thorin, what's the point if you're going to be objective? ;)

But since you did it I have to do it too now :).

1) Charachter wise:

Good: Boromir, Gandalf, Sam, Bilbo, Aragorn.

Decent: Frodo, Pippin, Merry, Gimili, Legolas, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman.

Bad: Arwen, Celebron.

I don't have anything in particular against Elrond or Legolas, but I can't say they blew me away either.

2) Vissually:

Good: Gandalf, Boromir, Aragorn, Bilbo, Sam, Gimili, Legolas, Saruman.

Decent: Frodo, Merry, Galadriel, Elrond.

Bad: Arwen, Celebron, Pippin.


I'm almost tempted to say put Galadriel in the "good" category. In my opinion, without the light surrounding her, she looks perfect. Her eyes reflect both sorrow and joy. Elijah Wood didn't look enough like a hobbit for my tastes. He wasn't "full" enough, for lack of better words. I thought Sam, on the other hand, looked perfect.

Not to loose my objectivity (for what it's worth), but in my most humble opinion the movie was incredible visually. Literrally scene for scene I was blown away by the amount of color and creativity coming off screen. But I'm very sensitive visually so that makes me slightly biased. The only scene that I have serious objections with is Galadriels transformation. It just looked really cheap. I don't mind the idea so much, but use a different color!!! That blueish/green scheme looked so puny and cheap. They should have made it golden/amber. That would have shone through much more majestically. But her voice ruins it for the most part. Loose the bass.

Other then that objection everything is literally spot on (visually).

[Melian Le Fay]

I first saw the film, and then I read the book...
In the film, Arwen appearence seemed logical, but...
After I had read the book, I got this sort of "sense" of Elven-women...They are noble, beautiful, bla-bla-bla, you all know that, but although they are strong personalities, and brave and proud, they don't seem like sort of women who would go around waving swords, fighgting...For instance, take the story of Beren and Luthien ("The Silmarillion") Luthien "fought" with song and grace, not with swords!!!
What I'm trying to say is that Elven women are strong, but their strength is represented in a different way... Holding a sword...that's something that becomes mortal women - like Eowyn, or some other female characters from "The Silmarillion"...
PJ's wish to show Arwen as a strong women who doesn't just sit around and wait for her prince to save her is OK, but I think he didn't do it in the right manner...

And I liked how they presented Boromir's character!!! The scene of his death really touched me... He was taken over by the ring, but he gained his absolution and died honourably... And he also reffers to Hobits as "little ones"... That really shows his sensitive side... He was really portrayed well in the film.

[Melian Le Fay]

I first saw the film, and then I read the book...
In the film, Arwen appearence seemed logical, but...
After I had read the book, I got this sort of "sense" of Elven-women...They are noble, beautiful, bla-bla-bla, you all know that, but although they are strong personalities, and brave and proud, they don't seem like sort of women who would go around waving swords, fighgting...For instance, take the story of Beren and Luthien ("The Silmarillion") Luthien "fought" with song and grace, not with swords!!!
What I'm trying to say is that Elven women are strong, but their strength is represented in a different way... Holding a sword...that's something that becomes mortal women - like Eowyn, or some other female characters from "The Silmarillion"...
PJ's wish to show Arwen as a strong women who doesn't just sit around and wait for her prince to save her is OK, but I think he didn't do it in the right manner...

And I liked how they presented Boromir's character!!! The scene of his death really touched me... He was taken over by the ring, but he gained his absolution and died honourably... And he also reffers to Hobits as "little ones"... That really shows his sensitive side... He was really portrayed well in the film.

[aragil]

Millena- I think there's several of you Belgraders around the boards these days. I live right next to Belgrade, Montana, USA. Bet you didn't know THAT existed. Welcome to the forum!

I agree with you completely on Boromir in the movie. I loved a lot of things in that movie, but Boromir might be my favorite of all. No offence to JRRT, but I never really empathisized with the character in the books- he just seemed like a head-strong individual, who I thought was probably better off dead (rather than alive and lusting for the Ring). Somehow, Sean Bean and PJ really made the character work for me: I really felt the tragedy of his fall and saw how desperately he wanted to make amends. If that had been the only good part in the movie it probably would have been enough for me to enjoy the whole show. (I've probably already posted all this somewhere on this thread, but darnit, it's a good enough bit that it's worth a second mention).

Regarding Arwen- I think I might disagree with you a little here. Remember, a large part of Arwen (well, about half) was human, so she might do things that other Elven women wouldn't do. Even Luthien carried a knife (and what a knife), and while Arwen held a sword, she didn't really use it, she still defeated the Nazgûl through guile.

[Melian Le Fay]

Belgrade in America? ..... Hmmm.... Actually, I know that there are 7 Belgrades in USA... Not too original, I guess...:D


Your reply on Arwen... I agree with you! Can you believe it, I actually FORGOT that Arwen was part human... Hmmm.... Maybe the reason I disregarded her human descent was because in JRRT's book, she is barely noted!!! I think I've learned more about characters reading appendix (how do you guys Americans call that addition to the book?)
than reading the book... And speaking of Arwen, I really hated the way her life was ended!!!! Booo-hooo-hooo.... I almost started crying in the bus, when I read that part...


I saw the film before I read the book, and I went to see it once again... I definitely liked the casting!!! I don't know if anyone noticed, but Viggo Mortensen ( I hope I spelled the name corectly) has grey eyes, dark hair... Just like the people of Numenor!!! Everyone looked like they were described in the book, except fot one little thing : all the Elves ( save Elrond and his children ) were fair-haired!!!!!! Why? All the Elves of Middle-earth were dark-haired people, save Lady Galadriel, who was partly of Vanyar descent...

[Rúmil]

About Arwen being half-human... hmm... on her mother's side, not a trace of mortal blood: her maternal gradparents were Galadriel and Celeborn. On Daddy's side, her grandmother Elwing was half-elven but rared in an Noldorin community, and Eärendil the same. So mortal influence would be close to zero. I think of her rather as I do of Galadriel: not the type to go around pretending to slit Aragorn's throat and trying to outrace Nazgûl. In particular, she seemed to treat Frodo like and infant: in the book, he's wounded and very weak, but it's the part where he shows the most courage and force of spirit – here he's as wilful and active as a bag of spuds. "Ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim" wans nearly like "don't you touch my little guy, you nasty shadow! he's SO cute, I wouldn't have anything happen to him. Complete misportryal of Arwen, IMHO.
Also, rather minor but just as off-course, orcs hatching out of mud: this was the time to show some grandiose scenes of armies filling up the whole screen, not vile pupating in the dark. That along with the fact Gandalf and Saruman don't fight: there may be a mental strife, but none of that ninja stuff.

On the other hand, Boromir was EXCELLENT: he really played his character very deeply. Though the scene of his death with the slow-motion arrow-pricking was overdone, in my sense. Excellent acting overall. Apart from Arwen, I think no character was really mistreated. I especially like Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond. That's not how I imagined Elrond, but it works out very well. Remove Arwen's pranks and the mud-hatched orcs and it is near perfect.

[aragil]

Millena- (re. fair-haired Elves) I don't really know why the costumers decided to do that, but in their defence, several of the Sindar (Elwe, Cirdan) are said to have either blonde or silver hair. Thranduil, Legolas, and Celeborn are all related to Elwe, so it is possible that they had lighter color hair. The other Elven Blondes are Silvan, which might make up a large enough group to have both Blonde and Dark-colored hair. At least they were definitely right with Galadriel!

Rúmil- Regardless of their upbringing, Elrond and family were very much half-human.
From Many Meetings
He was the Lord of Rivendell and mighty among both Elves and Men
How can you reconcile this quote with mortal influences being near nil? Remember, after ~TA 1980 the Northern Dunedain were based out of Rivendell, giving Arwen over 1000 years of mortal influence. And for those who think of Elven women as incapable of running away from Nazgûl, here's a bit from HoME 10 which discusses the nature of Elven women:
In all such thing, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal - unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the eldar only a nér can think or do, or others with which only a nìs is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of neri and nissi, and other differences that have been established by custom (varying in place and in time, and in the several races of the Eldar). For instance, the arts of healing, and all that touches on the care of the body, are among all Eldar most practised by the nissi; whereas it was the elven-men who bore arms at need. And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the nissi in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need.
I think the potential capture of the Ring-Bearer and the One Ring by the Nazgûl falls under the broad category of 'dire straits', so even an elven woman would be excused if she rides a horse away from the Black Riders under these circumstances. Did she treat Frodo like an infant? I didn't feel that way, I thought the treatment was more as an invalid, which Frodo was at that point. Arwen was definitely protective of him, but considering the circumstances that seems forgivable.
I am, however, inclined to agree with you on the sword-to-Aragorn's neck bit. I have no idea why that was there, and playfully threatening violence definitely does not seem to be in the character of any besides an Orc.

And speaking of Orcs, I think I disagree with you regarding the Orcs out of the Mud. If you're interested (and you'd have to be very interested to read all the following posts) here's two links to threads which discuss the scene and the relationship between Sauron's and Saruman's Orcs in GREAT detail:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1431
and
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146

If you don't feel like reading these threads (and who could blame you?) here is an interesting quote, again from HoME 10:
There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this (the fact that men could be bred with orcs), or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery commited ths, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.
Clearly Tolkien did not feel that this crossing in any way deserved 'grandiose' treatment. It was Saruman's wickedest deed, brought about by his lust for mastery, and the offspring of this crossing were vile. Vile pupating in the dark sounds pretty well in line with JRRT's concept, in my opinion.
Hope you don't think I was picking on you- just trying to address some of your points, after all, that's what this thread is for!

[Rúmil]

About the mortal influence on Arwen: you do make a point there. I guess I hadn't thought of that. But about her "courage": yes, no doubt if the Nazgûl hat invaded Rivendell, I'm sure she would have acted proudly and bravely. But in the film it looks like she just out seeking danger for the thrill of it, not being brave "at a pinch"; even the male Eldar and Edain avoided combat as much as they could, except for the reckless types like Fëanor. If the sneeking up on Aragorn had been absent, it would haved deleted that impression, Arwen going out to have some fun at the Nazgûl's expence. About the Orcs, it is quite a long debate – must do some reading before I can come up with a valid opinion on how Orcs reproduce, though I think in the Silm it says they do it after the manner of the Children of Illúvatar (brr). Still, the wizard karate fight sticked out.

And, as the Professor said, you are welcome to let your pen run as it will, it is horrible writing letters to people with whom you have to be 'careful' Can't put it better than the Professor, can I? :D

[Melian Le Fay]

Hmmm....I'm really interested....where did you read about Elven portraits? Well, I've only read LOTR and half of "the Silmarillion", so I guess it doesn't really make me an expert for Toliken...:)
So far, I've only got the picture of all Elves being dark haired, and only the Vanyar and some of their offsprings being fair-haired...
Can anyone tell me about other works of Tolkien.....? I can't wait to get my hands on them!!!:D

[Melian Le Fay]

Hmm....I'm replying to myself....
Ok, I get it that there were much more blonde Elves around, but I still don't like it in the film - ALL of them were blonde!!!!! Why, oh, why?!!!:confused:

[Darth Saruman]

Characterization in the movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!

Yes...perfect....absolutely perfect....

[Jamesy2]

The characterisations weren't perfect.

Aragorn: acted too much like a confidence-lacking moron. Arwen can take him unawares, and he can nearly be beaten by an orc.

Gandalf: Is too much of a blundering idiot. Panicky and trivial.

Galadriel: That mad thing that happens is just wrong. She is meant to be gently mocking Frodo not turning into a monochromic misconception of a literary subtlety. She is amiably patronising to Frodo, she doesn't suffer from some vaguely identifiable seizure caused by the words of a hobbit.

Sam: OK

Borormir: His submission to Aragorn was unexpected but acceptable.

Legolas: Soopa cool. The only bad thing I can see is that he detracted from the skills of the other companions.

Gimli: Treated as the comedian of the fellowship. He should be a strong character, not just an outlet for one-liners.

Merry, Pippin: OK, no major complaints.

Celeborn: Galadriel's concubine

Saruman: Rum-de-dum-de-dumde-dum. (On the tower, you know) He was good, but I have a vague bias towards Christopher Lee.

As with everything in this film I am left feeling dissatisfied. "Why oh why couldn't they just have done this differently, or that differently?"

Anyway the point at the end is that 'perfect' is too strong a word to use. Of course they will never be perfect to anyone's mind unless they direct the film themselves. I believe strongly that with someone, a person who truly understands the books, advising PJ, the film could have been the cinematic event we all wished it to be.

[aragil]

Millena- I'm not sure that there were more blonde elves than dark-haired ones, check out the posts by Cìan in http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1925
I think you might have a valid gripe about the Elves seeming to all be blondes in the movie, but Celeborn is described as having silver hair, Galadriel does have blonde hair:
They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold, and the hair of the Lord Celeborn was of silver long and bright;
Also the Elf who helps the Fellowship cross the Celebrant in Lorien (at least) has blonde hair:
He gave a call like the low whistle of a bird, and out of a thicket of young trees an Elf stepped, clad in grey, but with his hood thrown back; his hair glinted like gold in the morning sun.
However, I think that barring special mention most Elves (excepting of course the Vanyar) did have dark hair.

The only other works of Tolkien I know of which describe Middle-earth are Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth series. Both were published posthumously (like the Sil), and they both contain large amounts of editorial commentary by Tolkien's son, Christopher. If you're interested, there are several threads in the HoME forum about which books make a good read.

Rúmil- well, the sword-to-Aragorn's-neck thing is definitely not a fond memory for me, either. Still, I don't let it ruin my impression of Arwen- I just imagine that she was sent out by her father, as Glorfindel in the books mentions several messengers being sent out in search of the Ring-bearer. If you like, think of her as an amalgamation of herself and her two brothers, as (sadly) I don't think that either Elladan or Elrohir will be making an appearance in the movies. And don't forget to ignore the sword to the neck bit.
As for the Uruk-hai (a favorite topic of mine, I should warn you), we don't know the movie's take on their conception. Remember, in the movie Sauron tells Saruman to build an army while Gandalf is imprisoned in Orthanc. By the time the Fellowship reaches Lorien the Orc warriors are full-grown, indicating that Saruman must have used magic in addition to his cross-breeding of humans and orcs. So the Uruk-hai in the movie might have been conceived after the manner of the children of Illuvatar (it says this in both the Sil and HoME), but their maturation and development were greatly accelerated via the magical muck. At least that's my take.
Re. the Wizards' duel- the book doesn't tell us what happened. But what we do know is what Gandalf has just learned:
1) Saruman has connected the dots regarding Gandalf's activity in the Shire and the location of the Ring
2) Saruman has fallen from trying to help the free peoples, and is at best working for himself, at worst working for Sauron
3) The Nazgûl are once again abroad, and are also looking for the Shire
4) Frodo's current plan is to wait until September (3 months) to leave
With Gandalf knowing this information, do you really think Gandalf would meekly acquisce when Saruman asked him to go to the roof of Orthanc? Heck no- the fate of the Free Peoples and his own charge from Illuvatar hung in the balance! There was bound to be a fight one way or another. To give the film-makers credit, they tried to make it a battle of the minds- the wizards used telekinetic powers rather than fencing with staves. This scene just doesn't bother me that much- Tolkien left it up to interpretation, and just because the film-makers' interpretation is different than most people's is no reason to crucify them, IMO (slight exageration there on my part, I know).

Jamesy2-
Of course saying anything in a movie is perfect is silly, that was just a hook to get purists to debate (although Darth Saruman might actually agree with the statement). The point is perfection is in the eye of the beholder- whether or not they were perfect is going to be determined by the individual viewer, regardless of what the film-makers themeselves did. Incidentally, I think that I'm just agreeing here with what you said in the last paragraph of your post.
Way back when I started this thread (six months ago) it was common practice by many on these boards to make blanket statements regarding how poor the characterization was in this movie. In the relatively few instances where people would post specifics with these blanket statements, I felt that they were often complaining about stuff that was in the book. I think that in the course of this thread, I and others have provided quotes from the book which address many of the points you were complaining about. What I think this boils down to is that many of the interpretations of the book which you held going into the movie were different than what you saw on the screen. However, I can't emphasize enough that what you are judging the movie against is an interpretation. For instance, while you were seemingly offended by Gandalf's portrayal, Thorin (one of the purist of the purists, I might add) ranked Gandalf as one of the two characters closest to the book. How can this be? Probably because you two had differing interpretations after reading the books. Given that two purists (I hope you don't mind being labeled as such) can have such differing interpretations, we can hardly expect the film to please everyone with its characterizations. Happily for me, the film crew either pegged my interpretations or, even better, took a different perspective on a character which helped me to understand them in a new way!

[Rúmil]

Well, for Arwen, I suppose I could try stopping my ears and closing my eyes when she appears: after all, she is, and remains, a minor character. About the orcs and the fighting wizards, it still seems sort of out of place, but I don't let it ruin the film on me. The other misfortunes of the film, like Saruman commanding the landslide, are off from the book, but they fit in somehow.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Rúmil
The other misfortunes of the film, like Saruman commanding the landslide, are off from the book, but they fit in somehow.

That just got me thinking (uh-oh). Remember Helm's Deep- I believe the clouds came from the East (i.e. Mordor), but Saruman certainly had the ability to command some sort of lightning- they called it 'Fire of Orthanc', or something like that, and it was used to breech the Deepening Coomb. I never put that together with the movie, but maybe it does fit better with the books then I had thought.

[Rúmil]

I must say I can't remember that. I guess I'll just have to pick up Lotr again and read it right through. Hee, hee. :D

[aragil]

{Lifted from MGIWH III (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=404059#post404059)}
Absolutely I wrote them. By all means point to me a spot in FotR where you think Pippin is acting out of place, and I'll show you three passages from the books where he shows the same behavior.Okay. How about the Council of Elrond? In the book Pippin and Merry know exactly where they are going and what seriousness it entails. Yet they decide to push on showing their true loyalty and bravery (though naive as it may have been). Movie Pippin, after all is said and done, says "Where are we going again?" Strictly for comic relief and book Pippin is mocked in this display of idiocy. Couple this with the fools who stumble on to Sam and Frodo and get caught up with them shows that they have no clue what they are doing. Far from book Pippin despite his hobbit impulsiveness. The only thing PJ got fairly accurate as to show book Pippin's character (until RoTK of course, there Pippin is mostly redeemed) is at the well in Moria. Merry and Pippin were buffoons throughout the first two movies. And the stupid extra scenes of the ent-draught didn't help either. Hmmm. The books says that Merry and Pippin know exactly what seriousness the quest entails, eh? Let's have a look: From 'The Ring Goes South':
Later that day the hobbits held a meeting of their own in Bilbo's room. Merry and Pippin were indignant when they heard that Sam had crept into the Council, and had been chosen as Frodo's companion.
`It's most unfair,' said Pippin. `Instead of throwing him out, and clapping him in chains, Elrond goes and rewards him for his cheek!'
`Rewards!' said Frodo. 'I can't imagine a more severe punishment. You are not thinking what you are saying: condemned to go on this hopeless journey, a reward? Yesterday I dreamed that my task was done, and I could rest here, a long while, perhaps for good.'
'I don't wonder,' said Merry, 'and I wish you could. But we are envying Sam, not you. If you have to go, then it will be a punishment for any of us to be left behind, even in Rivendell. We have come a long way with you and been through some stiff times. We want to go on.'
`That's what I meant,' said Pippin. `We hobbits ought to stick together, and we will. I shall go, unless they chain me up. There must be someone with intelligence in the party.'
'Then you certainly will not be chosen, Peregrin Took!' said Gandalf, looking in through the window, which was near the ground. `But you are all worrying yourselves unnecessarily. Nothing is decided yet.'
...
'There remain two more to be found,' said Elrond. "These I will consider. Of my household I may find some that it seems good to me to send.'
`But that will leave no place for us!' cried Pippin in dismay. `We don't want to be left behind. We want to go with Frodo.'
`That is because you do not understand and cannot imagine what lies ahead,' said Elrond.
`Neither does Frodo,' said Gandalf, unexpectedly supporting Pippin. 'Nor do any of us see clearly. It is true that if these hobbits understood the danger, they would not dare to go. But they would still wish to go, or wish that they dared, and be shamed and unhappy. I think, Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust rather to their friendship than to great wisdom.'
...
`You speak gravely,' said Elrond, `but I am in doubt. The Shire, I forebode, is not free now from peril; and these two I had thought to send back there as messengers, to do what they could, according to the fashion of their country, to warn the people of their danger. In any case, I judge that the younger of these two, Peregrin Took, should remain. My heart is against his going.'
`Then, Master Elrond, you will have to lock me in prison, or send me home tied in a sack,' said Pippin. `For otherwise I shall follow the Company.'
Hmm. Looks like Merry and Pippin didn't know what they were getting into, and that this was generally accepted by Gandalf and Elrond. In fact, Gandalf even says that if they did no what was in store for them, they would not dare to go!! There support of Frodo was not done out of any great wisdom on their parts, but purely out of friendship with their cousin. This was what was portrayed in the movie, and it was a Perfect characterization.

[Thorin]

Hmmm. The books says that Merry and Pippin know exactly what seriousness the quest entails, eh? Let's have a look: Hmm. Looks like Merry and Pippin didn't know what they were getting into, and that this was generally accepted by Gandalf and Elrond.Granted I spoke haughtily when I said they understood the seriousness of the quest. At the same time, I did say that their bravery was naive. They didn't truly understand what was going or could happen to them. They remained loyal. However, they at least understood what the quest was and where they needed to go. From the intro of M&P to F&S it is obvious that they are clueless. The general scope of how M&P were portrayed taints how the CoE is interpreted. It is the whole picture and not just one instance. If I recall it was Merry that said that Elrond would have to tie them up or let them go. Pippin, on the other hand was used as an idiot for nothing more then cinematic comic relief on Jackson's part. "So where are we going again?" Like the the trip could have been nothing more than a trek to visit the woods of Rivendell. :rolleyes:

This was what was portrayed in the movie, and it was a Perfect characterization.Perfect? I highly doubt it. The best you can say is that regardless, the job got done.

[aragil]

Well there's no denying that you might not like how it was portrayed, but I believe that their decision was portrayed correctly as per the books.
{Movie version}
Merry did understand things- in the Shire he immediately understands the seriousness of the Black Riders and that they are after Frodo- Pippin remains clueless about the whole affair. Even in Bree it is Merry who first grasps the concept of a 'bigger' beer, while Pippin goes off blathering about 'Baggins'. At the CoE Merry does get the 'sack' line, as well as Gandalf's line that the necessity for 'a person of intelligence' rules out Pippin. This continues through the end of Fellowship and into The Two Towers. It is Merry who realizes that Frodo has decided to leave the Fellowship, and Merry makes the decision to draw away the Uruk-hai so that Frodo stands a chance of escaping. Likewise, it is Merry who realizes what is at stake with the Ents and Isengard, Pippin is initially content to simply return to the Shire and enjoy the simple pleasures he has always known there. The CoE scene fits in perfectly with this. Merry somewhat understands the dangers associated with the quest (though obviously none of the 9 fully understood the dangers, not even Gandalf). Pippin, on the other hand, is motivated by one thing: friendship. This is one of the great themes of the book, and I for one am very pleased with the way it was worked into the movies. For me the fact that Pippin says a funny line does not detract at all from the importance of this decision!
{Book version}
I find that the book Pippin operates in much the same way- in the journey to Crickhollow he is quite rash in what he says, and it is his loud singing that immediately precedes two encounters with the Black Riders. In Crickhollow it is Pippin who empties the contents of his bath onto Frodo's new floor- the consequences aren't as grave as the stone in the well at Moria, but it is equally indicative of his character. After making the pledge to follow Frodo to Rivendell, it is Pippin who says (in reference to the we must away ere break of day song) "Oh! That was poetry! Do you really mean to start before the break of day?". The pledge was of course very touching, but it is clear that he has no idea what is the import of the trip to Rivendell, nor of the seriousness of the danger which they'll be in. IMO opinion this line is at least the equal of "Great! Where are we going?". Not to say I didn't like it- I liked both lines!!
In Bree it is of course Pippin who begins to tell the story of Bilbo's disappearance (here Frodo thinks of him as 'the ridiculous young Took'), which of course prompts Frodo to sing 'Heyd-diddle-diddle', which revealed the Ring and made the remaining journey to Rivendell so dangerous. At the Prancing Pony Pippin also makes the foolish statement that all of the Hobbits will look like Strider after a few days in the Wilderness, and it is Pippin who calls Frodo 'The Lord of the Ring' while in Rivendell. Pippin's impertinence continues with his ill-timed question to Gandalf at the Gates of Moria (prompting the `Knock on the doors with your head, Peregrin Took' reply), to say nothing of the infamous rock down the well. He grows quite a bit in Two Towers- leaving the leaf-tolken for Strider and engineering the escape from the orcs. Still he nearly manages to bring disaster on the quest when he looks into the Palantir. Even when he arrives in Minas Tirith he has on final shocking bit of foolishness- he is ignorant of the fact that Aragorn is the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor. How did he manage to miss that fact for 30+ chapters??
Simply put, Pippin is foolish (or ridiculous, or any of the other adjectives which JRRT sprinkles on him throughout the books). No wonder Elrond was especially against Pippin joining the Fellowship! He does things without thinking them through, and even when he does think he usually shows a less-than-total-comprehension level. This does not in any way diminish from his joining the quest- he pledges to go out of friendship, and in spite of the horrors of what happens to him he never really considers turning back. But his initial decision to go is certainly not made with the deliberation and understanding of Gandalf or Aragorn, or even Merry. Hence I believe his line in the movie at the CoE is not only funny, but it is quite appropriate.

[Aldanil]

Indeed I am quite convinced, royalstar old Forum-friend, that you deserve to be drawing a comfortable stipend from the huge NewLine moneypile, for exegetical services provided after the fact. Had Fran and Philippa (and PJ, too) brought as much love and lore (which might be otherwise phrased as "sensitivity to, and respect for, the original") to their screenwriting as you do to defending them, Thorin and I would be considerably happier. Your thoughtful explication is almost enough to soothe this dull pain in my ear; can you help me (I'm just teasing, unsure that you can) to feel any better about Frodo's having to three-peat his offer and shout down the Council of Elrond?

[aragil]

I'm glad that I can convince someone of something! Newline need not pay me for my seervices. A small role in the upcoming Hobbit will suffice- say Bard or Thranduil. You listening, PJ?

Don't know what you want out of the council of Elrond. PJ chose to play up the dividedness of the 'free-folk'. It is an element quite central to the book (though not as much to the book Council), and it is clearly explained by Haldir in Lorien (don't have the book to quote, but something along the line of ~"In nothing is the joy of the enemy so great as in the estrangement of those who should be united against him").
The lack of unity is so great that the Council disolves into a shouting match. It is the great courage of Frodo (and many people call the movie incarnation a coward) who unites the free people (as represented by sword, bow, and axe) to one common purpose: the destruction of the Ring. Why should he have to shout thrice? I dunno. I like the symbolism of the scene, though- the humble coming forth to disturb the counsels of the mighty. I suppose the triple-shout would then represent in some measure the determination of the little folk to accomplish this task.

On somewhat of a side note, I prefer the 'choice' of Frodo to the book version, where Elrond implies that Frodo himselfwas chosen ("... this task was appointed to you"), so that Frodo's offer to take the Ring becomes effectively meaningless- he'll take it whether he will or no!

[Iluvatar]

On somewhat of a side note, I prefer the 'choice' of Frodo to the book version, where Elrond implies that Frodo himselfwas chosen ("... this task was appointed to you"), so that Frodo's offer to take the Ring becomes effectively meaningless- he'll take it whether he will or no!

Yup, that Tolkien. What a nut job. Thank God for Peter Jackson getting the story right. Hoo boy! What was that Tolkien feller thinking?

[aragil]

Actually, I never said Tolkien was a nut job. I said that in this particular case I preferred what the film did, and I said it in such a way as to try and indicate that liking the film version better was less likely for me than preferring the book version. Any thoughts regarding what I actually said, i.e. what the film did vs. what the book did in this particular case?