In or out? What the movie cut and added...

[Wonko The Sane]

Alright, something's been bothering me about this movie.

1) The whole Arwen giving up her mortality thing. That didn't happen in the book...

2) The Elf in Lorien not being able to give Sam the rope...it kind of means that later Sam will have to be all, "Oh, and here's a rope I found." Instead of, "I'm glad that so and so gave me this rope".

3) The Lady of the Wood connection with Gimli and Legolas. See, you see Gimli and Legolas the Eternally Beautiful arguing and being at odds through the whole first movie, although the director and writer could've done better to make it more intense because some people didn't pick up on their feuds. But you never really see them chum up because of Gimli's respect for Galadriel. I think it's important for them to have kept that in because then later when Legolas and Gimli ride around on the same horse it's not as weird. If I hadn't read the book I'd be thinking "Where did this come from?! Since when are they friends?!"

[Celebrian]

Celebrian Says:
After reading the book twice through, and seeing the movie five times (it's an obsession), I've come to realize that are many thing that Peter Jackson left out. Some of these events are not as important as others, but some will have a major impact later in the story. For instance, when the company travelled through Lorien, Galadriel gave each of them a special gift; Frodo recieved the phial, Sam recieved the "magical" gardening box, Aragorn recieved a sheath for his sword, the re-forged Narsil, and Gimli recieved three stands of hair. Now, you can't tell me that some of these items won't come into the story sooner or later! And if they are included, many people won't understand because they didn't read the books! But other than some missing items, I thought the movie did a lot of justice to the books. Plus, I thought Elrond was HOT!!!! :p (Hence the login name Celebrian, who is Elrond's wife)

P.S. Is anyone collecting the Fellowship of the Ring TCG? I'd like to know so we could talk. Thanks! :)

[Wonko The Sane]

I agree. These things will come into play sooner or later. They should've been kept in the movie.
It irks me.
It really does.

And another thing, you are correct. Elrond IS hot. :) I love all the pretty people in this movie.

[Anamatar IV]

Mr Smith!?! Hot???!!? Medical marijuana is not to be abused, allright.

[Wonko The Sane]

I think he's pretty goodlooking as Elrond.

:)
And I never do drugs. I mean it.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Celebrian
Celebrian Says:
After reading the book twice through, and seeing the movie five times (it's an obsession), I've come to realize that are many thing that Peter Jackson left out. Some of these events are not as important as others, but some will have a major impact later in the story. For instance, when the company travelled through Lorien, Galadriel gave each of them a special gift; Frodo recieved the phial, Sam recieved the "magical" gardening box, Aragorn recieved a sheath for his sword, the re-forged Narsil, and Gimli recieved three stands of hair. Now, you can't tell me that some of these items won't come into the story sooner or later! And if they are included, many people won't understand because they didn't read the books! But other than some missing items, I thought the movie did a lot of justice to the books. Plus, I thought Elrond was HOT!!!! :p (Hence the login name Celebrian, who is Elrond's wife)

P.S. Is anyone collecting the Fellowship of the Ring TCG? I'd like to know so we could talk. Thanks! :)


For one, in the movie Aragorn doesn't have Anduril yet. He'll get it in Return of the King I think. Also, the gift giving scene will be included in the extended DVD version coming out in November. Finally, the rope that Sam get's really isn't that important. I mean, does it really matter whether Frodo and Sam encountered a cliff they couldn't ascend without rope? And even if it does, does it matter that it's included in the movie?

[Ponte]

Isn´t that the rope that burns gollum so he starts to help Sam and Frodo (for the moment)?
So I think that rope is important.

[Wonko The Sane]

I think Aragorn should've had Anduril reforged at Rivendell in the midst of preparation for the departure of The Company in the movie just as he did in the book.

I think that when he pulled his sword on the hobbits in Bree that he should've shown that his sword was broken.

To me, there's no reason to change this. They should've kept it as it was.

And I agree. While it isn't essential for Frodo and Sam to encounter that cliff, the rope is necessary for them to get Gollum to help them.

[Gandalf White]

I read the books right after I watched the movie, so here's my thoughts.

1. Leave Arwen's immortality scene in. Why? Books have appendixes, movies can't.

2.I agree, the cliff scene is not necessary. Rope would naturally be packed for a long journey, so no one will be surprised when Sam pulls some out to tie up Gollum.

3.I agree that it's bad they don't show Gimli and Legolas fighting over the 'lady of the wood' but they don't really become friends till the Two Towers, so I hope PJ puts that in.

[Wonko The Sane]

I agree.
Keep in the Arwen thing definitely.

But the whole rope thing I think IS necessary. Because it's an elven rope that they use to tie up Gollum and that "burns" him and causes him to fear and help them.
And in the FotR movie (I think...) Sam even says as they were leaving, "There's one thing I wanted was a bit of rope, but I can't get that now and I knew I'd be wanting it if I didnt' have it."
I think that it's necessary for them to have that elven rope.

And as for the Gimli Legolas thing I thin it's essential because when they're riding on the same horse in TT I think people are going to be confused.

[ReadWryt]

New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. unfortunately are not in the business of giving special gifts to Tolkien fans, and to include everything, or even MOST things mentioned above would have made for a movie that, statistically, experientially and through Market Research, would have been too long to interest many viewers. Also, because they are not "the artists", ie Jackson, they cannot decide that certain things like invented comic relief between Merry and Pippin, who should where the movie is concerned be refered to from now on as R2 and 3P0, should be removed...or other things created but not adapted from the book.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. unfortunately are not in the business of giving special gifts to Tolkien fans, and to include everything, or even MOST things mentioned above would have made for a movie that, statistically, experientially and through Market Research, would have been too long to interest many viewers. Also, because they are not "the artists", ie Jackson, they cannot decide that certain things like invented comic relief between Merry and Pippin, who should where the movie is concerned be refered to from now on as R2 and 3P0, should be removed...or other things created but not adapted from the book.

No offense, but you really come off as being a really opressed individual.

Let's make this clear:

1. The extended DVD version, coming out in November, will included: More of Merry and Pippin in the Shire (thus most likely explaining why they chose to come in the first place), more regarding the relationship between Gimili and Legolas (not to mention the relationship between Elves and Dwarves in general), more of Lothlorien (fleshing out the more beautiful side of it), and finally and most importantly the gift giving scene in it's full glory. These were all part of the original cut, but due to time constraints and whatnot they had to be cut for the theatrical version. So don't give me that "not for the fans" excuse. An extended version wouldn't even be released was there no concern for the fans. And if you noticed such things as the stone trolls from The Hobbit (you can catch it when Arwen appears), you'd realize that this movie is packed with snippets of fan-goodness.

2. While the rope does burn Gollum, it's not cruicial in him becoming their guide. The main thing is his relationship with Frodo. Frodo and Gollum have a relationship that is built on more then just the threat of Gollum being tied up again. The important thing to show is how Gollum becomes scared of Frodo, not scared of the rope.

[Wonko The Sane]

I thoroughly agree with Talimon on both counts.

Again, no offense, but this ReadWryt fellow came across as condescending and downright caustic. That's not cool. Again, there are nicer ways to put things.

Talimon is entirely correct on point 1 about the DVD, the movie, the cut scenes, and time constraints which means that ReadWryt is not.

And on point 2, Talimon is correct. It didn't occur to me that the elven rope being absent would certainly help to play up on Gollum's relationship with and alleigance to Frodo. I agree.

Thanks for that post Talimon! Quite enlightening and very POLITE. :-P

[Legolam]

Wonko, in your first post you said that Arwen giving up her mortality didn't happen in the book. It does. Most definitely.

I think all three things should have been in the film.

Hey, and don't dis RW! He's cool! :cool: If a little opinionated! ;)

[Wonko The Sane]

You are correct. It did.
I should've been more clear...

Arwen giving up her immortality did not happen in the book the way it did in the movie.

My point was with PJs changing of Arwen's giving of her immortality. Probably to provide a love-interest early in the "trilogy" rather than later as in the book.

I think we'll all agree that the scene shown in the movie didn't happen like that in the book.

And I wasn't dissing RW. I was merely saying that his method of posting was, frankly, mean and it hurt my feelings.
He wasn't being the nicest bunny in the litter.

[wonko]

hey, yo, i think that they should put everything from the book into the movie... length is not an issue!

[Goldberry344]

bah, why did they make cuts in the first place?? ;)

[ReadWryt]

There are indeed "nicer" ways to put things, but why sugar coat a turd and serve it up as a tart? I am completely correct where the original subject of the thread is concerned. Where the "Special Release" DVD is concerned I made no comment. I was aware already that there would be the scene of Galadriel bestowing her gifts upon the fellowship in the S.R.DVD, as well as the other things being added as this would be easier to sell the public then a 4 hour theatrical release. Few people would be willing to sit through a 4 hour movie in the theatre and W.B. knows it, so cuts had to be made to whittle it down to a commercially viable package.

But if one were to add up the many things that Jackson invented out of nowhere...Uruk-hai emerging from muck, Gandalf conversing with insects, Arwen and Aragorn conversing in the woods in Elvish, comic relief between R2 and 3P0, the afore mentioned pair playing in the Fireworks and others...and subtract that from the running time of the theatrical release...one could find more then enough time to fit the bestowing of gifts by Galadriel. Alas, Jackson felt it was far more important to include HIS inventions then those of the author, and we have the movie we see today.

[Wonko The Sane]

Hey, no need to get defensive.
I'm just saying that there are nicer ways to say things...and maybe you should use them if you don't want people to get all nasty and bristly around you.
But I get the impression that you really don't care what other people think.
Kudos for your individuality...but there are other people on this planet and while you may not care sometimes it's good to excercise prudence in not offending them.

And I agree with what you wrote about people not wanting to sit through a long movie.
Originally posted by Goldberry344
bah, why did they make cuts in the first place?? ;)

It would've been too long otherwise. I read somewhere that the expanded version is close to 9 hours or soemthing.

And I know that PJ took liberties in adding those random scenes. The Arwen scene in the forest was the one I was specifically referring to in a previous post. But still, the added stuff adds to the movie, and I enjoyed the extra scenes regardless of their relevance to the books.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
But if one were to add up the many things that Jackson invented out of nowhere...Uruk-hai emerging from muck, Gandalf conversing with insects, Arwen and Aragorn conversing in the woods in Elvish, comic relief between R2 and 3P0, the afore mentioned pair playing in the Fireworks and others...and subtract that from the running time of the theatrical release...one could find more then enough time to fit the bestowing of gifts by Galadriel. Alas, Jackson felt it was far more important to include HIS inventions then those of the author, and we have the movie we see today.

I'm not sure if that last sentence is said with praise or disgust for the movie, but in either case all the changes you mention can be explained. Uruk-Hai from the muck to explain how exactly Saruman was "breeding an army". Gandalf talking to the moth might be as true as not, considering that he told Radgahst to send messengers. Gandalf didn't say that a "moth" came in the book, but then again he might of just left it out. Point being it made things easier to follow. It would have been much more confusing to just have him be rescued by Gwahir, let alone have him talk about it and not have it shown. Arwen adn Aragorn was to develop thier love for one another, so that it doesn't seem quite as random when they wed in RotK. And Merry and Pippin are ther to give a lighter texture to the tale. I agree that they aren't quite what they are in the book, but then again you'll notice that by the end of the movie they have lost thier happy-go-lucky attitude. They will be quite a bit more serious in the next two films.

In order to keep things understandable and interesting to those who haven't read the book, PJ couldn't have cut much more then what he already did. And I'll add that he wasn't solely responsibly for those scenes being cut, but it was rather the combination of efforts from producers at New Line (not WB).

I read somewhere that the expanded version is close to 9 hours or soemthing.

All 3 of the theatrical version are going to be 9 hours combined. The extended version of FotR will be around 3 1/2 hours or so.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
But in either case all the changes you mention can be explained.

Yes, they could be explained if you stretch it enough....That doesn't mean that it is Tolkien or should be included when trying to tell the story of LoTR. Especially, as RW says, when so much was invented and so much of Tolkien was left out, yet the excuse given by everyone is that there isn't enough time to include everything...That to me is the biggest fault of PJ...Not what he took out as much as all the fabricated nonsense that he replaced it with and used the "time" excuse.....

Originally posted by Talimon
Uruk-Hai from the muck to explain how exactly Saruman was "breeding an army".

Tolkien already showed how orcs multiplied....by the same way that humans and elves do....The pods was nothing more than a fabrication of a low-budget horror movie director who wanted a bit of squeamish effect....Hardly a homage to Tolkien.

Originally posted by Talimon
Gandalf talking to the moth might be as true as not, considering that he told Radgahst to send messengers. Gandalf didn't say that a "moth" came in the book, but then again he might of just left it out.

"He might have just left it out??" You can't start explaining what wasn't mentioned or assume what was left out in LoTR by what was shown in the movie. That is a very backward assumption. The book came first, not the movie....And Gandalf did mention it quite plainly. Radaghast sent Gwahir. Gandalf even mentioned that it was lucky that he did get Radaghast to send the message out, or Gwahir wouldn't have come for Gandalf....There was not even a hint of anything or anyone else involved, nevermind a moth.

Originally posted by Talimon
Point being it made things easier to follow. It would have been much more confusing to just have him be rescued by Gwahir, let alone have him talk about it and not have it shown.

Actually, not really...There was alot that wasn't explained in the movie. Why would this have been a serious confusion issue? Why a moth first? How did the moth happen to come across Gandalf?Gwahir could easily have come across Gandalf as much as the moth would have, and had some sort of decent explanation as to why he was in the area. Nobody would have been any less confused....

[Talimon]

Sure they would. An eagle just landing out of nowhere, talking to Gandalf, and then taking him away? That's not nearly as dramatic. Sure, it happens in the book, but it just wouldn't work here. And it would be even more random to have Gandalf just jump off and be picked up by the eagle. This is one change from the book I agree with whole-heartedly. Even if there was enough time I wouldn't want Radagahst introduced.

[Wonko The Sane]

You know what I like?
I like how people like Thorin are being rude about proving their points.

Oh wait, no. I don't like that.

And I agree with Talimon about the moth thing.
It was much more dramatic.

And things that worked in the book just wouldn't work in the movie.
Changing media from written word to on screen action is difficult and changes need to be implemented.

Especially when the intended audience is the greater american public.
They NEED drama, love, and comic relief. As well as a movie under 3 hours.

Heh, even given all this the fat woman who answers phones at our pool said she hated the movie.

I wanted to get a piece of dental floss, sneak up behind her, wrap it around her bloated throat and pull it taut effectively decapitating her.
How can you not like the movie?!?

I was reading the book and I got to the part where Merry is prodding the Shirriffs with his sword and getting them to do his bidding and I laughed at the mental image...When I told her what I was laughing about she said, "I hope the book is better than the movie. Because I hated the book."
After I assured her it was I went and sat on my hands to stave off any ensuing acts of rage.

[Thorin]

I'm sorry? Where was I rude?

There is a difference between attacking a person and just pointing out inconsistencies and illogical reasoning. Nothing personal...I expect people to do it to me....I think that it is natural and expected to argue a point....If someone says, "I liked that part", then why argue or attack someone, that is their personal opinion....But if someone says, "That part belonged because..." Then it is only right that someone can counter that argument with the other side. I don't feel I am being unreasonable or rude. Maybe I could be a bit too straight forward, but rude? I don't believe so. I appreciate Talimon's attitude and reasonability....More so than some of the people who defend the movie with their dying breath but won't admit the ridiculous inconsistencies....

I respect your opinions, Talimon....No hard feelings...;)

[Talimon]

It's just words. ;)

[Wonko The Sane]

Nah. I agree. The movie had many inconsistencies. Some of which were inexcusable.

I dunno. The tone that I read from what you wrote seemed a bit abrasive, but it might be just me reading into things.
*googly eyes*
I'm a tool like that.
Forget and forgive?

:-P

[Legolas_lover12]

wow. that was interesting. i liked the movie. even though it didn't have everything in it. but, of course, if it would have had everything from the book, each movie would be about 24 hours long. and no one, well maybe me, would sit through a 24 hour long movie. no way! :D but, it's really all just opinion. what u think may not be the same as what someone else thinks................

[Wonko The Sane]

I would sit through it...
But I'd probably have to take breaks. :)

[Aerin]

PJ detracted time in his movie for the things that Tolkien wrote to give time for the things he created.

It would have been a simple matter for Jackson to have used Tolkien's ideas in the movie he claims is based from LotR.

He could have shown Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts in the movie; not just in the special edition DVD. The gifts they received played a big role in the development of certain events later in the story. The elven cloaks and brooches given to Merry and Pippin played a tremendous part in TTT; that was how Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas were able to track them. Frodo's gift, the Light of Earendil, helped, one could argue it made possible, Frodo and Sam's journey through Mordor. Sam's box grew the mallorn (I think that's the name) tree in the Shire; another blunder by PJ. The tree helped to ease the wounds of the Scouring of the Shire in RotK.

Narsil, for instance, was a major factor in the books. In the Council of Elrond - after Narsil had been reforged in Rivendell - Aragorn was shown to be 'crownless king' with the 'blade that was broken'. If Aragorn receives his sword at Helm's Deep or in RotK, it loses much of the majesty and reverence that surrounds the blade. If I remember correctly, Narsil was the sword Isildur used to fight Sauron with, and was broken during that fight. Taking away the history and meaning behind Narsil turns the legendary weapon into 'just another sword'.

Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen was a gigantic mistake. PJ could quite easily have had Glorfindel assume his place without any 'lengthy, drawn-out explanations as to his identity'. I know all the politically-correct reasons why Arwen played Xena, but I was very displeased at the manner in which she 'defeated' the Nazgul. Instead of two powerful Elf lords and an Istari working together, little Arwen prances up on her pony, swings her sword, chants a little Elvish, and presto! the Nazgul are washed away. Having only one Elf enchanting the Ford and 'washing away the competition' takes away from the granduer of the Elves as a whole.

Galadriel's refusal of the Ring scene was painful to me. Lothlorien looked like a witch's lair; dark and spooky. I re-read FotR only a couple weeks ago and I paid careful attention when the Fellowship was in Lothlorien. The Elven city was in the woods, yes, but it was filled with light. Tolkien described a great, grassy meadow with the sun shining brightly overhead; not a single word about Lothlorien looking like a scene out of a horror flick. Galadriel looked like a witch; not an Elf queen.
Whether it was Cate Blanchett or the special effects, I'm not sure, but in the movie, Galadriel did not seem stately or majestic in the least. She gave me the impression of a fairly young woman going through a dire mood swing... ;)

Hmmm, end of rant for now. :D

[aragil]

Aerin- in case you haven't seen the TT trailer yet, the cloaks were still given to the fellowship, and the brooch was still found by Aragorn. Of course, some may prefer to say that the Three Hunters were able to track M & P because Aragorn has a moderate ability in that area, and not simply because M & P were wearing the cloaks.
The phial was still given to Frodo, the only gift-granting to survive the editor. And finally, if (and this is completely stabbing in the dark here) the Scouring of the Shire is not included in the movie, then Sam's gift becomes unecessary. Sad, and a good part of the books, IMO. But we all know that not everything will make it into the movies.
On the third hand, the Bakshi animated version had the gift giving in flash-back, as in 'Sure was lucky the elves gave you that rope Sam. We would never have made it down that last cliff without it.' If the Scouring does make it onto film, then a flashback (verbal or visual) to Sam receiving the gift will not be such a huge detriment to the movie. How many of the average movie-goers would remember Galadriel handing a box to Samwise when RotK comes out in two years, anyways?

For all you Narsil lovers out there, how do you show reverence to a broken sword? Do wander around with it in a scabbard, waving the hilt-shard at any that will be intimidated by broken swords? Would having it dedicated in a shrine with a mural commemorating it's use against Sauron perhaps show a little reverence as well? Remember, in the movie we are seeing a greater character arc for Aragorn- in FotR Elrond considers him to have forsaken the throne of Gondor. Only at the end of the film when he takes the vambraces of Boromir does he truly begin to consider himself as Isildur's heir in more than name only. Therefore, when he gets his sword in either the second or the third movie, it will further emphasize the fact that he is claiming his inheritence. Different from the book? Yes, but I wouldn't say that it trivializes the importance of Narsil.

Arwen is a lightning rod for the puristas. I won't touch that episode with a ten-foot battle-lance.

The city of the Galadrim is first described as the fellowship reaches it at night fall, and the city is described as gleaming with lights. This was put in the movie, but, since the fellowship didn't seem to stay in Lorien more than a day, we don't see the sunlight that is elsewhere described. Would it have been nice to see? Yes. Did just seeing Lorien in the dusk mangle Tolkien's work so badly that the movie was hardly recognizable as The Lord of the Rings? I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Thorin- Tolkien said that Orcs multiplied after the manner of the children of Iluvatar. What he didn't say was how one would go about crossing orcs with men. This means that the hybridization process was up for interpretation, and PJ decided to go with the magical muck scene. I don't believe that you wanted to see an orc-human romance develop, so frankly it is cornfusing why you complain about this. It was not PJ's invention, it was his interpretation based on the books.

Radagast could have been the moth. At the council of Elrond Gandalf describes Radagast as a master of shape and hue. Therefore, by Tolkien's own words Radagast could have come to Gandalf in a different shape. Does it matter so much if Radagast appears outside of Bree or at Isengard? I'd think that the important part of the story is that Gandalf is rescued by Gwaihir. Would the average movie-goer pick up on the moth actually being a wizard? No, but the scene can still be explained by Tolkien's own words, rather than saying that PJ is a big fat fabricator. It seems to me that your claim that film defenders are stretching Tolkien's word is no worse then the fact that you are choosing to ignore something that Tolkien wrote.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin

Narsil, for instance, was a major factor in the books. In the Council of Elrond - after Narsil had been reforged in Rivendell - Aragorn was shown to be 'crownless king' with the 'blade that was broken'. If Aragorn receives his sword at Helm's Deep or in RotK, it loses much of the majesty and reverence that surrounds the blade. If I remember correctly, Narsil was the sword Isildur used to fight Sauron with, and was broken during that fight. Taking away the history and meaning behind Narsil turns the legendary weapon into 'just another sword'.

I really disagree with you here. Let me assure you that Narsil will not simply be tossed to Aragorn in TTT or RotK. Without naming names it has been made clear by some that the reforging of Narsil into Aduril will play a huge part in the movies. Don't think it will be brushed over. PJ will pay it full tribute. The reasons for him not carrying it around make sense to me. I mean, I love the way Tolkien wrote it as well, but I think having Aragorn accept the sword later would actually fit Tolkien's tale. In the book as well as the movie Aragorn accepting the throne of Gondor isn't set in stone. It's a developing process he must go through. To me his final acceptance is his confrontation with Sauron in the Palantir. After that he has accepted his fate, and has shown to Sauron his true identity. He heads off on the Paths of the Dead with his mind and will decided. Only with such determination does he cross Gondor and sail up the Anduin to Minas Tirith. To me, having him accept Anduril before he departs on the Paths of the Dead would fit in perfectly. It would show his full acceptence of his role. Somehow I don't feel that at Rivendell he has earned the confidence to bear the sword of Elendil. I'm not critqueing Tolkiens choice, because I can see how it worked out to have Aragorn accept his fate before he was actually ready to. But I think it's a very solid move to have Aragorn accept Anduril later on in the tale, filmwise.

By the way, I'd like to hope that you'd remember correctly the history of Narsil, considering that it was shown quite clearly in the film. If anything Narsil's history has been developed from the book. Everyone knows what it's history is, and so it's hardly just "another sword". Indeed, Aragorn reveres it with great respect, and even Boromir is amazed to actually hold it.

Originally posted by Aerin

Galadriel's refusal of the Ring scene was painful to me. Lothlorien looked like a witch's lair; dark and spooky. I re-read FotR only a couple weeks ago and I paid careful attention when the Fellowship was in Lothlorien. The Elven city was in the woods, yes, but it was filled with light. Tolkien described a great, grassy meadow with the sun shining brightly overhead; not a single word about Lothlorien looking like a scene out of a horror flick. Galadriel looked like a witch; not an Elf queen.
Whether it was Cate Blanchett or the special effects, I'm not sure, but in the movie, Galadriel did not seem stately or majestic in the least. She gave me the impression of a fairly young woman going through a dire mood swing... ;)


Here I can agree with you. But let me argue that Lorien was not supposed to look dark to begin with, not in PJ's movie at least. I think, faced with the prospect of having to cut time, he chose to simply change Lorien's look altogether. But the extended DVD should mend this. If you search around you'll find some really stunning pics of Lorien in it's full glory, and I think you will see that PJ has a very distinct taste for how it should look. I'm sad that some of this wasn't included in the theatre, but we'll see it soon enough in it's full glory (PJ has confirmed that there will be much more of Lorien on the extended version).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
Radagast could have been the moth. At the council of Elrond Gandalf describes Radagast as a master of shape and hue. Therefore, by Tolkien's own words Radagast could have come to Gandalf in a different shape. Does it matter so much if Radagast appears outside of Bree or at Isengard? I'd think that the important part of the story is that Gandalf is rescued by Gwaihir. Would the average movie-goer pick up on the moth actually being a wizard? No, but the scene can still be explained by Tolkien's own words, rather than saying that PJ is a big fat fabricator. It seems to me that your claim that film defenders are stretching Tolkien's word is no worse then the fact that you are choosing to ignore something that Tolkien wrote.

Once again, the COULD have been's are really a mute point and a poor justification for anything, especially when we already know WHAT DID happen, and we know what it was exactly what Tolkien wrote concerning these episodes....Radagast was sent by Gandalf to tell his messengers in nature to spread the word of where he was....Radagast did, hence Gwahir coming to Gandalf....No where in these scenes does Radagast change into a moth, there was no moth!

And from a movie perspective it makes even less sense to justify it by that argument....PJ never even mentioned Radagast! Was PJ thinking, "Hmmm, let's not put Radagast in person but he COULD have changed into a moth according to the book, so let's send one to Gandalf in his place....To try and justify it, we could always tell the Tolkien fans that it was Radagast..." :confused: ..... Would PJ honestly have this sort of mindset when none of the Tolkien-ignorant viewers have never heard of Radagast?? That would be hard enough to put past us Tolkien initiated, never mind the average movie goer, especially when so many things were changed and cut to make it easier for the audience to understand....

Sorry, Aragil...That is really stretching the limits of justification by Tolkien.....

[Wonko The Sane]

First of all to think Radagast may have been the moth seems a stretch to me, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Maybe it's conceivable to think that PJ decided to turn Radagast's role to that of a moth, but to think that even the most versed of Tolkien fans would have recognized the parallel stretches it a bit too far in my opinion.

Also, this made me laugh:

For all you Narsil lovers out there, how do you show reverence to a broken sword? Do wander around with it in a scabbard, waving the hilt-shard at any that will be intimidated by broken swords? Would having it dedicated in a shrine with a mural commemorating it's use against Sauron perhaps show a little reverence as well?

[aragil]

Thorin- I seriously doubt that PJ decided to introduce Radagast as a moth, with no further mention of him. Here's what I am saying: Radagast serves one main purpose in the book- arranging the rescue of Gandalf. In the movie this useful purpose is accomplished by a moth with which Gandalf converses. This seems to greatly upset you, as you see it as a big fat fabrication on the part of PJ. Now we (as learned Tolkien scholars) have the ability to interpret this scene as having Radagast be there in moth form- he arranges the rescue of Gandalf just as in the books, and he has the ability to change forms, as in the books. This is what I would call a positive approach to the movie. PJ does not give us enough information on the moth to determine one way or another whether it is Radagast. We can either assume that the moth is Radagast (PJ has exercised creative license to re-arrange the form and timing of the Gandalf-Radagast conversation), or assume that it isn't (PJ has used creative license to remove Radagast and invented a moth replacement). But before we start yelling 'fabrication', we should first remember that we are operating under our own assumption. If you insist on a yellow-journalistic approach to posting, then don't be too surprised when a spade is called a spade.

[aragil]

Thanks for the humor note, WtS. Actually, it seemed funnier to me last night when I wrote it. Now I'm just glad anybody could understand what I was trying to say, in spite of my rather convuluted-questioning post. Talimon put it better, I think, but my point was that there was clearly a lot of reverance shown to the sword and it's history in the movie, what with the shrine scene and the graphic depiction of the sword breaking in the beginning. Personally I never really liked Aragorn wandering around in Bree with the shards of Narsil. Seems to me he could have been a much more effective guardian of the Hobbits with an unbroken sword.

[Talimon]

Here's what I am saying: Radagast serves one main purpose in the book- arranging the rescue of Gandalf.

I just want to elaborate on this. To me, every change or "fabrication" must be looked at in such a light. What role did that which was removed serve, and what role does the new material serve. I think many of the changes are made in such a way. The emphasis is changed, but the roles remain.

For example, it is becoming apparent that the refugees from Rohan will play a much bigger role in TTT. This is PJ changing emphasis. Or Arwen and Aragorns relationship. That's changing emphasis. As an interpreter, so long as PJ maintains the feel and themes of the books he has some creative right to interpret these things as he see's fit. There's a big difference between interpreting and simply fabricating. To me it's apparent that many of the changes in the movie are interpretation. That's why it works out so well.

I'd also like to remind people that Tolkien delved deep into the oral story-telling traditions of other cultures, of Finland in particular. One of the main traits of oral story-telling is that the tale changes and evolves depending on whose telling it. Since one of Tolkien's goals was to create mythology of sorts, I think it makes sense that such interpretations be made. The most I can say is that I disagree with the way some parts were done, but only from a creative standpoint.

[Wonko The Sane]

No problem Aragil, but I disagree with the Narsil thing.

Aragorn carrying Narsil is a visible depiction of his legacy. He's carrying, in effect, the shards of his heritage and birthright with him at all times. It's something he may not relish but something he cannot wholly escape either.

[aragil]

The Ring of Barahir was also a visibly worn piece of his heritage (which made the movie incidentally), and one which still served the purpose for which it was crafted. Part of book Aragorn's heritage was to protect the remnants of Arthedain, mainly the Shire and Bree. It seems that toting around the broken sword to display his heritage would be an impeding his duties as protector. But maybe that's just my own personal beef with the story. On the other hand, it was a very nice dramatic effect in Bree, and I have developed my own convoluted explanation for why Aragorn was carrying the sword at that particular time. Anyway, I believe that in the appendices it says that the shards of Narsil were generally kept in Rivendell and revered, so IMO the shrine scene worked well.

Further on the Narsil thing in the movie: I really believe that PJ is depicting Aragorn as one who has chosen not to claim his birthright. Therefore he might revere the sword, but he is not yet at the point where he would carry it around, in effect he is not yet ready to claim his legacy in the movie. So perhaps what you are saying (WtS) is both a good way to explain what happened in the book and why it didn't happen in the movie. In the book Aragorn is developed into a kingly figure in the appendices- he has already gone his transformation and is ready to claim his destiny when he finds the Hobbits in Bree. In the movie we don't have the appendices to develop the character of Aragorn, so I think much of his maturation into the King will unfold with the story. In fact, I think this might become fairly central to the story.

[Wonko The Sane]

I disagree. I believe that PJ is showing Aragorn as someone who carries the shards of his birthright inside of him rather than in a hilt on his hip. I think that by showing Aragorn as strong in character and as someone who truly understands the burden of his lineage and birth as well as reveres it. Therefore it's not absolutely necessary that the sword be with him all the time.
Although I would prefer that it was.
But as evidenced in the scene with Aragorn, Boromir and then Arwen in the room at Rivendell where Narsill was kept across from the mural of Isildur Aragorn knows full well all those things mentioned above. He is even afraid of becoming what Isildur became.

I think that if PJ does a good job of portraying Aragorn's strength and inherent kingliness then the Narsil, while sad that it's left out, will not be necessary.

[Talimon]

But it hasn't been left out! Trust me on this, PJ said this at the booksigning in New York. Narsil is going to be a big deal. It's just been pushed to TTT or RotK. It will still play it's role.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
Radagast serves one main purpose in the book- arranging the rescue of Gandalf. In the movie this useful purpose is accomplished by a moth with which Gandalf converses.

Now we (as learned Tolkien scholars) have the ability to interpret this scene as having Radagast be there in moth form- he arranges the rescue of Gandalf just as in the books, and he has the ability to change forms, as in the books. This is what I would call a positive approach to the movie. PJ does not give us enough information on the moth to determine one way or another whether it is Radagast.

We can either assume that the moth is Radagast (PJ has exercised creative license to re-arrange the form and timing of the Gandalf-Radagast conversation), or assume that it isn't (PJ has used creative license to remove Radagast and invented a moth replacement).

Had PJ even mentioned within the movie, even in passing, of another Wizard who could change shape with nature, we could assume that the moth could have been Radagast....But Radagast never existed in the movie, so the moth had nothing to do with Radagast ....

Any attempt to try and tie a non-existent wizard (as far as the movie goes) to justify the movie's contents has nothing to do with any creative interpretation on PJ's part,. It is nothing but creative and gratuitous assumption on our part (the fans) to justify what truly is a fabrication....

[Aerin]

Aragil -
If the Scouring does make it onto film, then a flashback (verbal or visual) to Sam receiving the gift will not be such a huge detriment to the movie. How many of the average movie-goers would remember Galadriel handing a box to Samwise when RotK comes out in two years, anyways?

The so-called 'average movie-goers' tend to remember a little more than you give them credit for. True, not every person who watches FotR will remember the three trolls in the background or the disappearing arrow in Boromir's chest, but they will remember scenes upon which were placed importance and granduer. If Galadriel simply 'handed a box to Sam', then no, not very many people would remember that scene. However, if there was emphasis placed upon the gifts, the box included, then it would stick a little more clearly in people's minds.

Remember, in the movie we are seeing a greater character arc for Aragorn- in FotR Elrond considers him to have forsaken the throne of Gondor. Only at the end of the film when he takes the vambraces of Boromir does he truly begin to consider himself as Isildur's heir in more than name only. Therefore, when he gets his sword in either the second or the third movie, it will further emphasize the fact that he is claiming his inheritence. Different from the book? Yes, but I wouldn't say that it trivializes the importance of Narsil.

It would seem PJ is trying to re-build what he took out of Aragorn's character by giving him Narsil at a later time. Instead of keeping Aragorn intact as the king who temporarily left his rightful claim as heir of Gondor to fight in the War of the Ring, PJ has stripped him of his character and done a sloppy job in re-doing him. No longer is Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the proud man who can trace his lineage back to Isildur himself; he is a pasty shadow of a man who is afraid of what he might become, a weak man wary of his own inheritance. Is that the Aragorn we all, I sincerely hope, are familiar with?
In the books, Aragorn came across to me as a man of great strength and nobility; complete with flaws, but certainly one to be used as a role model. He faced nearly insurmountable odds and overcame them while staying true to what he professed to be fighting for. He was a 'king', in the true meaning of the word.

Did just seeing Lorien in the dusk mangle Tolkien's work so badly that the movie was hardly recognizable as The Lord of the Rings? I guess that is a matter of opinion.

You say it "is a matter of opinion"; isn't that what this all is about? :p
I would have much prefered to see Lothlorien portrayed as Tolkien wrote it: a sunlit tree-city filled with beautiful things. The witch's lair look just didn't sit well with me. I have seen the pictures of Lothlorien during the day; why couldn't the scene with the Mirror of Galadriel have taken place during the day? Or even the dusk?

Radagast could have been the moth. At the council of Elrond Gandalf describes Radagast as a master of shape and hue. Therefore, by Tolkien's own words Radagast could have come to Gandalf in a different shape. ... Would the average movie-goer pick up on the moth actually being a wizard? No, but the scene can still be explained by Tolkien's own words, rather than saying that PJ is a big fat fabricator. It seems to me that your claim that film defenders are stretching Tolkien's word is no worse then the fact that you are choosing to ignore something that Tolkien wrote.

For someone who has said movie-goers will not pick up on nuances easily, you expect them to equate a non-existant (as far as the movie is concerned) character as the moth with whom Gandalf speaks? That is stretching it too far. Yes, Tolkien wrote about Radagast; where in the movie does it ever mention him? Nowhere, I know, because I've seen it twice.

Talimon -
I really disagree with you here. Let me assure you that Narsil will not simply be tossed to Aragorn in TTT or RotK. Without naming names it has been made clear by some that the reforging of Narsil into Aduril will play a huge part in the movies. Don't think it will be brushed over. PJ will pay it full tribute.

That is what worries me: "... it has been made clear by some that the reforging of Narsil into Anduril will play a huge part in the movies. ... PJ will pay it full tribute." Will he pay it as full a tribute as he did to the Ford of Bruinen? If so, then I shudder to think how Anduril will be portrayed.
The reforging of the Shards of Narsil was not so much 'a new sword Aragorn was given because he was to be king'; it was more a renewal and rebirth of the line of Isildur, from whom Aragorn was descended. Reassuming the throne which was his rightful heritage was the end result of long, hard years he spent working toward that goal. To trivialize the importance of Narsil - the sword with which Isildur drove Sauron back - is to trivialize the 'blood, sweat, and tears' Aragorn's forebears gladly lay down to eventually regain the throne. To my mind, PJ is too quick to transform the tragic, yet heroic character of Aragorn into a pale shadow of the man Tolkien wrote of.

I mean, I love the way Tolkien wrote it as well, but I think having Aragorn accept the sword later would actually fit Tolkien's tale. In the book as well as the movie Aragorn accepting the throne of Gondor isn't set in stone. It's a developing process he must go through. To me his final acceptance is his confrontation with Sauron in the Palantir. After that he has accepted his fate, and has shown to Sauron his true identity. He heads off on the Paths of the Dead with his mind and will decided. Only with such determination does he cross Gondor and sail up the Anduin to Minas Tirith. To me, having him accept Anduril before he departs on the Paths of the Dead would fit in perfectly. It would show his full acceptence of his role. Somehow I don't feel that at Rivendell he has earned the confidence to bear the sword of Elendil.

I agree with your statement that Aragorn goes through 'a developing process', but did he have to start out at such a lowly level in the movie? Could PJ have not put a little kingly bearing into him when he is introduced in the movie? He was too weak, too lily-livered, to have been descended from the great man Isildur, when he is supposed to inherit the throne of Gondor? What a pity he has to undergo such a terrific transformation in the movies.
In the books, Aragorn had the responsibility of not only protecting the Hobbits, he also had the 'fate of nations' resting on his shoulders. To merely 'accept' his duties just before he journeys on the Paths of the Dead diminishes his inner strengths as a king waiting to claim his rightful throne. Aragorn son of Arathorn was no shirker of duties; he knew what he had to do, and he did it.

Aragil -
Talimon put it better, I think, but my point was that there was clearly a lot of reverance shown to the sword and it's history in the movie, what with the shrine scene and the graphic depiction of the sword breaking in the beginning. Personally I never really liked Aragorn wandering around in Bree with the shards of Narsil. Seems to me he could have been a much more effective guardian of the Hobbits with an unbroken sword.

The reverence shown to the Shards of Narsil in Rivendell is rather contestable; while Aragorn may be meditating on the enormous task laid before him, Boromir picks up the pieces, then scorns retrieving them from the floor when he drops them. What form of reverence is that? The sort of reverence I am accustomed to involves the gentle treatment of objects that are to be revered; not the dropping and scorn of bending to pick them up. That, to me, shows rather open defiance and contempt for the shards.

Talimon -

The emphasis is changed, but the roles remain.

That's a rather puzzling statement, for surely, Glorfindel's role was completely removed and given to Arwen. Unless there is some defition of the phrase "the roles remain" that I am not aware of, Glorfindel's part did not remain.

For example, it is becoming apparent that the refugees from Rohan will play a much bigger role in TTT. This is PJ changing emphasis. Or Arwen and Aragorns relationship. That's changing emphasis. As an interpreter, so long as PJ maintains the feel and themes of the books he has some creative right to interpret these things as he see's fit. There's a big difference between interpreting and simply fabricating. To me it's apparent that many of the changes in the movie are interpretation. That's why it works out so well.

PJ is the director, and he does have some creative license to 'interpret' the scenes as he sees fit. There are some parts in PJ's version that are 'touching' for LotR fans, namely the trolls in the woods, but there is a distinction between adding, or even subtracting, a little here and there from the storyline to make room for more important scenes and deleting parts to make room for your own creations.

Hmmm, I have a feeling this post is already too long, so I will stop for now! :D

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin

It would seem PJ is trying to re-build what he took out of Aragorn's character by giving him Narsil at a later time. Instead of keeping Aragorn intact as the king who temporarily left his rightful claim as heir of Gondor to fight in the War of the Ring, PJ has stripped him of his character and done a sloppy job in re-doing him. No longer is Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the proud man who can trace his lineage back to Isildur himself; he is a pasty shadow of a man who is afraid of what he might become, a weak man wary of his own inheritance. Is that the Aragorn we all, I sincerely hope, are familiar with?
In the books, Aragorn came across to me as a man of great strength and nobility; complete with flaws, but certainly one to be used as a role model. He faced nearly insurmountable odds and overcame them while staying true to what he professed to be fighting for. He was a 'king', in the true meaning of the word.

You are forgetting something: we don't have appendices. Tell me just how could Aragorn's charachter arc be shown if not throughout the movies? Are you suggesting that Aragorn be made one-dimensional instead of showing his fears and doubts? That would hardly do. Aragorn in the movie is hardly "weary" of his inheritance. Say rather that he fears it. I could go through the book picking out quotes showing Aragorns charachter development from wanderer to king, but I think that's trivial. Even if Aragorn's charachter was already developed at the begginning of the tale, PJ would have to change it to give us a more convincing charachter. It would have been easy for PJ to make Aragorn self-assured and faultless. Instead he fleshed out his weaker and more volatile sides. That makes him more human. Considering that Aragorn's charachter arc is being developed over the course of all 3 movies (the obvious thing to do if you were adapting the story), I would hold judgement on his more noble, King-like qualities. He hasn't yet shown them. His final scenes in FotR, and his vow to Boromir to protect the "white city", are the begginning of his acceptance. You'll notice that at Rivendell he is still completely unconfident. By the end of FotR he has begun to accept his fate, and I can bet that by RotK his charachter will have fully developed to the King of Gondor. Tell me, which would you rather have, a noble king that doesn't develop throughout the whole tale, or a wanderer in exile who grows into the King of Gondor? Tolkien chose the latter, and PJ is just emphasizing on that.



Originally posted by Aerin

I would have much prefered to see Lothlorien portrayed as Tolkien wrote it: a sunlit tree-city filled with beautiful things. The witch's lair look just didn't sit well with me. I have seen the pictures of Lothlorien during the day; why couldn't the scene with the Mirror of Galadriel have taken place during the day? Or even the dusk?

PJ shot those beautiful Lorien scenes, and if you've seen shots of them around I'm sure you will admit they do Tolkiens descriptions justice. Being under time constraints PJ had to cut many scenes, and those were included. PJ's original rough cut was 4 1/2 hours, so don't blame everything on him. He obviously had to cut much more then he wanted to, both for the sake of the movie and audience.




Originally posted by Aerin

That is what worries me: "... it has been made clear by some that the reforging of Narsil into Anduril will play a huge part in the movies. ... PJ will pay it full tribute." Will he pay it as full a tribute as he did to the Ford of Bruinen? If so, then I shudder to think how Anduril will be portrayed.
The reforging of the Shards of Narsil was not so much 'a new sword Aragorn was given because he was to be king'; it was more a renewal and rebirth of the line of Isildur, from whom Aragorn was descended. Reassuming the throne which was his rightful heritage was the end result of long, hard years he spent working toward that goal. To trivialize the importance of Narsil - the sword with which Isildur drove Sauron back - is to trivialize the 'blood, sweat, and tears' Aragorn's forebears gladly lay down to eventually regain the throne. To my mind, PJ is too quick to transform the tragic, yet heroic character of Aragorn into a pale shadow of the man Tolkien wrote of.

Read what I wrote above. And who's talking about "trivializing" here? You haven't see PJ's full change for Narsil, and so you can't say whether it is trivialized or not. The whole spiritual aspect of Aragorn accepting Narsil has not been changed by PJ moving it to TTT/RotK. I think you aren't understanding PJ's reason for moving it. It's not because he doesn't think it's important, but exactly the opposite. By having Narsil moved closer to Aragorn's full development and acceptance of his role, PJ is using it as a symbol of his heritage. By only having him wield the sword of Elendil when he has left all doubt behind, PJ is actually going to make Narsil more symbolic and important then it was before. To me this is a very powerful decision filmwise. It will emphasize Anduril's impotance, and also show Aragorn's full acceptance.





Originally posted by Aerin

The reverence shown to the Shards of Narsil in Rivendell is rather contestable; while Aragorn may be meditating on the enormous task laid before him, Boromir picks up the pieces, then scorns retrieving them from the floor when he drops them. What form of reverence is that? The sort of reverence I am accustomed to involves the gentle treatment of objects that are to be revered; not the dropping and scorn of bending to pick them up. That, to me, shows rather open defiance and contempt for the shards.

You apparently didn't understand that scene at all, or you are gripping at straws to make your argument. Boromir, having come from the battles of Gondor, represents all the doubt and disrespect of Minas Tirith and Denethor. He has lost faith in Gondor as a nation, in the prophecies and legends. He has become a man of war whom history little concerns. Faramir is his excat mirror image, loving Gondor and it's history, it's land and rituals. That's a big part of the books. In either case Boromir dropping it helped develop that aspect of is charachter, while symbolicaly allowing Aragorn to pick it up. That was just one out of many sparkles of subtlety sprinkled throughout the movie. Aragorn is "picking up" the sword that was broken, lifting it off the ground. That was such a beautiful symbolic scene by PJ. It showed so many things.



Originally posted by Aerin

PJ is the director, and he does have some creative license to 'interpret' the scenes as he sees fit. There are some parts in PJ's version that are 'touching' for LotR fans, namely the trolls in the woods, but there is a distinction between adding, or even subtracting, a little here and there from the storyline to make room for more important scenes and deleting parts to make room for your own creations.


I often wonder what constitutes a "Tolkien fan". I often think that some people who've only read the trilogy once understood more about it then others who have read it dozens of times and claim to be more "fanatic" or "scholarly". I am begginning to fear that a large portion of those who call themselves fans of Tolkien enjoy the tale for all the wrong reasons. What is it that you enjoy about Lord of the Rings? I beg you to answer that question as truthfully as you can. Details, languages, maps, and names are deffinitely a part of it. But there are thousands of fantasy sagas out there with far more detail then LotR. I hope you are being sarcastic about the trolls, because that would just drive home the point that what you consider to be important about LotR is the detail rather then the plot, charachters, themes, and feel. In terms of those later traits I have no problem with your measuring PJ to the inch, while taking into account that some things are interpretation and other adaptation across mediums. But as for the details might I suggest you try using rather a yard-stick for your judgement. Your enjoyment of the film will surely be multiplied.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Aerin
Instead of keeping Aragorn intact as the king who temporarily left his rightful claim as heir of Gondor to fight in the War of the Ring, PJ has stripped him of his character and done a sloppy job in re-doing him. No longer is Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the proud man who can trace his lineage back to Isildur himself; he is a pasty shadow of a man who is afraid of what he might become, a weak man wary of his own inheritance.


Well, Aerin, that is the concept that Hollywood (I use this term loosely to represent movie-making) thrives on.....You know, the has-been, alcoholic lawyer who realizes what he's been neglecting, and bucks it up at the last minute to save the day? The underdog, that diamond in the rough who's redemption brings a tear to the eye and a HURRAH!! to the movie watcher's heart? I can see this same cinematic tool being used here....

Yes, Aragorn needs time to develop, but he is a king waiting for his time....Not some street urchin who gave up his throne like some sort of prodigal son and needs somebody else to smack him across the head to realize what he is missing....Sorry, that is not Aragorn, appendix or not....

PJ has downplayed him a little too much to present a cheapend form of Tolkien's character as one of moviedom's tragic figures who comes back to save the day. But I forgot that PJ is only there to make a good mooooovie....

Talimon - You're name in a previous forum life wouldn't happen to be Foe-Hammer, Harad, or markrob would it? :D

[Talimon]

No Thorin, this is my first time on these forums.

[Thorin]

:D I know, the mods are pretty good at monitoring those they've kicked off from coming back on in another guise....It's just that you sound a lot like them....Those three (along with Greenwood who shows his face around here from time to time) butted heads continually over these movie issues with Grond, Ancalagon, ReadWryt and I for months.....

However, unlike you, they were quite hostile at times (Harad finally got the boot from the forum, and I think he is over on the other LoTR forum that others from here go to)....They were almost as stubborn as me :D...I haven't seen Foe-Hammer in well over 3 months, and markrob hasn't been here forever either....

I guess you've taken their place as a FAD (Film Adaptation Defender) against us NPWs (Nit Picking Weenies) as we were all so labeled.....

[Talimon]

Don't get me wrong. If everyone was blindly supporting the film I'd be on the other side of the fence. Rarely do I approach anything as being black and white.

I'm quite frank about what I don't like. But here's the other thing: I don't compare the movie to anything it shouldn't be compared to. Many people, in reading the books, have already "seen" LotR. In many ways they already have the perfect or near-perfect movie in thier head. For me it's completely different. While I've envisioned LotR dozens of times over, in approaching the movie I had to drop everything. The most I could compare the movie to was the Bakshi and Rankin&Bass look on Middle Earth. That's being realistic. Everyone talks about how scenes could have been done differently, but let's face it: It's never been done. Until I see someone else make a superior adaptation of a fantasy book, LotR is the best I've seen. That's a fact. There isn't a better adapted fantasy book out there.

That's being objective. Going a little beyond that, however, I have to say that I really love this movie. The movie, mind you. On it's own. I guess I'm fortunate to not have been swallowed up in the hype for the movie, and thus have ended up imagining too much. I came with a very open mind, and was extremely entertained. I can't help it, even if my intellect tells me otherwise: I loved the movie. It had feeling, and something else I could tap into. That something really reminded me of Tolkien. It wasn't anything obvious, but rather just a general "vibe". Something about the mystical opening words (The world has changed) to the more subtle symbolism.

I guess what I'm saying is that I tried really hard to compare this movie to other movies, specficially of the fantasy genre. I don't think it's fair to compare it to the book, because if I did I would be in turn obliged to compare it to some of the best movies out there. That's the emotional level the books hit me on. If I was expecting the movie to hit me that hard I was expecting it to do what only a few films have done before. That to me is unrealistic if not naive. As such I dropped the book and simply tried to enjoy the movie as a movie. And I guess at that point, with no strings attached, I was really surprised how much the movie actually resonated with the books. Not everywhere, but in countless places.

[Thorin]

To me, it depends on how much one internalizes the book.....I could do that with say Jurassic Park and probably The Sum of All Fears. Even though I'm pretty sure that it will not follow Clancy's work, it looks like a good movie in itself and I won't boo hoo if it doesn't follow the book.....

LoTR on the other hand, is unlike any other book, fantasy or otherwise....When you've been reading LoTR for 18 years (like me), digesting the details, maps, characters, and languages, and developing your imaginary vision of ME, being swept away in the grand vision of it all, there is no way you can go to this movie and set it aside....I'm bad enough with regular book -to-movie deals, never mind a book like LoTR.....It just cannot happen with me.....That doesn't mean that I go in with unrealistic expectations....As I've said before, I would have been satisfied with what PJ did even if he had just not botched Arwen and Saruman....(And maybe not have compressed The Shire to Rivendell journey).....

[Aerin]

Talimon -
Tell me just how could Aragorn's charachter arc be shown if not throughout the movies? Are you suggesting that Aragorn be made one-dimensional instead of showing his fears and doubts? That would hardly do. Aragorn in the movie is hardly "weary" of his inheritance. Say rather that he fears it.

Obviously, since what PJ is doing is making movies, Aragorn's character has to be developed in the movies. What I am saying is PJ could have shown Aragorn to have more inner strength than flashy sword-bravado. Instead of portraying him as a man who has "fear and doubts", but can work through them, PJ gives the movie-going audience a character who, when he's not either chopping Orcs to bits or getting snuck up on by a girl, is crying and bemoaning his fate. Is that what Aragorn ever was in the books?
True, Tolkien developed his character from a Ranger, a Dunedain, into a king, but the transformation, as you like to call it, did not begin with a weakling.

Even if Aragorn's charachter was already developed at the begginning of the tale, PJ would have to change it to give us a more convincing charachter. It would have been easy for PJ to make Aragorn self-assured and faultless. Instead he fleshed out his weaker and more volatile sides. That makes him more human. Considering that Aragorn's charachter arc is being developed over the course of all 3 movies (the obvious thing to do if you were adapting the story), I would hold judgement on his more noble, King-like qualities. He hasn't yet shown them. His final scenes in FotR, and his vow to Boromir to protect the "white city", are the begginning of his acceptance. You'll notice that at Rivendell he is still completely unconfident. By the end of FotR he has begun to accept his fate, and I can bet that by RotK his charachter will have fully developed to the King of Gondor. Tell me, which would you rather have, a noble king that doesn't develop throughout the whole tale, or a wanderer in exile who grows into the King of Gondor? Tolkien chose the latter, and PJ is just emphasizing on that.

If PJ had really followed Tolkien's books, there would be no need to 'develop his character'. :rolleyes: However, since he has, he's gone so far as to completely re-do Aragorn. Making him 'weaker and volatile' reduces him to a nearly incompetent 'wanderer' who will someday become the king of one of the mightiest nations in Middle Earth; is that what we're supposed to believe? I'd rather a tale about a shepherd boy who turns into a Knight of the Round Table through his 'magically gained sword skills'. :rolleyes:
The scene when Boromir dies and Aragorn vows to protect the city (If I remember correctly; it's been a while since I've seen the movie) is more character development for Aragorn than he has in the entire movie. What nation would want a ruler who can't keep himself from crying at the thought that he might not be as wonderful as he feels he is supposed to be?
Believe it or not, I have reserved my judgement on his 'noble, king-like qualities'; he hasn't demonstrated a single one yet.

PJ shot those beautiful Lorien scenes, and if you've seen shots of them around I'm sure you will admit they do Tolkiens descriptions justice. Being under time constraints PJ had to cut many scenes, and those were included. PJ's original rough cut was 4 1/2 hours, so don't blame everything on him. He obviously had to cut much more then he wanted to, both for the sake of the movie and audience.

The shots I've seen of PJ's Lothlorien do seem beautiful, but I do not think any movie could truly bring to the screen the true beauty and essence of the Elven city, IMO. I fully realize PJ had to delete many scenes for the time restraints; my question is why couldn't he have taken out the wizard-on-wizard Matrix scene and put in the gift giving?

Read what I wrote above. And who's talking about "trivializing" here? You haven't see PJ's full change for Narsil, and so you can't say whether it is trivialized or not. The whole spiritual aspect of Aragorn accepting Narsil has not been changed by PJ moving it to TTT/RotK. I think you aren't understanding PJ's reason for moving it. It's not because he doesn't think it's important, but exactly the opposite. By having Narsil moved closer to Aragorn's full development and acceptance of his role, PJ is using it as a symbol of his heritage. By only having him wield the sword of Elendil when he has left all doubt behind, PJ is actually going to make Narsil more symbolic and important then it was before. To me this is a very powerful decision filmwise. It will emphasize Anduril's impotance, and also show Aragorn's full acceptance.

Unless you have some movie pass that has let you see TTT already, you don't know the full change that PJ has effected on Narsil, either.
The spiritual aspect, as you call it, seems a little overdone in PJ's story. The sword is not magic; merely an heirloom passed down through the generations of Aragorn's family. In the books, the reader got the sense that Narsil/Anduril was very important to Aragorn, especially after it was re-forged. If Arwen, a very minor character in the books, had come to Helm's Deep or wherever and given it to him, it would have been more a gift than a right.
Aragorn does not need so much 'developing' as 'fine tuning'. By the time he joins the Fellowship, he should already have some idea of the responsibility and heritage he is to come to.
Again, you refer to "Aragorn's full acceptance"; why do you assume he has not come to terms with his "acceptance" before that point? Could he have been too afraid to claim his heritage before Action Arwen comes to bring her beloved what is his birthright? Perhaps PJ wants to show Aragorn as being a weak man who is helped and influenced by his wonderful fianceè; the complete opposite of his nature in the books.

You apparently didn't understand that scene at all, or you are gripping at straws to make your argument. Boromir, having come from the battles of Gondor, represents all the doubt and disrespect of Minas Tirith and Denethor. He has lost faith in Gondor as a nation, in the prophecies and legends. He has become a man of war whom history little concerns. Faramir is his excat mirror image, loving Gondor and it's history, it's land and rituals. That's a big part of the books. In either case Boromir dropping it helped develop that aspect of is charachter, while symbolicaly allowing Aragorn to pick it up. That was just one out of many sparkles of subtlety sprinkled throughout the movie. Aragorn is "picking up" the sword that was broken, lifting it off the ground. That was such a beautiful symbolic scene by PJ. It showed so many things.

It showed what a lackey Boromir was playing to Aragorn, perhaps. :rolleyes: In the books, Boromir seemed to be more proud and almost disdainful, yet willing to do anything to help his beloved city. In the movie, it almost was as if Boromir was in a perpetual tantrum, showing his disrespect to Aragorn at every possible opportunity. On Caradhras, when Frodo tripped and the Ring went flying, Boromir picked it up and the only thing that influenced him to return it to the Ring-bearer was Aragorn's hand on the hilt of his blade (which rightfully should have been Anduril). Instead of giving Aragorn the respect due him as a man, not only a king in exile, Boromir spurned him in front of the others. Is this the "sparkle of subtlety" you claim PJ put in the movies? To not only change the characters of Aragorn and Boromir, but also to establish a new level of disrespect and distrust between them? Boromir's death sequence seemed a complete 180 degree turn around for Boromir, who went from contempt to brotherly love for Aragorn... and that's supposed to 'flow naturally' in PJ's movie?

I often wonder what constitutes a "Tolkien fan". I often think that some people who've only read the trilogy once understood more about it then others who have read it dozens of times and claim to be more "fanatic" or "scholarly". I am begginning to fear that a large portion of those who call themselves fans of Tolkien enjoy the tale for all the wrong reasons. What is it that you enjoy about Lord of the Rings? I beg you to answer that question as truthfully as you can. Details, languages, maps, and names are deffinitely a part of it. But there are thousands of fantasy sagas out there with far more detail then LotR.

A "Tolkien fan", in my book, is someone who appreciates Tolkien's masterpieces: the books and tales he wrote, not the cheap knock-offs that others have come up with. I consider myself to be a fan, because I love his works and am willing to spend my time debating their finer points with those who wish to disagree. ;) Many times have I heard some variation on this conversation, "Have you seen that new Lord of the Rings movie?" "Yeah, it was so cool!" "Did you know someone wrote a book about the movie?"
Every time I hear that, I cringe. These people have no idea what really happened in the books or even that the books came first. What a travesty so many people will never know the depth and heart that is in the books....
What I enjoy in the LotR series? Many things: the human aspects (courage, devotion, love, hate, greed, lust), the timeless tale (to simplify to an extreme: good against evil), the heroism and heart shown by the characters, and the love which they exhibited for their countries and for each other. To list every single reason why I love Tolkien's works would take too long, and I do not think I could sit and make a list of every one.

(My post is too long, I have to reduce it into two.)

[Aerin]

I hope you are being sarcastic about the trolls, because that would just drive home the point that what you consider to be important about LotR is the detail rather then the plot, charachters, themes, and feel. In terms of those later traits I have no problem with your measuring PJ to the inch, while taking into account that some things are interpretation and other adaptation across mediums. But as for the details might I suggest you try using rather a yard-stick for your judgement. Your enjoyment of the film will surely be multiplied.

I was being very sarcastic about the trolls, Talimon. I have yet to find a tag that will insert sarcasm into a document....
Believe me, I was trying to ignore the details while watching the movie; nearly everything else was off. My main complaint about PJ's version of LotR (and note the "version") is the changes he made. What he actually kept from the books usually wasn't presented too badly, but what he changed was atrocious. Then again, that's just my opinion.

[aragil]

Thorin- would it be a fair characterization to say you wouldn't be happy with any changes from the book? I won't be the first person on these boards to say it, but I think that PJ did a wonderful job in capturing the essence of The Lord of the Rings on a new medium. He did not stay 100% true to the books, but I feel that most of the changes were to details (my favorite being greymantle's old complaint that the Nazgul horses weren't black enough). I can see where people would be upset with many of these changes, but I just don't think moth vs Radagast at Orthanc or even Arwen at the Ford of the Loudwater are such substantive changes that the story has become clouded. These are changes to details- who was there, etc. My favorite post on here of late was Talimon's where he reminded us that Tolkien was trying to establish a European/English myth after the fashion of the Norwegian and Icelandic sagas. Each orator who told these ancient sagas changed them a little, much as PJ is doing with The Lord of the Rings. I think it's a wonderful homage, not only to JRRT's tale, but also to the way in which Tolkien wanted his tale to be read- as a myth. IMO the story is becoming more mythic as it is being re-told by others. Is it really that important that it always be told in exactly the same way?

Aerin- Frankly, your take on Movie Aragorn is starting to scare me. First off, I don't recall Aragorn crying at all in the movie, instead he expressed doubt. Second of all, if you think a man crying makes him 'a weakling', then I'd have to seriously question your judgement. Aragorn in the movie is neither a slouch, nor a coward. At the same time, Aragorn in the books was not a robotic automoton, mindlessly moving towards the goal of becoming king. In both cases he was human, which means (at least for every human I've ever encountered) that he expresses doubts about his own abilities and the monumental task which he must achieve in order to become King and wed Arwen. If you missed this in the books, then here are a few moments I can think of:
1) While setting off from Rivendell in The Ring Goes South, Aragorn is sitting with his head sunk between his knees, doubtlessly reflecting on whether or not he will realize his ambitions.
2) At Amon Hen, Aragorn consistently doubts his own abilities as a leader of the remnants of the Fellowship, and even laments his own inability to come to a decision.
3) In the tale of Aragorn and Arwen, while speaking with Arwen in Lorien Aragorn confesses that he can not see the shadow passing, but he says that if she has hope then so will he.
The first and last of these scenes probably helped inspire the scene with Aragorn and Arwen at Narsil's shrine in the movie.
Again I'll point out that Aragorn in the movie is not the 'incompetent wanderer' that you are trying to make him out to be. He was quite competent in getting the Hobbits from Bree to the Shire. Part of being a King is protecting your people, and this is exactly the trait that Aragorn showed in this part of the movie. Aragorn also showed reverence to his land and lineage with the Shrine scene. He may not be out actively campaigning to be King of Gondor, but I think this scene was fairly effective in showing that he is not bemoaning the fact that he one day might become king. Also (and this is important) he shows that he does not posess the blind pride that his ancestor Isildur had. Make no mistake, it was Isildur's inability to destroy the Ring that put Aragorn's kingship in doubt. The Ring is the ultimate corrupter, and Aragorn has a feeling that he will have to overcome the influence that his mighty ancestor Isildur could not. And guess what, in a nice twist (different from the book) Aragorn is given the choice of Isildur- to take the Ring for himself or to forsake it. In this scene Aragorn shows that he is stronger than both Boromir and Isildur. He is definitely not a weakling! This also allows Aragorn to avoid the choice of which direction to go, which caused him so much anguish in the book. At this point Aragorn is less of a bemoaner than he was in the book, and he has shown us incremental steps towards becoming a King. To say that he is like a shepard who magically develops sword skills is to ignore all these subtle touches which PJ has given us, all of which show us that Aragorn truly does have the mettle to become King.

Cheapness is in the eye of the beholder, and I hope that even the most ardent Tolkien purist will admit that perhaps the movie appears to be such a cheap knock-off because they either can't see its beauty, or else they refuse to see it because they are too concerned with the little changes that have occurred while giving a story a second telling.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
Thorin- would it be a fair characterization to say you wouldn't be happy with any changes from the book?


as quoted by Thorin, previously, again and again......

"As I've said before, I would have been satisfied with what PJ did even if he had just not botched Arwen and Saruman....(And maybe not have compressed The Shire to Rivendell journey)....."


Not exactly a foaming at the mouth, anti-change statement is it ? Especially for all the hundreds of annoying little changes that PJ did in the movie.....

[Talimon]

LOL :).

You should make that your signature, Thorin. Let everyone know where you stand on the movies ;).

[Wonko The Sane]

:) That'd be a mouthfull.

[aragil]

WtS- thanks for putting this back on top. My High Horse was beginning to look lonely (it was giving me the long face). Back up I go!

Thorin, let me assure you that PJ botching Saruman is your opinion, and not an acknowledged fact. As for Arwen, are you upset that she is different from what Tolkien wrote, or do you feel that PJ's Arwen was unbelievable as a character (or otherwise objectionable).

[Aerin]

The wonderful effect of finals on internet time - you don't get time to respond to the lovely long debates...:(

For the little time I have, I'll respond to aragil's post.

What I object most to is the "Xena-like" attitude and demeanor Arwen was given in the movie. Instead of giving credit (this is not just a Purist thing either...) to some of the most powerful beings (i.e., Gandalf, Glorfindel, and Elrond) in M-e, PJ let Arwen "save the day" and take all the glory. To me, Arwen was just too much. Not only was she the immortal daughter of Elrond, the fiancee of Aragorn, and one of the greatest beauties of M-e (I'm strictly speaking the books here), but she also could ride Asfaloth, call up the river, face the full strength of the Nazgul unaided, and still play the part of the perfect Elven daughter.
If that isn't a little "over the top", I don't know what is.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Xena - at least the early seasons (the later ones with the Hope/Gabrielle melodrama were weird and I didn't like them one bit). What makes Xena so great is the fact that she's impossible. There is no-one on Earth (or Middle Earth, for that) who could do the stunts Xena does; it's not humanly possible.

The difference between Xena and Arwen is mainly that Xena was meant to be funny - people are supposed to laugh at her jumping up 7 meters in the air and running around like that - whereas Arwen is supposed to be almost a historical figure in a serious movie. Arwen wasn't supposed to be laughed at when she brandished her sword against the Nazgul, but I found myself smirking just the same. What's one Elf girl going to do against the full strength of the Nine Riders?
I am not making any negative remarks against strong female leads - I think there need to be more 'real life' type roles for women in movies - I'm merely stating my opinion (which is really what all these threads and debates are about - our opinions) about Arwen's unbelieveable character.

[aragil]

Can't argue with your opinion, Aerin. Well, that's not exactly true. How about 'Thank you for explaining your opinion, it was well put and you are entitled to it'. My opinion (no better or worse than anyone else's) is that Arwen was not that much of a deviation from other Tolkien heroines (Thorin has seen this before). Remember, we have Arwen's direct ancestor not just defying the Nazgûl, but defying their master Sauron, and then defeating Morgoth himself with a song. Sure, Tolkien never said that Arwen did the stuff at the ford, but remember what Tolkien did say about her:

JRRT, Letter 153 to Peter Hastings
Arwen is not a 're-incarnation' of Lùthien, but a descendant very like her in looks, character, and fate.

Seems to me that if Arwen has a character very similar to Lùthien, then it wouldn't be too terrible to have her stand up to a few baddies. After all, Lùthien didn't just stand up to baddies, she took on the two worst hombres to ever grace Middle-earth, and beat both of them!
And finally, remember. Arwen did not defeat the Nazgûl in combat.

What's one Elf girl going to do against the full strength of the Nine Riders?
Undoubtedly this is what the Nazgûl were thinking, which is why they didn't think twice about trying to cross the ford. Arwen cleverly hid her real power (somehow over water) by brandishing her sword. The Nazgûl knew that she couldn't defeat them with her sword, so on they came. She was being tricksey and clever, not exactly a Xena impression.

Aerin- I hope you don't think I'm picking on your opinion- as you said it was only an opinion and you're entitled to it. Similarly, my take is only my opinion, and I don't think it's any better than yours, just different; so I thought I'd share.

[ReadWryt]

The difference between Xena and Arwen is mainly that Xena was meant to be funny - people are supposed to laugh at her jumping up 7 meters in the air and running around like that - whereas Arwen is supposed to be almost a historical figure in a serious movie.

So true! Aside from the fact that I am a huge Sam Raimi fan, I never really got the association that people disgruntled by the portrayal of Arwen in the movie made with Xena...I though of it more like Joan of Arc.


My opinion (no better or worse than anyone else's) is that Arwen was not that much of a deviation from other Tolkien heroines (Thorin has seen this before).

...and a valid opinion this is, for she is NOT too different then Luthien in her actions in the movie. That being said, she is not a whole lot like Arwen because of that. My only hope is that, like so many other characters from literature who have been added to or subtracted from for the broader taste of the viewing audience in earlier films...such as Joan of Arc...that in some future retelling of this tale in whatever cinematic form is the medium of choice down the road Arwen is left free to be Arwen.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin
Arwen wasn't supposed to be laughed at when she brandished her sword against the Nazgul, but I found myself smirking just the same. What's one Elf girl going to do against the full strength of the Nine Riders?
I am not making any negative remarks against strong female leads - I think there need to be more 'real life' type roles for women in movies - I'm merely stating my opinion (which is really what all these threads and debates are about - our opinions) about Arwen's unbelieveable character.

When the DVD comes out, I beg you to watch the scene again. The Nazgul do not fear Arwen, and Arwen is in fact scared of them. Her defiance against hte Nazgul is purely symbolic. It doesn't make her a warrior. Look at her face the next moment. She quickly realizes she will not win this battle with swords. Her defying the Nazgul was akin to Frodo defying them: neither of the two charachters realy meant to fight them, nor did they believe they would win should they actually trade blows.

My only 2 complaints about the ford:

1) Frodo not defying the Nazgul.

2) Arwen crying by Frodo's side. This didn't make any sense, considering they had just met. In fact, they hadn't even met! It didn't feel right for her to be crying.

[aragil]

Rrrr!
On a completely unrelated note, RW, your PM box is full and my web-based e-mail isn't working right now. Please make room in your box.

[ReadWryt]

aragil,

Ok, it's cleared up...I'm really REALLY sorry...:(

[Wonko The Sane]

Originally posted by aragil
WtS- thanks for putting this back on top. My High Horse was beginning to look lonely (it was giving me the long face). Back up I go!

Thorin, let me assure you that PJ botching Saruman is your opinion, and not an acknowledged fact. As for Arwen, are you upset that she is different from what Tolkien wrote, or do you feel that PJ's Arwen was unbelievable as a character (or otherwise objectionable).

No problem....

And as far as the Arwen thing goes...I would sure hope that he doesn't think PJ's Arwen is unblelievable as a character. She may not be purely Tolkien in the movie...but she's certainly believable.

[Aerin]

Arwen believeable? Maybe if one is to assume Middle Earth is the type of place where just about anybody can learn a few magic words and send the Nazgul swimming....

In the books - did you know PJ was supposed to have based his movies on a little-known series by J.R.R. Tolkien? - it took two very powerful Elf-lords and a Wizard to wash away the Nine Riders, yet in the movie, just Arwen? Somehow, that just doesn't seem believeable.

*Is about to concede one tiny little thing* Perhaps if Arwen had taken Frodo on Asfaloth (as she did.. but keep it a little closer to the books), but had Gandalf raise the river, it wouldn't have been quite so bad.
To have Arwen able to not only outrun the Nazgul (which seems to me more a feat of Asfaloth's than hers), raise the river, sneak up on a Ranger, and help heal Frodo.. doesn't that seem just a *bit* much to you? She's like Mystique from X-Men (the new live-action movie); just over the top. She can do too much, she doesn't seem real.
To me, that's how Arwen seems in the movie.

[Wonko The Sane]

I guess...I never really looked at it like that.
I believed in her character at face value..but I'm accepting like that.
I rarely see any movies I dislike.

[aragil]

Hi-ho High Horse! Away!

I think that when reading (or watching) fantasy it is best to keep an open mind towards what a character can and can't do. Remember, Luthien was able to best both Morgoth and Sauron, and she did this with spells. Eowyn was able to stand up to the 3rd age's worst bad guy this side of Sauron, and she slew him with her sword. Was either character unbelievable? I hope not. Was either accomplishment greater than what Arwen did in the movie? In my opinion, yes they both were. After all, even Legolas with his bow was able to un-steed a Nazgûl.

IMO, the Ford passage from the book gave Gandalf and Glorfindel roles which were fairly minimal. It seems to me that all Gandalf did was add the appearance of white horses- nothing to substantive there.
Glorfindel chased the remaining riders into the water- this was done mainly through the use of fire to spook the horses (I don't think the riders themselves willingly urged their horses into the flood). If Frodo had been less injured, or if (for instance) there had been another character on the other side of the river to defy them, then I have no doubt that all nine Nazgûl would have been in the water, thus making Glorfindel's role at the ford rather unneccesary.

What exactly did Elrond do? This is a good question. He had the ring of air, not water, so it's unlikely (IMO) that he was using his ring to control the flood. I guess it's possible that through 1.5 ages of living in Rivendell he had just come by the ability to control the flood. However, I think a more intriguing possibility is that he asked ol' Ulmo for help, or in some way was granted power over the river through Ulmo. Remember, Elrond's family had a good history with the Lord of Waters, going back to grandaddy Tuor and great-grandaddy Turgon. If this were the case, then it is not so unbelievable that Arwen could also ask Ulmo for help, or even that she could send a pre-arranged signal to Elrond to get him to do it.

For the other things which Aerin said made Arwen less believable (outrunning the Nazgûl, sneaking up on Aragorn, and helping heal Frodo), at least two of these don't seem far-fetched. As Aerin said, outrunning the Nazgûl was really more her horse's accomplishment than hers, and she did no more to help heal Frodo then Glorfindel did in the book. I thought it was made pretty clear in the movie that Elrond did the healing. As for sneaking up on Aragorn, who knows? I've never been much of a fan of that bit, but I think it reflects more poorly on the portrayal of Aragorn than Arwen (I do doubt Arwen would ever hold a sword to Aragorn's throat).

[ReadWryt]

...or then there IS my screwball theory that he could have ordered flood gates opened...ya think? Nah! Couldn't have been anything as simple as that, it just HAD to have been done through magic...

[Aerin]

I missed the time of the Lone Ranger by, oh, 30 or 40 years, but I would have sworn it was "High-ho Silver!".... ;)

I think that when reading (or watching) fantasy it is best to keep an open mind towards what a character can and can't do. Remember, Luthien was able to best both Morgoth and Sauron, and she did this with spells. Eowyn was able to stand up to the 3rd age's worst bad guy this side of Sauron, and she slew him with her sword. Was either character unbelievable? I hope not. Was either accomplishment greater than what Arwen did in the movie? In my opinion, yes they both were. After all, even Legolas with his bow was able to un-steed a Nazgûl.

The first time I watched FotR, I "kept an open mind" about Arwen... and was still mortified. (I was one of the ones who knew all the spoilers, almost had the cast memorized, and waited six hours for the trailer to download, crash, and then do it all over again...) I still feel Arwen could have been portrayed much better, but that's just my opinion.

I haven't read Luthien's story yet, but I don't think the worst she got out of it was a little scratch on her cheek....
As for Eowyn, Pippin helped her, and she nearly died after her victory over the Witchking. If I remember correctly, she almost didn't pull through...
For believeableness (is that even a word? hehe) of Tolkien's characters, yes, I do believe his characters were believeable. There were the heroes who accomplished great feats in the face of imminent death, but they had their flaws as any mortal does. What bugs me is when there is a character in a story - be it movie or book - who is absolutely wonderful at anything and everything they do, and who cannot be bested or gets into an impossible situation and uses "magic" to come save the day. To me, that's more fantastic than fantasy. Who doesn't have their Achilles' Heel? Everyone has flaws and imperfections, and I think it shows through Tolkien's works.
Frodo, good as he was, ended up giving into the temptation of the Ring; Eowyn nearly paid the price of her life to slay the WitchKing; Sauron was beaten and his Ring was lost... the list goes on and on. When imperfections are shown - not blatantly pointed out, as some authors have done - and the characters are shown to be "human", the story becomes more realistic and believeable.

For the other things which Aerin said made Arwen less believable (outrunning the Nazgûl, sneaking up on Aragorn, and helping heal Frodo), at least two of these don't seem far-fetched. As Aerin said, outrunning the Nazgûl was really more her horse's accomplishment than hers, and she did no more to help heal Frodo then Glorfindel did in the book. I thought it was made pretty clear in the movie that Elrond did the healing. As for sneaking up on Aragorn, who knows? I've never been much of a fan of that bit, but I think it reflects more poorly on the portrayal of Aragorn than Arwen (I do doubt Arwen would ever hold a sword to Aragorn's throat).

What I meant by Arwen's aid in healing Frodo was her appearance in the white gown saying something to the effect of "Hang in there, Frodo, you'll be ok" in Elvish. That, to me, seemed over the top. Instead of dismounting and hauling Frodo out of the saddle to check him over, wouldn't it have been a better use of time to keep riding to Rivendell? :rolleyes:

That's been one of the points I've tried to argue before: how would Aragorn be so careless as to let someone sneak up on him like that? The usual response I received was that Arwen was an Elf, and therefore tread more lightly on the ground than a mortal, but that just doesn't wash for me. If Arwen could sneak up on him, then who else could? I wouldn't like to be living out in the wilds of Middle Earth during a time when the Dark Forces were rising and not be able to sense someone walking up like that....

Maybe it's just me, but if I was in love with a guy, my first choice would not be to walk up and stick a sword next to his throat... then again, maybe it's just me. :rolleyes: :D

[ReadWryt]

Aerin,

Well spoken, well said Aerin! Two dimentional characters make me ill as well. All too often we see evil characters who are evil just because they are evil...James Bond movies are great for this type of thing, as well as cartoons like Captain Planet and such. Not to open a can of worms here, but Saruman in the movie almost came off that way for me, and I'm not certain that my own knowlege of his intentions to gain power from the ring did not save him in my mind from collapsing into two dimentionality in the portrayal. If not for Gandalf mentioning that Sauron doesn't share power one might never know that Saruman sought such himself.

The most important aspect of The Lord of the Rings is the fact that NOBODY is beyond corruption, which is indeed the whole reason the Ring must be destroyed. In the end we see even that our beloved Frodo was not out of the grasp of the corrupting power, and only a force of will on the part of Gandalf and Galadriel grant them the lack of corruption they enjoy.

This was adequately shown, IMO, in the movie...and since it is the single most important quality of the tale I would say that this accounts for BIG points in favor of the movie. More then the core actions that make up the story, this single aspect is the thing that would have brought the loudest cry of foul from me, but it was handled well enough to show a viewing audience that this thing was dangerous and that the creatures of Middle-earth were, to the last one, not impervious to it's insidious power to seduce. That being said...

When does it become the job of a screenwriter to second guess an author's character? At what point does the person transcribing for film decide that it is not outside the realm of possibility that a particular character in a novel would, could or may have done something not described or insinuated in the original text? THIS is the real question at hand here...

[Parrot]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
...or then there IS my screwball theory that he could have ordered flood gates opened...ya think? Nah! Couldn't have been anything as simple as that, it just HAD to have been done through magic...
Aragil, Fly you fool! Take your high horse to safety while you can! Even dead horses are not safe around here!

[Talimon]

Good points RW. In terms of the corruption I think one of the greatest twists isn't the fact that Frodo wasn't beyond greed, but more the fact that the ring was essentially destroyed on account of Gollums greediness.

Originally posted by ReadWryt

When does it become the job of a screenwriter to second guess an author's character? At what point does the person transcribing for film decide that it is not outside the realm of possibility that a particular character in a novel would, could or may have done something not described or insinuated in the original text? THIS is the real question at hand here...

I think you touch there on the fine line that separates fans on the movies. You use the word "trascribing", and I think that sums up one crowds view on how the movies ought to have been made.

For me (and I assume for others), it's a whole different story. While I am all too happy and pleased to see PJ stick to the books as much as possible, the quality of the movie doesn't hinge on it. It may have, back in December, when we first went to see the movie. But it's changed, and I think there's a good reason for it. Before I saw the movie I loved Tolkiens tale. As such all I could relate the movie to was that. And I think a certain crowd of fans have remained at that stage, for better or worse. All they see the movie for are the parts that are Tolkien.

For others, the movie has taken on a whole new meaning. Instead of just being an adapatation, it's become it's own saga. I love this movie not only for the parts that are Tolkien, but also for the parts that aren't. The movie may not be the LotR we're so lovingly familiar with, but it's something altogether different and intriguing. I love the movies for what they are, not for what the could have been. I guess I've "tapped" into it, and so I see where it's coming from.

This is the main difference for me bettween the LotR movies and the Harry Potter movies: I know exactly how the HP movies will be made. I have NO idea how the LotR movies will work out. In many ways it almost feels like I'm reading LotR all over again: half the reason I'm waiting so eagerly for TTT is because I don't know what's going to happen. And yet I have a strong gut feeling that it will all work out in the end. Exactly how I felt about the written book when I read through it.

I've heard others say this, and I say it myself: these movies are going to live on, beyond thier theatrical run. I hate to sound dramatic or anything like that, but you can just feel it. I love to listen to arguments over this and that, and participate in them as well, but in all honesty I see most of them as trivial. TTT and RotK may prove me terribly wrong, but these movies have an air about them of longetivity. It just feels right. That's what makes me so excited. The fact that I just know there are good things to come.

[Aerin]

Well spoken, well said Aerin! Two dimentional characters make me ill as well. All too often we see evil characters who are evil just because they are evil...James Bond movies are great for this type of thing, as well as cartoons like Captain Planet and such. Not to open a can of worms here, but Saruman in the movie almost came off that way for me, and I'm not certain that my own knowlege of his intentions to gain power from the ring did not save him in my mind from collapsing into two dimentionality in the portrayal. If not for Gandalf mentioning that Sauron doesn't share power one might never know that Saruman sought such himself.

You know what, in Star Wars Episode II, Count Dooku talking to Obi-Wan *really* reminded me of Saruman and Gandalf! :eek:
Maybe that's because it was almost identical... hehe

Movies that have true depth and feeling do not have clear lines between black and white. Characters are not either good or evil; instead, they are a mixture of both, and sometimes one side triumphs over the other.

The most important aspect of The Lord of the Rings is the fact that NOBODY is beyond corruption, which is indeed the whole reason the Ring must be destroyed. In the end we see even that our beloved Frodo was not out of the grasp of the corrupting power, and only a force of will on the part of Gandalf and Galadriel grant them the lack of corruption they enjoy.

Well put, RW - nobody is beyond corruption in LotR... at least in the books. To me, in the movie, it seemed there were the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and no middle ground to speak of. You had the Innocent Hobbits, the Good Elves (let's leave Lothlorien out of it for now :rolleyes:.), and the Good Wizard contrasting the Bad Wizard, the Bad Evil OverLord, the Bad Orcs, the Bad Nazgul...
I don't think it was a coincidence that Arwen was usually dressed in white, either; between the dress and the special filming technique they used when she "appeared" to Frodo, she looked like a cheesy Hollywood angel. :rolleyes:

It seemed to me that Galadriel and Gandalf did not give into the sway of the Ring because they were old and wise enough to realize at least *some* of its dangerous and terrible powers.
Galadriel said so herself when she was speaking to Frodo after he offered her the Ring (in the book): "And now ay last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and Night!"
She knew what would happen to her if she took the Ring, even if she had the best of intentions. The true nature of the Ring seems to be corruption; no-one can withstand the lure of the Ring.

This was adequately shown, IMO, in the movie...and since it is the single most important quality of the tale I would say that this accounts for BIG points in favor of the movie. More then the core actions that make up the story, this single aspect is the thing that would have brought the loudest cry of foul from me, but it was handled well enough to show a viewing audience that this thing was dangerous and that the creatures of Middle-earth were, to the last one, not impervious to it's insidious power to seduce. That being said...

To me, the movie did not show well enough the full seductive force of the Ring or the terrible attraction it held for anyone around it. True, Sean Bean did a good job in portraying a Boromir who lusted for the Ring, but the movie, IMO, would have been better as a whole if all the characters "put that much into their roles" as Bean did.

When does it become the job of a screenwriter to second guess an author's character? At what point does the person transcribing for film decide that it is not outside the realm of possibility that a particular character in a novel would, could or may have done something not described or insinuated in the original text? THIS is the real question at hand here...

If Arwen had acted the way she did in the text, if the characters had been truer to what Tolkien wrote, then the question would not be such a hard one to answer.
Tolkien really "fleshed out" his characters; none of them were one-sided. Look at Gollum, even (I mean no offense to Gollum fans by this), he was generally what is considered a "bad guy", but he wasn't all the way evil. There was "still some good left in him" even though he betrayed Sam and Frodo, tried to kill the Ring-Bearer, and ultimately died for his own greed.

If the characters of LotR were not so well described already, perhaps the movie would be less painful for people - like myself - who believed PJ was going to stick to the books.

I'm losing the internet today - we're moving - and I don't know when I'll be able to get back online, so I won't be posting here for a while.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
When does it become the job of a screenwriter to second guess an author's character? At what point does the person transcribing for film decide that it is not outside the realm of possibility that a particular character in a novel would, could or may have done something not described or insinuated in the original text? THIS is the real question at hand here...

Ahhh...back in the thick of things....:D

To me that is the issue for all this ridiculous justification of Arwen that I hear being spouted....You can argue all you want about the should haves and could have...It is a redundant and futile argument, especially when you refer back to Tolkien. (aragil, you KNOW we've been through this before! ;) ). Gandalf could have levitated or moved something telekinetically some time in the movie (I'm sure it was not beyond his power), Galadriel and Celeborn could have fought off the orcs coming into Lorien from Moria, Boromir could have challenged Aragorn to some sort of alpha-male sword fight (the tension was high enough for something like that to happen)....But does all that justify putting them in? There are so many things that you can justify and excuse because it's in the realm of possibility....

The fact is, is that that would be straying to far from what Tolkien wrote (whether in the spirit or not), the spirit is not enough for a movie based on a book.....FADs, ask yourselves this...Would you be thrilled if PJ had put all of these things in the movie, just because they were possible and "within the spirit of Tolkien?" If no, why not? The Arwen principle applies here just as well...Actually, I could justify the above changes more than the actual change PJ did of Arwen....

The "spirit", and "could haves" and "possibly"s are absolutely illogical arguments when you put them up to scrutiny....

[Talimon]

I don't like to repeat arguments, so I won't. But read my last reply on this thread. That's all I have to say about the matter.

[ReadWryt]

Originally posted by Parrot

Aragil, Fly you fool! Take your high horse to safety while you can! Even dead horses are not safe around here!

I guess we are now aware of who the official Vetrinary Medical Examiner is on the forum, if you fear some beast is dead this post makes apparent the total sum of the function of the poster...

[Parrot]

Posted by ReadWryt
I guess we are now aware of who the official Vetrinary Medical Examiner is on the forum, if you fear some beast is dead this post makes apparent the total sum of the function of the poster...

So, it’s “official”?
‘Bout time.

Maybe I can get a big red
Dead Horse stamp?
And a pager. Gotta have the pager. Save everybody a lot of time and effort. It’s a dirty, thankless job, but hey, it has its rewards. It’s not like we want these rancid, reeking, maggot-infested, vulture buffets laying around everywhere. That’s how plagues get started.

[aragil]

Congradulations Parrot (check your pms)! You finally have an official description to put in your custom user field (check your pms). "Official Forum Vetrinary Medical Examiner"- it has a nice ring to it (check your pms). Perhaps now the moderators will have some much needed help on figuring out which threads need to be put out to pasture (check your pms). Just remember, any thread regarding the similarities of Uruks and Uruk-hai in no way resembles a dead horse (check your pms).

[Darth Saruman]

I just wish that the movie had been made according to the way that these Tolkien purists had wanted it to be made. Then I would greatly enjoy the looks on their faces when they see their "perfect LOTR adaptation" crashing down in flames around them.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Darth Saruman
I just wish that the movie had been made according to the way that these Tolkien purists had wanted it to be made. Then I would greatly enjoy the looks on their faces when they see their "perfect LOTR adaptation" crashing down in flames around them.

I would hold judgement on something I haven't seen. A "perfect LOTR adaptation" can mean many things, and in many peoples eyes what PJ did was just that: the perfect adaptation.

While I have no idea what the "purists" would make (if indeed they would make a movie at all), the most I can say is this: Were a LotR movie to be made scene for scene from the book, I can gaurantee it would end up being boring. To me that's a no-brainer. People talk about the "perfect" LotR being 30 hours long and all that, and that PJ fit in the most he could. That's completely off the mark. PJ didn't edit his 3 hour movie out of a 10 hour movie. He created the 3 hour movie from scratch, heavily (and not so heavily at times) using Tolkiens tale in the process. You have to realize how difficult it is to create an entertaining 3 hour movie. For me FotR just flies by. I've seen movies less the half as long that seemed like they were 5 hours long at least.

Point being, for me the perfect adaptation is making an entertaining movie that covers the main themes from the book. I'm not looking for details and what have you. Just a good movie. Does that make me any less of a Tolkien fan? Hardly. After having read loads of fantasy books, I've reached the conclusion that nothing can touch LotR. Many fantasy book critics judge every book against LotR. To me that's ridiculous. Tolkiens book is it's own entity, and I don't judge anything against it, let alone a movie. I judge the movie against other movies of it's kind. And by such judgement it's incredibly good.

[ReadWryt]

Why is it that whenever someone makes one of these snide remarks about Tolkien Purists and what a piece of garbage the movie would have been if they had made it everything always swings to a discussion of the most obvious problems a direct adaptation of the events in the books? Wanna talk about stinky moulding dead horses! Would it REALLY have killed this movie to have left the characters alone and let them be who they were in the book instead of creating characatures of Merry and Pippin, turn Gandalf into this blathering madm