TTT: A Purist's Review

[Thorin]

Okay. Saw it last night with five of my students. Let's just say that I was more disappointed with FoTR then with TTT and it wasn't as bad as most of you were making it out to be. That doesn't mean that there wasn't alot of major flaws that irked me, however.

BIGGEST PROBLEMS

1) Faramir and the whole Osgiliath scenes were probably the most damaging to this movie. It was perfectly fine until after the Gollum in the water scene and then it all went to **** for Faramir's character and the plot. Very disappointing.

2) The whole Warg fighting scene and Aragorn. Quite unecessary and totally fabricated. I felt that PJ could have used his time more wisely in making the story truer.

3) The Ents - It dragged on too long, and having them decide to tell M and P to get lost and having M & P "tongue-lash" him and be the ones to convince him to go did nothing for Treebeard's character and as far as I'm concerned, had PJ not put them in, I wouldn't have missed them.


That's it for major issues....oh, there's more...

Other Problems

1) Theoden's "exorcism" - Like the wizard break dancing scene, PJ had to go over the top to blow things up. Unecessary and distorting in meaning.

2) Galadriel the Foreteller, Omniscient and Movie Giving Away Oracle. She just has to say more then she needs to and what she said is not entirely accurate. The whole telepathy thing with Elrond was cheesy.

3) King Theoden was overall a bit disappointing in the way he was portrayed. From decrepid old man to doubting leader. He was much less noble then what the book had him as.

4) Where the heck was Eomer? What a useless character in the movie! He never even showed up until the end.

5) The Elves at Helm's (especially the role and death of Haldir) took away from the fact that Eomer should have been there.

6) Treebeard saying, "The White Wizard will know" and then showing Gandalf. Cheesy. And why was so much screen time wasted on figuring out whether M and P were not orcs?? Treebeard in the book didn't need convincing. Stupid waste of screen time which did nothing for Treebeard's character.

What I liked

Gollum - I felt revulsion, humor, likability and extreme pity all in one for Gollum. I almost feel that Andy Serkis should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (Can a CGI win an Oscar?:) ). I felt that the whole "dual personality" scenes were a bit overdone, however.

Grima Wormtongue - I knew Brad Dourif would do a good job with this character.

Elrond and Arwen - Out of all the fabricated scenes, I thought this one added the most to the story. The book says in RoTK that when Elrond and Arwen met after the wedding, the meeting was "bitterly sorrowful" or something like that. This really showed how Elrond was feeling. However, with Arwen leaving with the Elves and we know she won't go, we can expect some melodramatic "No, I can't go and leave my love!" scene.

Oliphaunts - The whole battle with the Gondor soldiers and the Haradrim with the Oliphaunts tramping was well done and looked pretty cool.

Dead Marshes - Except for Frodo falling in and being "attacked" by ghosts, I liked the way Gollum and the characters played out the dead marshes.

Most consistently good character throughout - Legolas.

FUNNIEST SCENE: When the camera pans across the wall of Helm's Deep showing the tall elves and then we see the top of this helmet just under the rim of the wall, turning left and right and you hear Gimli's voice "Could you have picked a better place?"

I am a little concerned. When Sam and Frodo were talking about Gollum, Frodo says, "I believe he can come back". Is that setting Gollum up to become a hero at the end? Will PJ end up making him a tragic character that we discussed many months ago? That would be horrible.



Rating: 6.5 out of 10

[Nóm]

Well Thorin, I wonder if you accepted TTT better than you accepted FotR for similar reasons as I did. I actually think my attitude and mindset effected my enjoyment of and reaction to the movie more so than the content of the movie it's self. This mindset differing in that I was expecting this story to be different than the true story.
With TTT there was no "What the hell is this!!! For crying out loud,why is she here!? Why did he skip that? Why is this being dragged out? That never happend! Where is Gildor? Were is Glorfindel? Ah this is hell!"
Another factor for me is that I was a very new reader when I went in to watch FotR and the story was fresh in my mind, having read the entire story once and FotR twice within a week right before seeing the movie, more importantly I knew nothing about the movie (I don't watch much TV and hadn't looked it up on the internet), So I hadn't heard about Arwen for example. Whereas with TTT I knew the more well known major changes from the true story, such as elves as Helm's Deep. I dreaded this change at first, but as it turns out I love that aspect of the movie. I think that knowing these changes ahead of time might have softend the blow. Though, I think this latter reason is much smaller than the first one I mentioned.

I am a little concerned. When Sam and Frodo were talking about Gollum, Frodo says, "I believe he can come back". Is that setting Gollum up to become a hero at the end?
I read another meaning into Frodo's words.
I interpret this as Frodo needing to believe that Gollum could come back because this helped him keep hope that he himself would be able to come back from the state that he was being pushed into by bearing the ring.

[aragil]

Well Thorin, I'm glad to see that you didn't hate it. I disagree with Nom in that I think it's better not to know any of the changes- if you sit around fretting about them before you see the movie then it will probably detract from your experience (IMO). Anyway, glad to hear you both liked the show, and I agree- the changes weren't as dissappointing as we had all been steeling ourselves for.

Originally posted by Thorin
BIGGEST PROBLEMS

1) Faramir and the whole Osgiliath scenes were probably the most damaging to this movie. It was perfectly fine until after the Gollum in the water scene and then it all went to **** for Faramir's character and the plot. Very disappointing.

2) The whole Warg fighting scene and Aragorn. Quite unecessary and totally fabricated. I felt that PJ could have used his time more wisely in making the story truer.

3) The Ents - It dragged on too long, and having them decide to tell M and P to get lost and having M & P "tongue-lash" him and be the ones to convince him to go did nothing for Treebeard's character and as far as I'm concerned, had PJ not put them in, I wouldn't have missed them.


These were my three biggest problems with the movie as well. However, I thought PJ et al were going in the right direction in all three cases, they just came up a little short. After a second viewing Faramir worked for me- the pacing of this thread of the story is such that Faramir never has a chance to stop and think about the Ring. Even so the actor shows that he never really likes what he is doing. The moment that he realizes what the Ring really is (after Sam's speech about Boromir and then witnessing the total domination of Frodo by the Ring) Faramir immediately let's it go- and this time he does so with his lieutenants knowing exactly what he is doing. I think this is the same Faramir from the books, just in a different situation.
The Warg fighting wasn't totally fabricated- there is talk of the damage the Ward Riders do to the Cavalry in UT. However, I think (and I'm not alone) that the time here could have been used to better develop Aragorn. Isolating him from everybody else was a great way to get him to do some introspection, and the film didn't do this enough for my tastes. However, I think that his adventure was a great way to bring in Arwen and Elrond- and this we both agree was well done (and brought in a flash-forward from the books!).
I really didn't care for Treebeard's hasty decision, but the more I think about it, the more of a pickle PJ was in. If he does it how it's done in the books, then Treebeard knows about the atrocities that have been commited by Saruman, but has done nothing to stop them. The way PJ does it, Treebeard is a poor treeherder- he doesn't even know what's happening to his own trees, and he makes a hasty decision. Oh well, as other people have said it allows Merry and Pippin to show that they've grown from the previous movie. And you have to admit- the storming of Isengard was pretty cool. I'm certainly glad that part got in.Originally posted by Thorin
2) Galadriel the Foreteller, Omniscient and Movie Giving Away Oracle. She just has to say more then she needs to and what she said is not entirely accurate. The whole telepathy thing with Elrond was cheesy. Cheesy, but from the books: From RotK, Many Partings
Soon Celeborn and Galadriel and their folk would turn eastward, and so pass by the Redhorn Gate and down the Dimrill Stair to the Silverlode and to their own country. They had journeyed thus far by the west-ways, for they had much to speak of with Elrond and with Gandalf, and here they lingered still in converse with their friends. Often long after the hobbits were wrapped in sleep they would sit together under the stars, recalling the ages that were gone and all their joys and labours in the world, or holding council, concerning the days to come. If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard, and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands. For they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro. In any case, maybe their Rings would give Elrond and Galadriel in particular a close bond? I must admit, I joked to my companions during that scene that Galadriel was just being your typical nagging mother-in-law. Originally posted by Thorin
3) King Theoden was overall a bit disappointing in the way he was portrayed. From decrepid old man to doubting leader. He was much less noble then what the book had him as.
I didn't get quite this feeling. In both books and movie he started out decripid- and the film line about how Wormtongue would have had him crawling on all fours like a beast was a great lift from the books. As for his self doubt- I thought that this played off rather well. In the books he was not as concerned with his people- the movie did a good job showing that Saruman was attacking the people of Rohan, and this is where Theoden's chief concern was (in the movie). I absolutely loved the bit about "the old alliances are broken ... Elves won't help". This was wrong, and Theoden realized it when Haldir showed up with the announcement that he was honoring an old alliance. This will come up big in the next film, because, of course, the other alliance that Theoden complained about was that with Gondor. Also, I thought that Theoden in the movie was stalwart until the very end, when he at last he seemed to despair. Even this was OK, because it allowed Aragorn to help him (remember Gandalf's words- "He will need you before the end"). This again will help in the next movie when Theoden decides to help Gondor, and in any case the despair was there in the books as well: From Helm's Deep
'It is said that the Hornburg has never fallen to assault,' said Théoden; 'but now my heart is doubtful. The world changes, and all that once was strong now proves unsure. How shall any tower withstand such numbers and such reckless hate? Had I known that the strength of Isengard was grown so great, maybe l should not so rashly have ridden forth to meet it, for all the arts of Gandalf. His counsel seems not now so good as it did under the morning sun.'Originally posted by Thorin
4) Where the heck was Eomer? What a useless character in the movie! He never even showed up until the end. They introduced Eomer earlier on, then let him take the role of Erekenbrand. This allowed them to develop Theoden a lot more- he was more on his own, and it is then his relationship with Aragorn that is explored. In my mind this is a good thing- it reminds us that Aragorn is the King to be, something the movie could emphasize a bit more, IMO.Originally posted by Thorin
5) The Elves at Helm's (especially the role and death of Haldir) took away from the fact that Eomer should have been there. Of course, if you get over the fact that Eomer is not there, then I think that the Elves really add to the movie. Remember, you are one of the ones that has been complaining most about Elrond's attitude towards men in the movie. This should be a god-send for you- this is where Elrond buries his grudge with Isildur and decides to honor the old alliance with men. Haldir's death effected me quite a bit in the movie- I had no idea it was coming and I was sitting there saying "No!!" This is great foreshadowing for Theoden- the whole honoring of the old alliances etc.

[markrob]

I had about 20 of the little shock faces heading this post but it wouldnt let me do it, but you get the point.

Holy Toledo! I am shocked beyond belief. The mighty Thorin has seen the light. He apparantly can seperate the true Tolkien text which is brillaint beyond belief, and a movie made for entertainment that is pretty damn close to the novel both plot and descriptive wise. The difference being the movie has taken certain liberties (some necessary, most not but nonetheless acceptable for an adaption for such an undertaking) to present the film to the GENERAL PUBLIC for entertainment value and REVENUE. By george I think Thorin has a little FAD in him dying to get out and really enjoy this kick ass trilogy for what its worth. Cant wait to see it, hell I might have more complaints than you, wouldnt that be something. ;)

[aragil]

(continued)
Originally posted by Thorin
Most consistently good character throughout - Legolas.

FUNNIEST SCENE: When the camera pans across the wall of Helm's Deep showing the tall elves and then we see the top of this helmet just under the rim of the wall, turning left and right and you hear Gimli's voice "Could you have picked a better place?" I was surprised at how much I liked Legolas- he was virtually a no-show in the first movie (excepting of course the shooting bits), but I did think he really grew in this second installment, along with Gimli. I hope they show up more in the third film then what Tolkien had them in the third book- otherwise they'll only have about 3 lines a-piece.
I agree with all the stuff you liked, especially Gollum. I did not think it was possible to convey this character on the screen, least of all with CG. The fact that they pulled it off is a miracle. Take that, Jar-Jar!!
Originally posted by Thorin
I am a little concerned. When Sam and Frodo were talking about Gollum, Frodo says, "I believe he can come back". Is that setting Gollum up to become a hero at the end? Will PJ end up making him a tragic character that we discussed many months ago? That would be horrible. Hmm, Tolkien certainly intended him to be tragic. from Letter 246 to Mrs Eileen Elgar
For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense ) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable. ... I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed. The patience and mercy that Frodo is showing to Gollum, as exemplified by the movie quote you gave above, are exactly what causes the succesful conclusion to the quest. Hmm. I like Nom's take as well. Originally posted by Thorin
Rating: 6.5 out of 10 I gave it an 8 out of 10 on my first viewing, and I'll move that up to a 9 out of 10 now that I've seen it twice.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
I agree with all the stuff you liked, especially Gollum.
Hmm, Tolkien certainly intended him to be tragic. The patience and mercy that Frodo is showing to Gollum, as exemplified by the movie quote you gave above, are exactly what causes the succesful conclusion to the quest.

My concern in making him a "tragic hero" is simply this....What if instead of Gollum jumping on Frodo to take the ring for himself and while dancing with glee, falling in the precipice like the book; we have Gollum getting the ring and Stinker and Slinker have a personality battle and good Gollum wins and deliberately sacrifices himself for Master and to finally free himself from the ring...This is where I almost see it going. That would be tragic!

And markrob, don't fret. The more I stew over it the more fault I will find and the more criticisms there will be . The only reason why I managed to not allow the changes to effect me was because of my experience with FoTR, bracing myself for all the changes, and the discussions we've had here on TTF for the last year. Had I seen TTT first without knowing what to expect, you can guarantee I would be going ballistic..;)

I will say this....Had Faramir and Ithilien been more true to the book, I probably would have almost virtually no problem with TTT as an adaptation :eek:....If TTT EE fleshes out the Ents ten times better than what I saw in the movie, and there is more character development, I will probably be ok despite the fabrications.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Thorin
....What if instead of Gollum jumping on Frodo to take the ring for himself and while dancing with glee, falling in the precipice like the book; we have Gollum getting the ring and Stinker and Slinker have a personality battle and good Gollum wins and deliberately sacrifices himself for Master and to finally free himself from the ring...This is where I almost see it going. That would be tragic!
Please contribute:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7549

[Orodreth]

Originally posted by markrob
… a movie made for entertainment that is pretty damn close to the novel both plot and descriptive wise
Pretty damn close to the novel? I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I personally cannot call this movie true to the book. I thought Gollum was well done, and sure Helm's Deep looked cool, but aren't we overlooking some things? There were no elves at Helm's Deep in the book. Would it really have been that hard to swap the several hundred elven archers with a few archers from Rohan (don't get me wrong, i love elves). Plus, having Haladir die was just… I can't even describe it. How can one kill off a character who wasn't even in the book?! The FOTR got away with a few creative liberties, but didn't make any changes as drastic as Faramir submitting to the power of the ring virtually imidiately. I mean, wasn't he supposed to be stronger than his brother in that matter? Boromir resisted the temptation of the ring for a long time in the fellowship, but in TTT movie, Faramir just imidiately decided to use the ring. When Frodo was taken to Osgiliath, I completely lost what hope I had remaining in the movie.

[Foe-Hammer]

Thorin,

Are you still whining about this? I'd think after a year you'd be all *****ed out....

[Nóm]

I disagree with Nom in that I think it's better not to know any of the changes- if you sit around fretting about them before you see the movie then it will probably detract from your experience (IMO).
Not that I don't respect your opinion but I wonder if you speak it from experience as I do.
Have you walked into FotR assuming Glorfindel would show up for example, and being unaware of other changes that looking back over old threads I see were being discussed before the movie even came out?
I have.
If I hadn't know ahead of time about Aragorn going over the cliff, I imagine that I would have been ticked off the second I saw that and sat there for a few minutes trying to swallow it so I could enjoy the movie.

Though, I did not say 'fretting'. I may have fretted a bit about Aragorn, but I got over it soon enough which prevented me from having to do so during my first viewing.

This coupled with my overall attitude change and mindset because of my acceptance of that fact that this movie wouldn't be the exact same story as that in the book was a powerful combination that I have no doubt allowed me to enjoy TTT more than I would have otherwise.

[Foe-Hammer]

but what on earth would possess you to walk into a movie theater expecting to see an EXACT telling of tolkiens story? I knew there would be changes, didn't expect it to be exactly the same and therefore was/am able to appreciate on it's own merits....

[Aldanil]

"some of the people all of the time"

what certain folks won't settle for
in the name of REVENUE
as mighty markrob means by
"enjoy this kick ass trilogy for what it's worth"
as Glamdring unEXACTing has been able
to "appreciate on it's own merits" [sic]
such as they are, such as they are


Nom precisely puts it: "butchered"

Thorin, take up Goblin-Cleaver!


I began by invoking old honest Abe,
But our dear own John Ronald said it best,
With what can only described as remarkable prescience;
His comments were offered (in letter 210)
In the summer of forty-four years ago, and
Follow with only minor editorial emendation:

"Criticizing even details in Part I has been easier, because Part I in general respects the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I; but it is far more unsatisfactory, in more serious respects. It almost seems as if PJ, having spent much time and work on Part I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience to deal with the more difficult volumes in which the action becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last almost to a delirium....."


but seriously, folks
this second installment was so sad in places
that two or three times I had to laugh out loud
to keep from screaming

[aragil]

Originally posted by Nóm
Not that I don't respect your opinion but I wonder if you speak it from experience as I do.
Sort of. Here's my story- I joined these boards way back in ~April of 2001, after seeing the original trailer for PJ's LotR. Some discussion back then was book based, but still a lot of it was about the movies and almost all of it was negative. Shortly after the old site went down and this new one popped up (~August 2001) I stopped coming here because (among other reasons) I caught myself complaining about a movie I hadn't even seen, and one which I really wanted to enjoy. As such, I didn't know for sure if Bombadil would be cut, if Glory would be in the movie, who Lurtz was, or whether or not Aragorn would fight in the battle at Amon Hen. Still, I liked most or all of these scenes, on first viewing. For TT I have desperately tried to avoid rumors, but I had heard of the Elves at Helm's Deep and that Faramir was 'different', but I didn't have any real details, and I didn't know Aragorn was going over the cliff. This might be personal preference for me- I'd rather not know ahead of time and then be able to react in the theater. For you it might work better knowing- you're able to get used to the differences and accept them for what they are. The people I'm worried about are the ones who hear about the rumors and then decide to hate the movie without even seeing it. Dozens of threads on this site are a testament to that very phenomenon, and that's what I was preaching against. People who can handle it like you should ignore my advice.


Originally posted by Aldanil
His comments were offered (in letter 210)
In the summer of forty-four years ago, and
Follow with only minor editorial emendation: Minor emendation??? Exchanging Zimmerman's name with PJ's is in no ways minor. To hammer this point home, here's a few other quotes from letter 210 to show just what sort of movie Zimmerman was making to so arrouse JRRT's wrath: Z .... has intruded a 'fairy castle' and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantiations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has mad no serious attempt toe represent the heart of the tale adequately: the jouney of the Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered.
...
4. Here we meet the first intrusion of the Eagles. I think they are a major mistake of Z, and without warrant.
The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighing of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of B. by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of the escape.
...
Rivendell was not 'a shimmering forest'. This is an unhappy anticipation of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not be seen from Weathertop: it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.
...
At the bottom of the page, the Eagles are again introduced. I feel this to be awhollyunaccptable tampering wiht the tale. 'Nine Walkers' and they immediately go up in the air! The intrusion achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of the Eagles when at last they are really needed.
...
Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!?
...
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis.
...
I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the 'defence of the Hornburg' - this would be a better title, since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown - entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in this way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the story. I think it is pretty obvious that PJ/FW/PB read this letter over, and have taken pains in order to avoid making these same mistakes. To then take JRRT's comments on Zimmerman's synopsis, and simply 'lift' them into the context of PJ's film is an irresponsible use of quotes, IMO.
And wait a minute, Nóm's reference to butchering was in the hypothetical context that the movie was ****, which is not her opinion of the movie (I believe).
Got to keep you honest like Abe, Al.

[Orodreth]

The main problem that I have with the movie is that PJ and the entire film crew kept on preaching that they wanted to make a movie very true to the book, and I do not think they did. Otherwise it was an OK movie.

[Aldanil]

And yet I remain unrepentant....

Of course replacing "Z" with PJ is willful rank manipulation, and of course the Hollywood horrors that JRRT was protesting so strenuously in 1958 are not the same heinous offenses to be charged against the Wellington Wingnut; how indeed could they be? I'm no President testifying before the grand jury!

Still, for one who takes such apparent delight in Jackson's free-wheeling and not over-reverent reinterpretation of the original, you really can't have all that much ground for complaint about my providing this letter-quotation in a redefined context. Where's your spirit of Liberal Adaptation, brother?

The tender feelings on display in 210 would find very much to be grieved by in the newest movie; I think that John Ronald would be quite displeased. 201 to Rayner Unwin in the fall of 1957 seems to me both succinct and foresighted: "the present script is a compressionwith resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation".

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have already posted my critique of the film as film in the "review" section. Now, I would like to make my comments as someone who has been labeled a "purist" and I do it in this section simply because it appears to be apt.

Question: Is TTT "true" to the plot of the book?
Answer: Obviously, no. The changes are too many and too well known to need reiteration here.

Question: Is TTT "true" to the spirit of the book?
Answer: Yes and no - and, frankly, no more than yes.

The largest change of both plot and spirit happens in the segment involving Frodo, Sam, Gollum and Faramir. This, again, does not have to be retold but it is obvious that Jackson has seen fit to altogether alter the character of Faramir as well as the plot line - to the great detriment of the story. Furthermore, obviously these changes were not the result of time and budget constraints.

The changes in the Merry, Pippin & Treebeard section were also detrimental to the spirit of the story, but at least they stayed somewhat within the parameters of the original action that takes place in the book. The ents are very one dimensional in spite of being well done cinematically. Merry & Pippin became the driving force behind the ents' attack which, of course, they were not. Finally, and most importantly, there were no huorns to rescue the folk at Helm's Deep. But these changes may well have been the result of time and budget constraints.

The third "leg" of the story also differed widely from the plot line in the book. The characters continue to deviate as well. Jackson's Aragorn is still "finding himself"; Legolas and Gimli, however, do better than they did in FOTR; Theoden is strange. He does not "awaken" from his thralldom to fight back against Saruman as he did in the book, but rather, he chooses (like Aragorn) what appears to be the path of least resistance: flight to a secure place. Wormtongue is so grossly evil as to be incredible despite the actor's fine performance. In the book, Wormtongue is evil, but he is just credible enough that he still attempts to delay Theoden even after Gandalf has lifted his "enchantment". Furthermore, rather than be thrown out, he turns with great hate against his former master, spits at him and his people and departs voluntarily (on a very miserable mount and not the fine animal he uses in the film). There is a difference here, albeit subtle. But then, subtlety is not one of Mr. Jackson's strong points.

And, of course, the endless (and I do mean endless!) battle sequence lacks credibility. In the book, the keep is never taken although the deeping wall is. Theoden, Aragorn and the knights ride from behind the barred gate of the keep on open ground. There is simply no way that a charge of horsemen in such cramped and confined spaces filled with well armed enemies could succeed. It is not only false to the book, but false to common sense. And at the last, with the huge army from Orthanc, without the presence of the huorns, victory would have been impossible even with the appearance of Eomer with Gandalf and a large body of men (the body of men was simply not that large!). Hence, the "victory" at the Hornburg was handled badly not only insofar as the original story was concerned, but even with regard to the sense it made in the film.

And then the final "piece" of the puzzle, the character of Gollum: this was uniformly well done, but Jackson's handling of the Smeagol/Gollum debate which ends in Gollum being "banished" from the mind of Smeagol is patently false and leads to the wrong conclusion regarding the character. Furthermore, though Frodo pitied Gollum and was duly grateful and respectful of his assistance, he did not undertake any concious effort to "redeem" the creature. The way we are being set up with Gollum may well lead to an ending entirely out of character to the story; that is, Smeagol winning over his "evil" self (if I remember correctly, "good" Smeagol murdered his friend to possess the Ring!) and going voluntarily into the Fire with the Ring to bring about its destruction. This was be a travesty of Tolkien's story, however good the dramatic moment would be. Nonetheless, I from what I saw last night, I distinctly "see" that this might be the ultimate reality.

TTT was by far the film that, until now, has deviated most completely from the original story, it characters, plot and spirit. It's a fine film, but it isn't Tolkien's LOTR and no amount of excuses - real or imagined - will change that. It's fun, it's exciting, but as Mr. Ebert said, it's an action adventure film, nothing less, but also, nothing more.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Furthermore, though Frodo pitied Gollum and was duly grateful and respectful of his assistance, he did not undertake any concious effort to "redeem" the creature. The way we are being set up with Gollum may well lead to an ending entirely out of character to the story; that is, Smeagol winning over his "evil" self (if I remember correctly, "good" Smeagol murdered his friend to possess the Ring!) and going voluntarily into the Fire with the Ring to bring about its destruction. This was be a travesty of Tolkien's story, however good the dramatic moment would be. I have to strongly object to this one, MM. Read the entirety of Letter 246, a portion of which I quoted above. Tolkien not only says that Gollum has changed, but also describes in detail how Gollum might have done exactly what you are describing as being 'a travesty of Tolkien's story'. In fact, on page 6 of HoME IX we see that Tolkien even drafted such a scenario: Perhaps better would be to make Gollum repent in a way. He is utterly wretched, and commits suicide. Gollum has it, he cried. No one else shall have it. I will destroy you all. He leaps into crack. Fire goes mad. Frodo is like to be destroyed. Given that Tolkien at one point drafted this scenario, and at another point described it in some detail in a letter, I don't see how it is such a travesty. From what I've heard (against my will, I assure you) we will see the Smeagol/Deagol story in RotK, so I'm sure that bit will be addressed. For my own part I hope it goes as it does in the books with Gollum falling in out of clumsiness- I never have been much of a Gollum fan. However, if Gollum goes in voluntarily, I won't think it a travesty. As we discussed in the PJ vs JRRT's LotR forum one of the story's main themes is that none of the children of Iluvatar are irredeemably evil.

Aldanil- I can honestly say that I would love nothing more than to watch these movies with JRRT, because I think he would be moved by them. Unfortunately I know it ain't going to happen, but anyone who tells me that he'd be upset by the inconsistencies with the written word is someone with whom I have a difference of opinion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Tolkien made many speculations, changes, drafts and revisions of his stories including changing his mind about the orcs being irredeemably evil, hive-like beings - but the book we have is the one he chose in the end.

If you are going to use the author's various speculations over the years to defend Mr. Jackson's "interpretations", you should be able to justify very nearly anything and everything. If Tolkien had written the particular ending you quoted, I would agree with your position, but I think you will agree that he did not.

[aragil]

Of course I agree, but in my mind there is a wide gulf between how he speculated on ending his tale and something that would have been a "travesty". Since you were coloring this (still quite hypothetical) ending to the films as a travesty, I thought I'd point out that Tolkien himself considered ending the tale this very way. In any case, I think that increasing audience sympathy for Gollum can only help the movies, whether he repents in the end or not. Remember, Tolkien explicitly said that the fact that Gollum almost repents then doesn't was the saddest part of the story for him. If PJ can make the audience feel that it is a pity as well, then good for him. The fact that we don't know what Gollum will do in the end is just one more reason to go see the next installment!

[Nóm]

I haven't read the HoMe Volume that deals with this alternate ending of the Ring, so I do not know the events that lead to Gollum sarcaficing himself in that version. I'd be interested in finding out though, especially if Jackson goes this way. I hope that he does not though. I'd also like to know what kept Tolkien from sticking with that version. Surely there was a reason.

In the letter he says that he thinks that Gollum would have thrown himself in had things gone different earlier on.
Things did not go that way though, maybe they will in the movie but why should they?
from letter 246
This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222)4 but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
Why should PJ base his movie on one of Tolkien's "what if" ideas. What would be the harm in ending the ring the way it is told in the book?

[Foe-Hammer]

Nom,

I understand the characters didn't "feel" the same as they did in the books. The characters are soooo unique, that I don't think you could capture the entire feeling of them in a movie. The best that can be done is to establish some basic traits that all can identify with. I think that this has been done and done well so far. I'm glad they didn't attempt to follow the book closer, it'd been a disaster and we'd never even get a chance to see TTT and TRofTK.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Nóm
Why should PJ base his movie on one of Tolkien's "what if" ideas. What would be the harm in ending the ring the way it is told in the book? Of course, my response is what evidence is there that this will happen in the movies? Last time I saw Two Towers it looked as if Stinker came out on top, precisely as in the books.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Nom,

I understand the characters didn't "feel" the same as they did in the books. The characters are soooo unique, that I don't think you could capture the entire feeling of them in a movie. The best that can be done is to establish some basic traits that all can identify with.
So you can probably understand that I was better able to enjoy TTT during the first viewing, because I knew to expect these things. I went in TTT knowing PJ's charactors, and having a feel for his film. The point is that I was not expecting FotR to be "exactly" as the book is, but rather the differences just hit me too hard.
by aragil
Of course, my response is what evidence is there that this will happen in the movies? Last time I saw Two Towers it looked as if Stinker came out on top, precisely as in the books.
None that I know of.
I was just putting in my opinion about the idea of PJ ending the Ring this alternate way. I do not think it would be a travesty as Tolkien thought it was a possability, but I hope he does not do this.

[aragil]

Nóm- I think we're agreed then. Not really a travesty either way, but hoping for the way it was published. Cool- you have exactly 1000 more posts than me (or rather did before I posted this).

[PRH]

I desperately hope that PJ does make this change. From what I've seen in TTT, there is a possibility that it might be, the part about 'helping him.' I always thought the book version was just plain silly, cartoonish.

I've have a thread going on this going in the RoTK forum for a while. It's non-spoiler since it's all speculation at this point:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7549

[Minas]

Just going back to one of the things Thorin said about Aragorn still finding himself as a King. Didn't Theoden say, in the movie " Get your men out of there" referring to the Elves as though Aragorn was their leader. To be honest I cant believe I stand alone saying that Elrond has been butchered and hung out as a Self serving prick. He had been around too long and was too wise to do some of the things portrayed in the movie.

[Nóm]

True that Elrond had been around for a long time and was very wise, and it is even true that PJ's Elrond is nothing like the way I imagine Elrond, but I do like PJ's Elrond... a lot in fact.
And getting right down to your main point here, there really is no contradiction in an old wise elf having such an attitude.
In the Silmarillion we see old elves, Thingol for example, who loath men for no good reason at all. At least Elrond had a bit of justification for his attitude.

[Goldberry]

It is so funny that I was totally in love with FoTR, and disappointed by TTT. I was able to live with the changes in FoTR, but the changes in TTT were too drastic for me. I did like the movie, but did not feel the euphoria I did after seeing FoTR.

What really bothered me:

1) Faramir. I really wish they could have found a way to make him more noble, more like his book representation. I was disappointed in all his scenes. Why, also, would Frodo lead Gollum to be captured by Faramir's men when Faramir was still very hostile? By the time Gollum is captured in the books, Faramir has already gained Frodo's trust.

2) Frodo lied to Faramir. In the book, Frodo does not deny that Gollum is with him, but he does in the movie. This is not characteristic of Frodo.

3) Theoden. I wish they could have made him more of the kindly king he is, and shown the real friendship developing between him and Aragorn. Also, he was supposed to be old and bent before his time, not look like he was nearly dead or totally strung out on drugs. I didn't like the "possession" by Saruman either, nor Aragorn & Gimli beating up Rohirrim in the king's hall.

4) The huorns did not save Helm's Deep. I was not convinced that Gandalf and Eomer's army could have done it.

5) The Ents. I was disappointed that PJ made them have to be so convinced to help in the war. IMO, I think he was making a political point. The Ents say it is not their war. Merry replies with, but you are a part of this world, aren't you?

6) Why do the elves going off to the Grey Havens look like zombies?

7) In the book, to marry Arwen was Aragorn's lifelong ambition. It was all he wanted. Why did PJ have Aragorn telling her to go to the Undying Lands?

8) Elrond. Too harsh on Aragorn and Arwen.

9) PJ should have shown Faramir watching Frodo when he held a sword at Sam's throat. After seeing the movie the first time, I could not figure out why Faramir suddenly said he understood Frodo. After I saw it the 2nd time, I thought this had to be it, but they could have shown it better.

In general, too many rushed scenes.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Thorin,

Are you still whining about this? I'd think after a year you'd be all *****ed out....

FOE-HAMMER!! YOU"RE BACK!!!! markrob and Foe-Hammer back again! The world is coming to an end! Happy times are here again! And look at you! Still your beligerrent self! Back only a week and you already have 2 warning points!

You will find Foe that there are more supporters for the purist boat especially after TTT.

Glad to see you back!

[*Lady Aragorn*]

they did well in my opinion. the only thing i noticed was someone dropped something in the beginning when aragorn, legolas, and gimli were tracking down the uru-kai (sp) camp.