Now I'm a PJ basher

[Winch]

OK, I have sorta defended PJ's version for some time. I DO like the movie very much but after seeing it about 20 times I started to realize I was forgetting how the book goes. So I started reading FoTR this weekend for the 5th time I think (albeit the first 2 times were 30 years ago). I am amazed how different the movie is. All kinds of little things, like it was Ganldalf that wanted to go thru the mines of Moria and it was Aragorn who didn't. And it WAS their initial intent to cross the pass of Caradhras (acutally Redhorn Pass) not go all the way to the gap of Rohan. And it wasn't Saruman who sent the storm but the mountain itself that rejected them (unless I find out different. I'm just now at chapter 4 - A Journey In The Dark).
Anyway I'm kinda ticked at PJ for screwing with the story so much. I don't know about the argument that his version is more cinematic. I guess I'm more of a purist than I thought.

[Thorin]

Welcome to the fold! :)

Those little things bother me too, but I chose ignore them and criticize the major things (though I agree that Saruman bringing down the mountain is a bigger thing. Actually, I have a big problem with the whole way Saruman is portrayed).

But to me, the rushed scenes, the Arwen scenes, the lack of character development and the foolishness of Merry and Pippin were big problems for me and really detracted from the movie. Luckily, the extended DVD version took care of at least two of those problems and made it a more enjoyable movie than the original.

I know I will criticize TTT as only a purist can, for I feel that this is the movie that will be furthest from the book, and I can't handle that.

[Winch]

It's just that so many of the little things could have been left alone. Of the big changes we all complain about, I'm getting more and more aggravated with the character of Aragorn, even more so since the EE came out. I don't see him in the book as hiding from his fate and not wanting to assume the role of the only one who can wield Narsil/Anduril and regain the throne etc. Although the movie doesn' really make him out to be a wimp, he is much more so than in the book.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Winch
So I started reading FoTR this weekend for the 5th time I think....I am amazed how different the movie is.
I've asked this before: Now imagine it was the first time, not the fifth; how would you feel? You'd still be amazed surely, and baffled; would you then blame T for writing badly, or would you feel PJ's film had conned you? That's a rhetorical question, I hope!

[Talimon]

One does have to wonder, joxy, whether just any old movie would convince you to take on a 500 page book. I can't think of any movie that has convinced me to read the book before. But I'm sure that if any such movie will convince me I will have to like the movie quite a bit to begin with. Anyone who is reading Tolkiens book because of PJ's movie is most likely reading it because they liked it. That being a given I doubt they'll all of a sudden not like it. And if they're honest they'll admit that it was the quality of the movie in the first place that made them pick up the book.

[aragil]

Well, all I cann say is that I'm glad my impression of the books can't be adversely affected by what was in any movie. I can appreciate some of the characters on a different level, but no movie will make me think less of the books. How can anyone critisize the movie for bringing new readers to the books? If the books are good (and in this case I think they are), then any intelligent reader will still be able to appreciate them, regardless of what they've already seen on screen.

Nóm- thanks for pointing out the bit about Saruman and the Mountain. Now you see why it was a big difference (to some people). For Thorin- according to the director commentary, the last scene between Gandalf and Saruman on the top of Orthanc is supposed to establish that Saruman wants the Ring for himself. As I've said before, I don't think the scene is particularly effective in doing this, but at least the director intent is there. I imagine that this will be fleshed out further in the Two Towers (just as it was in the books). If it helps any, here's the dialogue from the movie:
SARUMAN: The friendship of Saruman is not lightly cast aside. One ill turn deserves another. It is over. Embrace the power of the Ring or embrace your own destruction.
GANDALF: The ring has but one master. Only one may bend it to his will, and he does not share power.
SARUMAN: So you have chosen death.

As for Aragorn, after listening to the director/writers commentary, I think I finally understand what they're going for with A. It is definitely a departure from the books, but I think it's an interesting one. Before any body says that PJ should be 100% true to Tolkien, I'd just like to remind everybody that Tolkien's name doesn't appear in the title. The reason? Because after PJ approached the Tolkien estate and said he was interested in dedicating the next 5 years of his life in an homage to Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien told PJ that he couldn't use JRRT's name in the title. Unless I'm mistaken, this was without seeing a script. Perhaps if CT had shown a little more humanity in this case, we would be seeing more of Tolkien in the movies.

[Mrs. Maggott]

As to the business with Aragorn, let me quote Mr. Dickenson in his article: "To a certain extent, these two characters (Aragorn and Arwen in the book) represent the ideal masculine and feminine...Aragorn is the heir of kings who has yet to claim his birthright. But his lack of a crown is not a comment on his character. He is strong, with 77 years of self-sacrificial labor and growth in wisdom behind him. When we meet him, he has already proven himself many times over by enduring countless dangers and indignities in the anonymous service of others...Aragorn fares no better (here Dickenson is speaking about Jackson's treatment of Arwen and then Aragorn). Instead of a man gentle and strong because he knows himself, he is a conflicted and tortured victim of self doubt...thus, Jackson has transformed the story of a king ready to claim his crown into an adolescent 'coming of age' story in which a 'strong' woman keeps him from falling under the strain of the conflict within his soul...Thus are both masculinity and femninity cheaped by Jackson's portrayal."

This article MAY be available (I don't know if it is) to read in full at www.touchstonemag.com

This is certainly not nearly all Mr. Dickenson has to say about Jackson's "version" of LOTR. It is well that the Tolkien family was circumspect about the usage of their Father's name.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It is well that the Tolkien family was circumspect about the usage of their Father's name.
Yes MM, and I'm sure they've refused all royalties from the increase in book sales due to the movie's popularity, as well. I guess you can afford to be circumspect when money is pouring into your pockets.

I think your reviewer has missed some aspects of the human condition (just my opinion, of course). Having doubt about your ancestry does not preclude you from being gentle and strong. In my humble opinion persevering in spite of doubt is a form of strength. Thus far we do not know what allows Aragorn to come into his own in the movies, but it must be fun for your reviewer to guess at the answer and then deride the movie for it. Personally, I think that Aragorn will 'come of age' (ugh) through his own strength of character, but I guess if that happened your reviewer would not be able to complain as much. Are masculinity and femininity cheaped by this portrayal? Not in my opinion- they become more powerful because they are more real, and less idilic.

[Mrs. Maggott]

If Tolkien's family had used MONEY as their standard, they would have cheerfully accepted Mr. Jackson's offer. I would say that any "gold" that might be "pouring in" has found its way in far greater measure to JACKSON's pockets than theirs. If the family "profits" from an increased sale of Tolkien's books, that is hardly to be decried since without the BOOK, there would have been no FILM. Therefore, considering what Jackson acquired from Professor Tolkien, whatever "profits" may accrue to his family from the enterprise, they - through his labors - are more than deserving of them even if they chose not to sell their Father's name.

And as to "real" masculinity and femininity as it appears in the film: if by "real" you mean the current perversion of human gender pervading our culture, then, yes, by all means Jackson's portrayal of Aragorn and Arwen (and probably Eowyn as well) is certainly "real". If, however, you mean TRUE, then it is not; it is merely, as the author of the article pointed out, a perversion of Tolkien's presentation of the actual, true, "real" if you will, virtue of masculinity and femininity as God created it.

Sadly, long ago we as a culture not only in the United States but in the West, have left the path of wisdom and holiness regarding all matters of human gender and embraced this perversion and, alas, that is why Jackson's portrayal of the "masculine" and "feminine" in the film seems to so many to be, in fact, "real".

[Winch]

Man I hadn't even thought of the change in charcters from a masculinity and feminity perspective. Makes me afraid to see what Eowyn's going to be like.

[Winch]

That crack about Eowyn was tongue in cheek of course. Sorry if it riled you, didn't mean to. It's just that in the book Eowyn is so much more of a warrior than Arwen is portrayed and since the movie made Arwen out to be so strong a character, I'm thinking PJ's gonna have to make Eowyn like the Scoprion King. Look out Aragorn.

[Grond]

originally posted by aragil
...Before any body says that PJ should be 100% true to Tolkien, I'd just like to remind everybody that Tolkien's name doesn't appear in the title. The reason? Because after PJ approached the Tolkien estate and said he was interested in dedicating the next 5 years of his life in an homage to Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien told PJ that he couldn't use JRRT's name in the title. Unless I'm mistaken, this was without seeing a script. Perhaps if CT had shown a little more humanity in this case, we would be seeing more of Tolkien in the movies.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew the day would come when the FADs finally pulled the ultimate trump card.... THE MOVIE ISN'T AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE BOOK BECAUSE OF THE TOLKIENS. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Mrs. Maggott]

There are MONUMENTAL differences between the behavioral "wiring" of men and women with regard to their personalities. That, of course, does not mean that there aren't "masculine" women and "effeminate" men. Nor does it mean that there isn't some feminine nature in men and vice versa. But all of the behaviorial tests have proven quite soundly (to the horror of so many radical feminists and their allies) that the differences between the sexes are NOT socially driven, but inherent in the gender.

This difference is one of the reasons that it is far better for the health of any society that women NOT be fighters. And there is a reason for that "ban" (C. S. Lewis in his Chronicles of Narnia makes especial mention that women are not to be "warriors", although they may DEFEND themselves, certainly). Men walk around in their uniforms and rattle their swords and do a lot of posturing. In this way, sometimes actual bloodshed doesn't occur (it's very much like the animal kingdom where the biggest set of antlers - or mouth - simply discourages the opponent). Women, on the other hand, when they DO "go to war", don't play by the rules. They don't give the "other guy" the chance to leave the field with his head held high. As noted in many stories of the ancient world and even the Bible, women will come in, bat their eyes at you, ply you with wine and then, when you're satiated with wine (and whatever) and sound asleep - they cut off your head! No man would do that, but a woman WOULD.

In Eowyn's case, she is "acting the part of a man" when she goes into battle; she is not acting according to her natural feminine inclinations which she has come to despise through the machinations of Wormtongue. In her case, she is the classic "Amazon", women who fought alongside men as they did. However, the traditional "nurturing", maternal woman, when she decides she is going to fight, does so with stealth and cunning. That is why throughout history, poison has been called "a woman's weapon". Look at it this way: there is an old Chinese proverb which says, "A man should be kind to his wife - because sooner or later he will have to sleep with BOTH eyes closed!" ;)

[aragil]

Originally posted by Grond
I knew the day would come when the FADs finally pulled the ultimate trump card.... THE MOVIE ISN'T AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE BOOK BECAUSE OF THE TOLKIENS. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Well, how long can you keep a trump card up your sleeve before it starts chaffing? CT's behavior throughout this whole movie incident has been infuriating to me. If MM thinks that his close-minded behavior is somehow virtuous, then more power to her. I'm just happy to be devoid of such virtues.

MM- your tone is taking on the old 'Women are 100% responsible for the fall' tone. If that's what you believe, then I'm done discussing. Before I go I'll just remind you of two examples of Tolkien's femeninity to think about: Luthien and Haleth.

[Mrs. Maggott]

No one ever said that Tolkien created "weak" women. Indeed, his women are VERY strong! Yes, even Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had, as the hobbits said when all was over, "more spirit than most"!

But you are confusing the ability to wield a weapon with strength! Arwen in the book is STRONGER than the Arwen of the film, but her strength is of a different type. She does not feel the need, despite her much greater age and lineage, to build herself up at the expense of the man whom she has chosen to marry. No "sword to the neck" and foolish taunt for her. She has too much respect not only for Aragorn but for herself and she has no need to "show off" her "equality" by trying to "be" a man or take a man's place.

In fact, it is those who are intrinsically WEAK who feel the need to do these things. Eowyn in the book is far WEAKER than Arwen because she is compelled to "be a man" in order to overcome her dismay at what she perceives is the fall into dishonor of her people, her King and her house. She is attempting to gain back with strength in arms what she believes she has lost: honor and dignity.

It is weakness, NOT strength that drives Eowyn to the battle of the Pelannor where she hopes only death in battle in her despair. This is why, when the battle is over and all around her is glowing with renewed hope, she again begins to sink into illness and despair. She wants Aragorn, not because she LOVES him, but because she believes he will RAISE HER UP from her dishonor. The healing balm that is causing all else to flourish, is KILLING her.

Only when she is willing to "submit" to her true nature, her true femininity - and not the false image she has created - does she begin to heal. And that healing is brought to her by a man and his love. It is in SUBMISSION to both her own femininity and HIS LOVE, that Eowyn finds healing and life and joy. Had she remained "strong" in the sense that many (and I would assume that includes Mr. Jackson and perhaps even yourself) believe evidences strength, she would have surely died in her despair.

Do not be misled into believing that a woman is only strong when she can wield a sword. That is not a mark of strength even among men.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
One does have to wonder, joxy, whether just any old movie would convince you to take on a 500 page book.
My FOTR is less than 400 pages, but I don't see why anyone who has just seen such a generally good film, with a fascinating story, should be put off by the size of the book from reading the full story in its original form. I don't really get your point here.
As always there's no way of knowing what x million people who hadn't read the book before the film might think; I was only asking one person to imagine what his reactions might have been to finding that the book was sometimes telling a different story, about different people, from those he had seen.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
....after PJ approached the Tolkien estate and said he was interested in dedicating the next 5 years of his life in an homage to Tolkien.
This really is going way over the top; the man's doing a job and getting well paid for it. He may be a serious artist, wanting to produce a worthy product, but that's as far as appraisal of him needs to go, without making him a candidate for sainthood.

[aragil]

I think the point here is that he is doing the largest scale project in movie history. The reason that it's the largest scale to date is certainly not because PJ is the most ambitious director to date. First off, it's almost impossible to get this sort of money from studios- no studio has ever given this much money to a project, but I'll grant that this is probably as much a testament to Tolkien's work as it is to PJ's ability to campaign for money. More importantly, nobody has ever taken on this large of a task because it is so difficult. It sucked up ~1.5 years of the actors time, and much much more of PJ's. You don't make this sort of commitment without loving what you're doing. Sure PJ is getting paid, but I doubt he will think of that as his reward. His reward is having successfully brought JRRT's world to cinema. That people will sit here and imply that PJ is going through all this trouble as some sort of wilful mangling of Tolkien's work is ridiculous (IMO). This work is PJ's homage to Tolkien, and I think it's pretty clear the respect that PJ has for the work when you look at the meticulous detail in the movie. The thought that CT could listen to PJ's plans and then deny him his father's name without even seeing a script (I could still be wrong on that one) is beyond a slap in the face.
How would any of you feel if you were to tell CT that you were going to dedicate the greatest work of your life (in whatever field you're in) to his father, and he were to tell you that you couldn't use Tolkien's name?

[Arvedui]

I have been defending PJ on various occations, but after having seen the EE, I'm about to change my views. One thing is Aragorn's character, who in my view is altered too much from the book. A second thing is the way Saruman is described. His plan to take the Ring for himself does not come out clear enough. Arwen, aargh!

But IMO the worst downfall of PJ, his largest mistake is, that he shows us a Balrog without wings! :D

[aragil]

I thought it had wings. And, just so everybody remembers our book history, most of 'Saruman in it for himself' came out in The Two Towers (the book). A little premature to be judging this right now, don't you think?

[Winch]

Sure looks like the balrog has wings to me. When he stands up and puffs out his chest they spread across the whole screen.
I watched the first of the special features CD last night. Pretty impressive. I do think they tried to make it accurate while making it more cinematic. I don't know much about that. If they had stuck closer to the book we wouldn't have had Arwen hardly at all in FoTR and every movie seems to need some romance (I don't really agree with that statement but that seems to be what Hollywood thinks). I still don't like the change in Aragorn's character. And I can see PJ's point about Tom Bombadill not lending anything to the story pregression and ultimate conclusion.
I haven't ever heard how much these movies cost to make. Seems like it must be a lot. I think they will do alright though when it's all said and done.

[Mrs. Maggott]

If they had stuck closer to the book we wouldn't have had Arwen hardly at all in FoTR and every movie seems to need some romance (I don't really agree with that statement but that seems to be what Hollywood thinks). <quote Winch>

My Dear Winch:

I am reminded by your comment of the episode which took place when the great Hollywood director John Houston began filming Moby **** (Gregory Peck, Richard Basehart, Leo Genn, Orson Welles, Peter Ustinov et al.). Most of the actors and writers were very anxious to remain as faithful as possible to Melville's great novel which is really quite as "deep" in its moral and philosophical implications as LOTR. It AIN'T an "adventure story".

As you know, almost the ENTIRE picture is shot at sea on a "whaler". Houston decided to get a "rise" out of the group by suggesting that the film could not "do without" a "love interest" so Captain Ahab's (Peck) young wife would accompany the crew to sea for the much-needed "romance". Actually, Houston was not far wrong since historically, because whalers undertook voyages that could last for years, this did happen: a captain's wife and even his children might "go along". Also, in the book, Melville recounts that Ahab has just married a young wife. Well, everyone went CRAZY! "You can't do that! You'll RUIN the story!!! etc. etc."

Needless to say, Houston (an excellent director) never intended to do any such thing and the film was beautifully and dramatically shot WITHOUT the "romance" which many deem to be so "essential". Today, Moby **** is recognized as a classic of the film-maker's art, a dark and moving tribute to the spirit of men in the face of evil. And that's WITHOUT the "love interest". :rolleyes:

[Winch]

There's exceptions to every rule.

[Arvedui]

Sure looks like the balrog has wings to me. When he stands up and puffs out his chest they spread across the whole screen.

Take a closer look. It is not wings, it seems to be some sort of bat-like wings, but only the "skeleton". Seems as Mr. Jackson have been reading some debates on this forum and tried to please both parties.:D

And about the Hollywood need for romance in every film, I agree with Winch. That is the only possible explanation of why the role of Arwen is portrayed as it is. Unfortunately, it diminishes the weight of Aragorn's character. IMO.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
And, just so everybody remembers our book history, most of 'Saruman in it for himself' came out in The Two Towers (the book). A little premature to be judging this right now, don't you think?

Keep in mind that Saruman showed he was playing both sides both in FoTR and TTT. He told Saruman. "The age of elves is waning and men are rising. We wizards must rise up and rule them all and with the ring we can do so." (Thorin's paraphrased edition of LoTR :) ) He never came out and said, "We must join Sauron!" And considering that the movie Saruman only found out where the one ring was and that it had been found, that means that Saruman was ready to ally with Sauron long before any ring came up. That is all false and misleading.

If PJ's TTT show Saruman wanting the ring for himself (and with the capture of the hobbits, that seems obvious) then what it makes it look like is "Saruman is wanting to ally himself with Sauron and has already done so...but wait! Maybe he could get the ring for himself!" That was never Saruman's plan in the book.

And as far as the romance angle goes, I have no problem with it as long as it is in the context of the appendix. It gives Arwen more story time and fleshes out the relationship between them that the book does not go into. The problem I have is with Arwen coming in where she doesn't belong and saving the day in a horribly character-killing, cheesy melodramatic fabrication that we saw at the Fords.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Saruman has "turned" long before ever the Ring's identity is established. At the Battle of the Five Armies in T.H., he attempts to "sooth" the Council regarding the Ring by stating that long ago "it rolled down the Anduin to the sea" where it will remain lost forever. Gandalf is none to sure of this and the hobbit's Ring sounds all sorts of warning bells in his head with which he, unfortunately, fails to follow up. However, like Gollum, Saruman is much "quicker" to make the connection when he notices Gandalf's preoccupation with the Shire and hobbits. Believing about Gandalf what he knows about himself (that he wants the Ring), Saruman establishes contact with the Shire (as noted by the Longbottom Leaf that is stored in Orthanc) and probably has spies in the area.

It is clear, in the book at least, that Saruman WANTS the Ring and that he uses the palantir to spy upon many different areas of interest searching for news of it. However, eventually, he is "caught" by Sauron who is able to - by threat and promise - bring the Wizard into an uneasy alliance that neither truly trusts. From that time on, Saruman plays a dangerous game: he seemingly is an underling of Sauron, but quietly builds up his own strength waiting for an opportunity to seize the Ring and supplant the Dark Lord from his own indomitable fortress, Isengard. His perfidious position is revealed to Gandalf when he first speaks as the "Mouth of Sauron", suggesting that they (the Wizards) must cooperate with Sauron to "control" him. But when that fails, his TRUE plan is revealed when he offers Gandalf a "share" in the Ring. In that scene in the book, the subtle game being played by Saruman is totally revealed.

In the film, perhaps because Jackson could not present such a subtle thread in the time allowed, he simply made Saruman into Sauron's agent, but an opportunistic one who later decides to try for the Ring himself. This interpretation does not materially change the plot action, but it is just one more proof that Christopher Tolkien was correct: the book is too complex to be successfully filmed.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
I think it's pretty clear the respect that PJ has for the work when you look at the meticulous detail in the movie.
And with some of his meticulous details, from broken carrots to dwarves' beards, it sometimes looks as if he has something near contempt for it.
The DVD extras are full of claims for this sort of respect, from all sorts of people; it's sometimes difficult to believe they're talking about the same film.

[aragil]

Joxy, correct me if I'm wrong here. You think that PJ has contempt for the books. In spite of the fact that he has spent so much time on making it, and repeatedly claiming that he in fact loves the book. Simple yes or no.

Mrs. M- There are many different measures of a succesful adaptation. If you require that every subtle nuance of the books be present in the movies, then of course LotR can't successfully be brought to screen. What each person must decide for themselves (regardless of what CT might say) is whether the movie successfuly brought Lord of the Rings to life for themselves. In my opinion, the first movie has done a sparkling job with the first book. Of course, how the series does as a whole is still largely (~2/3) incomplete.

Thorin and MM- the last scene at the top of Orthanc is supposed to convey that Saruman wants the Ring for himself ("There is only One Lord of the Rings"- not Saruman). Personally I don't think it does a good job of conveying this, but I'd like to point out that it is not the film-makers intent to show a Saruman with no personal design on the Ring. That Saruman's fall from grace is somewhat accelerated in the movie isn't such a bad thing (IMO). Do we really want to see him go from good to bad in flashback? Again, his fall is fairly important to the story, and certainly justifies (IMO) several shots of trees falling, and his utter depravity in creating the race of Uruk-hai.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I did not say that Jackson did not convey that meaning (that Saruman wanted the Ring for himself). I think if you read my post carefully, you will see that I said just that. However, I DID say that Tolkien's development of Saruman's treachery was very subtle and apparently long in its development. Films do not adapt to that type of plot well. That is all that I meant when I noted that C. Tolkien was probably right: the book could NOT be successfully brought to the screen AS THE BOOK. And since just about everyone else has admitted that Mr. Jackson's film is NOT the book, I don't understand why that would require a reposte other than to agree with my position. :confused:

[aragil]

MM- my major point was my question to Joxy, however as there was so many other posts going on I decided to take a swing at "the book is too complex to be successfully filmed", which I read as "PJ's film was unsuccessful in adapting the book". My apologies if I misrepresented your post. As Harad once said, "I guess we can be on the same side. It looks foul but it feels fair."

[Parrot]

Hey, if Thorin and Talimon can agree on something (a sure sign of the Apocalypse) then I guess we can let this go too.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Joxy, correct me if I'm wrong here. You think that PJ has contempt for the books. In spite of the fact that he has spent so much time on making it, and repeatedly claiming that he in fact loves the book. Simple yes or no.
Yes, you are wrong; and no, I don't think he has contempt for the books.
I said " it sometimes LOOKS as if he has something NEAR contempt", referring to those specific times, not at all to the whole film,
and I said that in the context of you claiming "respect that PJ has for the work when you look at the meticulous detail".
He DOES give us a lot of that detail; the problem arises when he gives us new detail which is close to rubbish.
I'm not unkind enough to say that IS due to contempt, though it looks like it.
There has to be some explanation though- carelessness perhaps?!
They DID spend a lot of time; they DO love the books; I don't doubt that, but I DO question how they reconcile that with SOME, relatively small, things they have translated it into.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, let's look at one of the things that I have some trouble with: the troll that is set on the company in Moria. Now, of course, in T.H., Tolkien presents the trolls in a fairly humerous way. It is, after all, a children's tale. Bill and the other chaps are ridiculous in their dull-witted reparte and are eventually led a merry conversational chase by Gandalf until they are turned into stone by the arrival of the sun! That is a FINE treatment for trolls - in T.H. :D

However, in LOTR, the trolls take on a much more malignant aspect (consider, if you will, the one that is about to chew out the throat of Pippin's friend whose name escapes me of the Tower Guard!) But in speaking about the cinematic adaptation of the troll (who doesn't belong in the scene in the first place, but that's neither here nor there), Jackson indicated that he wanted him to appear "babyish"! "BABYISH"??!!?? Yes!! Jackson didn't want him to look frightful like the orcs or even stupid and ugly like the troll in Harry Potter, but actually wanted him to appear as a sort of "innocent". I'm sorry, I cannot for the life of me imagine WHERE Mr. Jackson got THAT interpretation of a troll. In T.H. the trolls were stupid and funny, but NEVER "innocent". No, "innocence" was certainly not TOLKIEN's view of ANY troll. :confused:

If in fact, the troll WERE an innocent who had no idea of what he was doing and only "set upon" the company by the wicked orcs, then we must have a certain amount of sympathy for him. And, logically, if we sympathize with the creature, that cannot help but DIMINISH our "sympathy" with those in the company who are trying to kill the poor thing. :(

Tolkien makes a very clear delineation between WICKED and DANGEROUS creatures. He distinguishes between ordinary WOLVES hunting for food and WARGS, evil servants of the enemy. The oliphants of Harad are dangerous, but not wicked. For Jackson to make the troll something other than a sentient (if not too bright) WICKED thing, is to, yet again, depart from the author's vision without any NEED to do so. A wicked, evil troll wouldn't have taken up any more screen time than a big, innocent baby with a large club who had no idea what he was doing and was only further enraged by being shot, stoned and stabbed by all those nasty little vermin running around at his feet and jumping on his head! :mad:

[aragil]

MM- the troll was in the scene in the books- his foot made an appearance through the door before being stabbed by Frodo. Gandalf identifies it before they close the doors (~'There is something else, a giant cave troll, or more than one'), and again after the Fellowship has repulsed the attack (~'let us leave the chamber before the troll returns'). Jackson decided to enhance it's role, all the way into replacing the spear-hurling orc. I don't think we can be too mad at PJ for placing the scene in the movie. To me it's much the same as the staircase scene- JRRT mentions in the text that the masonry is crumbling, and that there is one particular gap which Pippin spends several minutes contemplating before deciding to jump it. As director PJ is completely in his right to 'enhance' these scenes from the book as he sees fit. I guess that as a (determined) critic you're within your rights to question these decisions by PJ, but the answer to why he did what he did is because he wanted it that way.

As for the 'innocent' troll, I haven't thought about it as much. Tolkien himself waffled back and forth on whether trolls were even rationale incarnates or mere counterfeits. The compromise he ended up reaching is that the Olog-hai were some sort of debased form of humans, while the older trolls of the Hobbit were actually counterfeits, and possessed no 'soul' at all. Which type were the ones in Moria (there were a few others throwing down gangways for the Balrog)? No way to know IMO- they never entered the chamber and thus were never exposed to sunlight. That PJ's troll enters and survives indicates to me that he was one of the debased humans- in which case he is not irredeemably evil, but has either made some poor decisions or else has let others make these decisions for him. Is there any evidence for this in Tolkien's work? I don't know- I've read as much as I can from Tolkien concerning his trolls (in particular the Olog-hai), and there is just not much to go on. In which case I think PJ is again within his rights to motivate the troll however he sees fit. Personally, until I heard PJ's commentary I never thought of the troll in the movie as innocent at all- just a big, mean, evil machine.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. It is an ORC's foot that Frodo stabs. The cave troll enters the chamber after the Fellowship has fled down the stairs and Gandalf is attempting to close the door. It is then that he becomes aware of the Balrog and the two of them have a "spell" contest which ends with the chamber collapsing.

The cave troll also appears when the Fellowship reaches the lowest hall and they are separated from their pursuers by a chasm of fire. The troll (or two, I don't remember), places a large stone across the chasm which the Balrog then uses to cross and chase the Fellowship over the bridge.

The Fellowship does NOT encounter a troll in the chamber battle.

[Talimon]

The Bridge of Khazad-Dum

'There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. 'And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. For the moment they are hanging back, but there is something else there. A great cave-troll, I think, or more than one. There is no hope of escape that way.'

----------------


There was a blow to the door that made it quiver; and then it began to grind slowly open, driving back the wedges. A huge arm and shoulder, with a dark skin of greenish scales, was thrust through the widening gap. Then a great, flat, toeless foot was forced through below. There was a dead silence outside.


I got the impression it was a troll as well, both based on Gandalfs guess and the description of it's "huge arm and shoulder" and "great, flat, toeless foot". Not to mention that there was a "dead silence outside", something that suggests the orcs were hanging back and letting the troll do it's work. I might also mention that Boromirs sword was notched after swinging at it. Didn't sound like an orc to me.

[aragil]

Thanks Talimon!(~'There is something else, a giant cave troll, or more than one')but there is something else there. A great cave-troll, I think, or more than one.
Not bad from memory, eh? Talimon, if you still have the books there's a line right after the battle where Gandalf says they should flee before the cave troll returns. I think that line makes it pretty obvious that it was a cave troll which Frodo stabbed (if the mention of huge shoulders and Boromir's sword being notched didn't already do the trick- even the 'huge' orc which spears Frodo is only 'almost man height').

MM- If we can agree that the foot which Frodo stabbed was in fact a troll (anything is possible), do you still object to PJ's decision to have it appear in the scene?

[Mrs. Maggott]

The only problem I have with the troll (with the exception of it being a big innocent baby, that is), is that I cannot imagine how the Fellowship could have prevailed against not only the great number of orcs, but a troll as well!

I suppose anything is possible, but out of the nine of the Fellowship you only had FIVE actual fighters - Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli! Yes, the hobbits did their best, but they hardly qualified as battle hardened warriors! Therefore, it's a little hard to see how they could have prevailed - and then escaped to flee - under the circumstances.

However, I have no problem otherwise with the troll being in the scene if you really don't care about how impossible its presence makes the Company's survival!

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
MM- If we can agree that the foot which Frodo stabbed was in fact a troll (anything is possible), do you still object to PJ's decision to have it appear in the scene?
You can ask me also:-)
I always thought it was the troll, but there's nothing in the book to say it was, and now I'm pretty sure it was an orc that Frodo stabbed in the foot.
That makes it even sillier that PJ brings in the troll, and gives it such a prominent (!) part in the action. If PJ really didn't want it to look "stupid and ugly", like H Potter's, I'm afraid he failed - it looks to me like that one's twin brother! Still, it's an exciting scene, with some neat bits of action, and of course (!) PJ had plenty of time to spare for his inventions, so we can't object to this example of his indulgence in his flights of fancy, CAN we??

[aragil]

Joxy- Where is an Orc ever described as shoeless? Even in the hobbit, they wore shoes until pursuing the dwarves. In the two towers the Orcs trample everything under their iron-shod shoes (Uruk-hai and Moria Orcs), making it easy for the three hunters to pursue them. Where is there any evidence, any evidence whatsoever that that bare foot belonged to an orc? Again, Talimon has provided evidence that it was a troll, and Gandalf says that they should go before the troll returns. If there was never a troll in the first place, then why does Gandalf use a word like return? If you yourself admit that you thought it was a troll, why do you expect PJ to think any different? If the troll was in the book, and was fought by the fellowship (Frodo and Boromir), then how is that scene an invention of PJ's?

MM- Remember that Frodo in the books was able to take on this same troll single handed, and Pippin was able to slay an Olog-hai (the quickest, fiercest trolls) chieftain single-handed when defending Beregrond. If these two Hobbits are able to take on trolls in the books, then why is it beyond belief that all nine of the fellowship take one on in the movie? The five fighters in the party are quite superlative- Boromir takes on 20 orcs & Uruk-hai alone and unaided at Parth Galen, while Legolas and Gimli both tally in the 30's at Helm's Deep. And those are the three weakest combatants of the five- who knows how many Aragorn and Gandalf could account for.
Personally I liked the scene, not only was it exciting, but it was nice to see how the entire fellowship worked to first try and protect Frodo (hey, they did all right at first), and then to try and avenge Frodo. It also resonates with Gandalf's EE speech (and from the book, I believe) that evil will be drawn to Frodo.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frodo hardly took on WHATEVER it was "single-handedly"; he merely stabbed a foot that had been thrust through a door which, once the foot was withdrawn, was quickly shut. If it had been a troll, why was the door not pushed all the way open by the creature's great strength - even with a 'stabbed foot' - and those about the door slain or badly injured?

Furthermore, where was this "troll" during the battle in the chamber that DID occur in the book after the door was opened? Frodo is skewered by an ORC, not a troll, and there is no further mention of a troll entering the chamber and taking part in the battle. If the foot belonged to a troll (and I do not necessarily doubt it), why is the troll is never mentioned as having put more in the chamber of Marzabul than its foot? :confused:

[aragil]

Beats me- but action doesn't always translate well onto paper. The fact is that Pippin did single-handedly take on an Olog-hai chieftain (the most fiercesome and cunning variety of troll), and slew it in the books. I think that Aragorn, Gandalf, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli were capable of killing a troll plus a couple dozen orcs, whether we're talking about the book or movie incarnanations. In any case, it did happen in the movie, and I found it no more unbelievable than the existance of a Balrog or the premise that a single Ring could hold the fate of the free world.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Where is an Orc ever described as shoeless?
Personally I liked the scene....
You know it was shoeless because its foot was "flat and toeless"? You're absolutely right! I'd completely missed that, but now I'm back where I've always been, assuming it WAS the troll. That makes it more mysterious though: why did a stab in the foot stop it attacking, even make it go away to return later?
PJ's version makes more sense this time, and I've already said I like the scene too, even though H Potter's troll's brother is ludicrous! There are a couple of nice moments: Aragorn giving Gimli a sideways glance to say now's the time to throw his axe at the troll, and Frodo slashing the troll's arm to make it let go of its hold on him. Sliding through its legs is also neat, and running up its chain and arm to shoot down into its head!

[aragil]

The key for me for not being bothered by the troll is to have never seen Harry Potter, I guess. They definitely wanted the troll to come off sympathetically, not only PJ remarked on it, but also all the hobbit-actors in the cast commentary.
Not that anybody is denying it now, but I finally have access to my precious books. Here's my quote, from p. 422 of the 46th printing of the Ballantine paperback edition: 'Now is the time!' cried Gandalf. 'Let us go, before the troll returns!' As for why Tolkien had the Troll leave in the first place, I have no idea. Perhaps a low pain-tolerance, but we should all remember that Sting is a pretty important (Hobbit-sized) sword.

Frodo slashing the troll's arm to make it let go of its hold on him. Sliding through its legs is also neat, and running up its chain and arm to shoot down into its head!
Who says being big is always an advantage in combat, eh? What I really liked was the comraderie of the fight scene- you get a feeling that the fellowship is really coming together in the face of adversity. Aragorn saves Boromir from an Orc (in the EE), Boromir and Aragorn save Sam from the troll, Legolas saves Gimli from the troll, Merry and Pippin try to hide Frodo from the troll, Aragorn tries to save Frodo from the Troll, Frodo tries to help Aragorn after he's been slammed against the pillar, and finally Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas manage to bring the beast down. Individual slashy bits are nice, but this action sequence also manages to bring around a sense of fellowship, which makes the sequences where Gandalf falls and Boromir is slain that much more poignant.

[Ariana Undomiel]

You purists really need to get over your little obsessions. I have said it several times now, it is JUST a book and JUST a movie. It's not a moral issue that PJ interpreted the book a different way that doesn't satisfy your tastes and desires.

- Ariana

[Mrs. Maggott]

Perhaps I have misunderstood these debates. I was of the opinion that we were expressing our OPINIONS as to whether certain things were thus or so, and not making moral judgments about those involved in creating or presenting them.

The "moral" argument has to do with whether Jackson's film has the same or at least reasonably the same moral vision - which includes the presentation of various virtues - as did Tolkien's original work. Of course Jackson has not presented a DIAMETRIC moral position or Sauron would win and the Ring would be triumphant and NO ONE, Tolkiapath or jackophile, has ever suggested that such was the case.

What we so-called "purists" have maintained is that the Director did not really present the author's vision, but his own - which, of course, was his right. We also stated that much of the revision which the story underwent at Mr. Jackson's hands was unnecessary and not dictated by either time or money considerations; that is, they were solely at his discretion. But none of these things is a moral matter, simply one of observation and judgment.

Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that LOTR is Scripture and that the good Professor is a godlike entity whose words should never be tampered with. Rather, this is a spirited debate about a film that has engendered a LOT of debate. Naturally, it isn't of earth shaking importance, but the subject matter has generated quite a bit of heat on BOTH sides of these issues, not just on the "purist" side. In the end, as with beauty, the matter is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
They definitely wanted the troll to come off sympathetically, not only PJ remarked on it, but also all the hobbit-actors in the cast commentary.
Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas manage to bring the beast down.
....the comraderie of the fight scene- you get a feeling that the fellowship is really coming together in the face of adversity.
....action sequence also manages to bring around a sense of fellowship, which makes the sequences where Gandalf falls and Boromir is slain that much more poignant.

Sympathetically? A strange idea - I'll have to check that up in the extras!
Wasn't it just Legolas' arrow in its mouth that finished it off?
There ARE several nice points of them helping each other out during the fight, but isn't it taking things a bit far to go deep into cameraderie and fellowship? There's more of noisy knockabout, than brotherly bonding, in it!

[aragil]

Yeah, they definitely thought it should come off sympathetic. Sean Astin remarked to that extensively in the cast commentary, and of course that was all PJ talked about in the Marzubul fight in the director/screenwriter commentary.
As for the comraderie bit, from what I've heard (not being a fighting man myself) there is no greater brotherly bonding than that which occurs between men in combat. This can be either highlighted in a film or downplayed. Gladiator and Braveheart had lot's of noisy knockabout scenes, but I never got the same sense of bonding between the protagonists that I got from FotR.
Yeah, Legolas's arrow was the finishing blow, but Pippin was helping to expose the Troll's mouth and Gandalf and Gimli were distracting it to allow Legolas the clean shot. There's no 'i' in Fellowship.

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
....they definitely thought it should come off sympathetic....
....from what I've heard (not being a fighting man myself) there is no greater brotherly bonding than that which occurs between men in combat....
Legolas's arrow was the finishing blow, but Pippin was helping....Gandalf and Gimli were distracting.
Weird idea, but I suppose we should be used to weird ideas by now....
I wouldn't know either, but the scene is so fast and furious that there's not a lot of time for bonding, in addition to the knockabout!
Yes, a nice bit of team work, I agree. As I said, there are several neat touches of co-operation as well as solo efforts, but it's all so fast you need to go into slo-mo to catch them. Aragorn (or maybe Boromir) gives Gimli a quick glance as a sign to throw his axe, which he does to good effect. I still like best though Legolas' waiting for the troll's chain to make a bridge for him to run up, then on to its arm and head, and shoot straight down into it!

[Ciryaher]

As far as I can reckon, since Orcs are versions of Elves, I would think they have toes. If the "great, flat, toeless foot" was big, flat, and had no toes, I don't see how it could be a troll's. And last time I checked, trolls didn't wear body armour because of their thick hides...sounds a lot like "a huge arm and shoulder, with a dark skin of greenish scales" to me. As deep as the blade went, and the fact that it is Elven, there is no reason why the "thing" isn't a troll.

Speaking of trolls...I saw a snippet from the TTT advertisment on television, and to my dismay, horror, and disgust, the thing that I am quite sure is supposed to be an Ent very much resembled a tree. *sigh sigh mutter sigh* Is there nobody in the Tolkien movie-making business that has read the passages where Ents are described as a large man or troll, and that trolls and ents are supposed to look similar? The Ents are NOT walking trees *grumble*

Back to the topic, I think that PJ did a good job making a movie. The scenery was excellent, and Sean Bean's performance made up for Aragorn's weirdness (I'm so glad there was more Boromir in the added scenes :)). There was a lot of "decharacterization", but as a movie, I think PJ did a good job in the making. As an adaptation, there is a lot to be desired, but it is not a total wreck. I think PJ did more to create the feeling of Middle Earth, and making it look realistic, at the cost of character for Saruman, Aragorn, and Frodo.