My God, It was Horrible, Part II

[Beorn]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to...challenge a movie and its basic, irrefutable, and inexplicable changes,...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Following such, I shall name my largest complaints, as of the moment:

In the Gollum vs. Smeagol fight (#1), Gollum is looking directly into the camera, making it seem that you are viewing the movie through another whole and active character, which contrasts the whole point of view of the movie.
The Lord of the Rings we not meant to be a comical piece, nor was Gimli meant to be a slapstick-stand up comedian. The constant comments from Gimli, such as 'Couldn't you have chosen a better spot,' entirely destroyed the tone of utmost importance of certain scenes, such as Helm's Deep, the tone that Tolkien so laboriously described. There was a girl behind me laughing at nearly every single one of Gimli's cracks.
Dwarf Tossing: Eru save us! Aside from the fact that Dwarf Tossing has been outlawed in New York State (I'm serious.), it is completely unrealistic. When you consider the fact that Gimli probably weighed at minimum 150 Lbs without clothes or armor, and at absolute minimum 200 Lbs with armor, no man, be he a descended of the town drunk or Isildur himself, can throw a dwarf far.
Shield surfing: Seriously, give me a break! It was horrible enough that PJ managed to make Legolas' character look like a girl that so many real girls adore and pine for, but to take it to the point where 52% of the theater (the girls) starts clapping on his first appearance is just atrocious.
Might I ask when Frodo and Sam were brought to Osgiliath? And when did Frodo look a Nazgul right in the eye? Had that truly happened, I have little doubt that the Nazgul would have spent so much time staring, rather than acting.
Could we please get some medicine for poor Smeagol. He seems to have caught a case of a horrible disease, a case of the Jar Jar Binks.


Overall, I thought the movie was O.K. as a movie. The Case of Arwen's Lipstick (in the beginning of Aragorn's dream, she had brightish-red lipstick on, and it was in different tones of red throughout the dream) was the only major error I noted. There was also one scene exactly to-a-T how I experienced...err...imagined it: the last in the movie. I imagined the woods the same way as shown, so I'm not all negative.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the...Nit-Picking Weenies..., in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these...Weenies..., solemnly publish and declare, That these United...Weenies...are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent...from the torture of paying New Line Cinemas...; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the...New Line Cinemas..., and that all political connection between them and the...devils bearing these ill movies of false name..., is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which...Nit-Picking Weenies...may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

[Tar-Ancalime]

Though not an offical member I shall adress your points from a moderate party veiw.

point one-That scene just confused me, with the whole camera thing. And why did the whole audience break out in laughter. It's a serious thing. not everyone has a split personality.

point two-The Gimli slapstick, was not neccesary, but didn't kill it.

point three-Why was that even included? Same as you think Boern.

point four- Such a guy perspective! That was just cool, the whole surfing thing...deal with it!

point five- Agree with boern...dont even know why they did that honestly.

point six- what was wrong with smeagol?!?

Boern you have a right to be infuriated (even a moderate like me was) but get a life!

[Foe-Hammer]

Oh great! The npw's are still trying to convince the rest of us? Well, I still say you npw's should chunk down the 300 mil and make a movie that will follow the book to a "T". No one will go see it, but hey, you'll feel better and you'll quit yer --<Replaced by Beorn>--complaining.

[Aldanil]

The second's beginning really grabbed me --
Excellent reinsertion, PJ!

Picking up the thread by going backwards to Gandalf -- brilliant!

My heart dared to hope; I really might be able to
Right well enjoy this! I know it's only a movie --



And yet, at the end, I can alas only echo
His father's ghost to Hamlet in Elsinore:
"O, horibble! O, horibble! most horrible!"



or (as my wife put it succinctly re that FOTR,
and only exponentially more so with this TTT):
"a whole lotta orcs"

[Tar-Ancalime]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Oh great! The npw's are still trying to convince the rest of us? Well, I still say you npw's should chunk down the 300 mil and make a movie that will follow the book to a "T". No one will go see it, but hey, you'll feel better and you'll quit yer <edited by Cir> .

Foehammer, they changed a whole characters outlook! Normally I'm not to big on this NPW stuff, but that just killed me. In the book Faramir told Frodo he could continue on to Mordor in the forbidden pool! Because Faramir was the smarter of the two. What i am complaining about is far from trivial

[Tar-Ancalime]

And NEVER call me a NPW again!

[Eledhwen]

(re: Beorn's first post) I am astonished that the female members of the cinema audience would even think to behave so badly as to cheer when a character comes on screen. They are a disgrace to their sex.

PJ allowed no letup in this movie (plateaux in the action, allowing us time to assimilate the plot), which was exhausting to watch. The comic-book stunts and jokes may have been an attempt to compensate, but PJ ought to have known better - this was LORD OF THE RINGS, not Batman.

I loved seeing the Elves at Helm's Deep, though, having had a sneaking wish that they played a greater part in the story. I wonder how treebeard felt at being sidelined from that one?

Well, Beorn, aren't you glad you got it over with?

[MacAddict]

Originally posted by Beorn

The Lord of the Rings we not meant to be a comical piece, nor was Gimli meant to be a slapstick-stand up comedian. The constant comments from Gimli, such as 'Couldn't you have chosen a better spot,' entirely destroyed the tone of utmost importance of certain scenes, such as Helm's Deep, the tone that Tolkien so laboriously described. There was a girl behind me laughing at nearly every single one of Gimli's cracks.

While sometimes funny it shouldn't have been there espeacaily at helm's deep it took the seriousness completely away which was very annoying

~MacAddict

[Tar-Ancalime]

Odd. I thought PJ was folowing the plot of helms deep very well.

[FREEDOM!]

I't wasn't that bad, the worst part was when Legolas jumped onto the horse really wierdly.

[aragil]

Wow FREEDOM! I think you'll get quite a lot of argument about that scene being the worst, both from those who really disliked other scenes and from those who really liked that scene (like me).

[FREEDOM!]

I didn't think it was that bad, but it hink u guys are way too concerned about this, i mean c-mon ya it was one of the best books ever written but P.J. was trying his best to make the movie as based on the books as he could, but for him to add everythin into the movies would make them too long and no-one would want to see them, and as for the "humorous" parts every movie needs some humor in it, or they are just too dang deppressing!

[Beorn]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
I't wasn't that bad, the worst part was when Legolas jumped onto the horse really wierdly.

You know that scene was directed with Hugo Weaving sitting next to Peter Jackson! That was a complete and total Matrix move!

[FREEDOM!]

LOL, ya.

[Éomond]

For me:
--the Rohirrim were tooooo weak! They all weren't little childern or old very old, alot of them were fully trained warriors! Jeez, I think PJ made fools out of the Rohirrim, making all the "non-readers" think that the people of Rohan are just un-organized weak people
--Osgiliath: I know it wasn't in the book but I did like seeing the Gondorians fight, Frodo reavling the Ring to the Winged Nazgul irked me a bit.
--Of Haldir and the Elves I'm more sad than upset about the death of Haldir and all the Lothlorien Elves that went to HD. I'm still not over the death Haldir, he was one of my favorites.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by FREEDOM! I't wasn't that bad, the worst part was when Legolas jumped onto the horse really wierdly. That's the second time Legolas has shown his Elvish prowess and it hasn't quite worked. In FotR he leaped onto the back of that big troll thing in Moria and looked like an animated action man. Those CG assisted scenes need split second timing and rhythm to be credible, especially when the feat is superhuman.

[Nóm]

especially when the feat is superhuman.
But his feet are super-human. :D

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by Nóm
But his feet are super-human. :D *Chuckles!* Yeah! I wish they'd shown him running over the snow on Caradhras. I realised how important timing was when I took my kids to see Spiderman. They got it all wrong! It's a sort of Tarzan swinging through the jungle effect, and should flow like a trapeze act, but it didn't. When Legolas leaped onto the horse, we should have believed it because of the timing, but that was sloppy (maybe half a second out) so it wasn't credible. When impossible moves were performed in The Matrix, they were cool, because the timing was perfect.

I think the horse should have reacted too - Legolas may be an Elf, but isn't weightless.

[FREEDOM!]

Actually in FOTR they did show him walkingon the snow, just watch. But have u ever noticed how he never gets dirty?? He could jump in a mud pit and come out clean!

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
Actually in FOTR they did show him walkingon the snow, just watch. But have u ever noticed how he never gets dirty?? He could jump in a mud pit and come out clean! the other actors have commented on that in various diary notes. Viggo Mortensen said stuff like "Oh just go manicure your nails!" when they were all muddy and wet and Orlando Bloom was spotless.

[Precious]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
the other actors have commented on that in various diary notes. Viggo Mortensen said stuff like "Oh just go manicure your nails!" when they were all muddy and wet and Orlando Bloom was spotless. LOL!!! I'm afraid that some of us may be turning into Comic Book Guy/fanboys. The easiest thing to do is pan someone else's effort. Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I enjoy reading them. But, when you open a thread like this with a flamatory negative statement, you're just asking for trouble.

[BelDain]

Originally posted by Nóm
But his feet are super-human. :D

In the first sequence of the three running across country there is a wide shot of Aragorn in the lead, Legolas in the middle and Gimli behind.

It looks like as Orlando is running down the hill he stumbles. Now that is totally un-Legolas-like.
Anyone else notice this?

[FREEDOM!]

No, i didn't notice that.

[Nóm]

Yep, I noticed that. I notice and remember all things elvish. ;)

Actually, I can not make sense of it.
Oh some will say "Just because he is an elf doesn't mean that he can not stumble.... oh blah blah blah.. did you know that Fingolfin stumbled? blah blah blah"...
hehehehehehe

I figure this was just something that was over-looked. Maybe someone pointed it out during the editting... who know. No doubt some one will rationalize the stumble and claim that there is nothing wrong with it.
I do not think that elves are above stumbling, but this feels like something that wouldn't be left in intentionally.

[Éomond]

Well, Bloom could have been hurt at the time to make him walk funny? Orlando Bloom has had alot of injuries.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by Precious
LOL!!! I'm afraid that some of us may be turning into Comic Book Guy/fanboys. The easiest thing to do is pan someone else's effort. Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I enjoy reading them. But, when you open a thread like this with a flamatory negative statement, you're just asking for trouble. You've misunderstood, Precious. A group of actors working together for that length of time get to know each other well enough to banter without offence. Viggo was making fun of the fact that Orlando's character, playing the same scenes, always came out spotless with neat hair and everything. There used to be a really detailed diary of these goings on in Orlando Bloom's website, but it's been replaced by a shorter version.

[Precious]

All things that I've read about how close the actors were during the long shoot have made me want to see the movies even more. Has anyone heard about the 9 tattooes?? Eledhwen, I guess my prob is with posters starting inflamory statements with their threads! Oh, well. I love this site; it makes me sad to see it. Anyway, who else ran home and read the books again after seeing the movie? :cool: :D

[Tar-Ancalime]

I did and rememberd all those fantastisc moments that i missed...really I read the book FOTR while listening to the soundtrack....and I'll read the TTT while listent to TTT soundtrack:D

[Precious]

Originally posted by Tar-Ancalime
I did and rememberd all those fantastisc moments that i missed...really I read the book FOTR while listening to the soundtrack....and I'll read the TTT while listent to TTT soundtrack:D Me, Too!!!:) Tar, you are the Dood!

[Tar-Ancalime]

Yay! I"m the dood!

[Nenya Evenstar]

My God it was horrible! And why was it horrible? And why do I of all people think that it was horrible? Because of all the afor-mentioned reasons by Beorn and because PJ completely ruined certain aspects of the story. I am amazed at how little I have seen complaining about this aspect though I admit I have not looked very hard. So few people have mentioned the fact that certain aspects of the story were ruined in the book! It is sad to me. :(

1: Faramir. I have simply heard a lot about Frodo and Sam being taken to Osgiliath. This bothers me, yes, but what is worse is the fact that Faramir is portrayed as any ordinary man who succumbs to the power and will of the Ring. He was ruined completely and utterly. The thing I have always admired about Faramir was his inward struggle and his defeating that struggle. In the movie the struggle takes place and Faramir succumbs. There is no more honor, no more of that real and true Faramir that we have known for so long. Faramir is now simply every ordinary man, thirsting for power. I cannot like a Faramir who has shown us that he thirsts for power, nor can I forgive a director who so completely ruins a character.

2: The Ents. The Ents were fine in themselves, though I did not quite picture their forest like that. However, PJ shows us once more that he can change the truth. The Ents decided not to help Merry and Pippin in the movie, and Merry and Pippin "save the day." What is this? The Ents lose their nobleness and purity. Ent moot loses its place, and the wrath of the Ents loses its potency.

3: Aragorn and Arwen's romance. In the books we know without a doubt that Aragorn is truly, deeply, madly, and affectionately in love with Arwen. We know the same is true of Arwen. In the movie we see Aragorn actually thinking about Eowyn instead of being distressed that she is showing interest. We see Eowyn portrayed as a stumbling block and a pitfall and we see Aragorn as being tempted. We also see Arwen being pulled away by Elrond which is something Tolkien would never have thought up in his wildest dreams. And we are left with Arwen succombing to her father's wishes as she leaves for the Gray Havens. Where has Arwen and Aragorn's true love gone? Where has the purity of their relationship and the potency of Arwen's sacrifice disappeared to? It is gone! All gone!

4: I cannot speak my displeasure enough about the whole skateboarding incident and the needless humor. This is Tolkien. End of story!

What it all boils down to is that the underlying Tolkien was destroyed. All that Tolkien believed in and wrote in the underlying thoughts of his books was destroyed. Instead we are left with a director who tries to increase the drama and only ends up by destroying the spirit and integrity of the story. PJ did such a good job in the first movie to not destroy this integrity, but in TTT he did not. He left us no spirit and instead of characters who are fighting for the true good have left us characters who are only caring about themselves. That is what is missing. One of the major messages behind Tolkien is his message of unselfishness. PJ destroyed this message and did a great dis-service to Tolkien and LOTR in general.

[Nóm]

There is a lot of humor in tLotR. Right off hand I can recall a couple times were Legolas makes cracks about the hobbits, so for him to make a joke about Gimli being short doesn't seem far fetched at all. And during the battle even... I mean come on... in the book they were competing with each other and Gimli was thrilled about getting to use his axe!

[Precious]

Originally posted by Nóm
There is a lot of humor in tLotR. Right off hand I can recall a couple times were Legolas makes cracks about the hobbits, so for him to make a joke about Gimli being short doesn't seem far fetched at all. And during the battle even... I mean come on... in the book they were competing with each other and Gimli was thrilled about getting to use his axe! yeah!!! Thought the friendship of Legolas and Gimli really came thru:D

[Tar-Ancalime]

Now Nenya, In the end it worked out...why PJ made that Faramir change we'll never know. but what compelled him to. Perhaps he wanted to point out to pop-corn munching hics how the ring is affecting Frodo...either way it all turned out right...the movie is the movie, the book is the book...and also he said based off the book Lord of the Rings, which implies he as the director an make any change as long as the outcome is the same

[Tar-Ancalime]

You also seem to ignore, it took Faramir awhile, but in the end he got it...

[BelDain]

Look, we all know that it is a different story with different characters. That doesn't make it a bad story. Just enjoy the movie for what it is. A cinematic adaptation. A very grand one.

[FREEDOM!]

But in the end of the movie Faramir says that he's going to give up his life to let Frodo and Sam go, but he mary's Eowyn in ROTK?? So what is PJ doing??

[Flandaar]

--<List tag put in by Beorn>--
In the Gollum vs. Smeagol fight (#1), Gollum is looking directly into the camera, making it seem that you are viewing the movie through another whole and active character, which contrasts the whole point of view of the movie.

To help the audience see the schizophrenia - note it was not repeated in later scenes.

The Lord of the Rings we not meant to be a comical piece, nor was Gimli meant to be a slapstick-stand up comedian. The constant comments from Gimli, such as 'Couldn't you have chosen a better spot,' entirely destroyed the tone of utmost importance of certain scenes, such as Helm's Deep, the tone that Tolkien so laboriously described. There was a girl behind me laughing at nearly every single one of Gimli's cracks.

People do make jokes during serious times, even during battles - it helps relieve tension.

Shield surfing: Seriously, give me a break! It was horrible enough that PJ managed to make Legolas' character look like a girl that so many real girls adore and pine for, but to take it to the point where 52% of the theater (the girls) starts clapping on his first appearance is just atrocious.

Heavens! Cheering at a character in a movie, what were they thinking?


Might I ask when Frodo and Sam were brought to Osgiliath? And when did Frodo look a Nazgul right in the eye? Had that truly happened, I have little doubt that the Nazgul would have spent so much time staring, rather than acting.

If you read the book, it's clear that Nazgul CANNOT see the person without the ring on.

Could we please get some medicine for poor Smeagol. He seems to have caught a case of a horrible disease, a case of the Jar Jar Binks.



What is your basis for this? True his CGI was good, but there was nothing else - dialog, character, acting, that was anywhere close.

[Flandaar]

While I respect people's rights to have and share opinions, it really bothers me when they presume to speak for JRRT. Such as claiming to know "everything he believed in and wrote". You have very limited knowledge of that. But one thing he did write was "Many young Americans are involved in my stories in a way that I'm not" and from this I would interpret that he would not be nearly as indignant at these movies than some here are. Note emphasis on my interpretation, not that I "know" he would react this way.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Flandaar
While I respect people's rights to have and share opinions, it really bothers me when they presume to speak for JRRT. Such as claiming to know "everything he believed in and wrote". You have very limited knowledge of that.
Yeah, it is true. I do not know how anyone can make such claims. I think it is ridiculous.


By why follow that with this...

Originally posted by Flandaar
But one thing he did write was "Many young Americans are involved in my stories in a way that I'm not" and from this I would conclude he would not be nearly as indignant at these movies than some here are.
?

[Flandaar]

Nom, right on - I should have left it with the Tolkien quote and let other people come to my conclusion without me having to tell them!

[Tar-Ancalime]

I *think* that PJ made it seem like Arwen was leaving to show how tragic it would be for aragorn to loose arwen. I *thought* during the scene you know how these elven warriors arived on the call of *lord elrond*...so he must not of given up yet...and posssibly sent his daughter back to ME...but we'll never *know* till ROTK will we!?

[Nenya Evenstar]

I will start off by saying that I do not think the movie and the books were all that far off in the first movie. PJ's FOTR was phenomenal and amazing, and I adore it. He stayed close to the books and took out what was necessary to take out to adapt the book to the big screen. As a result, I was disappointed with TTT because I did not see this same thing.

While I respect people's rights to have and share opinions, it really bothers me when they presume to speak for JRRT. Such as claiming to know "everything he believed in and wrote". You have very limited knowledge of that. But one thing he did write was "Many young Americans are involved in my stories in a way that I'm not" and from this I would interpret that he would not be nearly as indignant at these movies than some here are. Note emphasis on my interpretation, not that I "know" he would react this way.
:confused:
Where does this come from? I believe I am more than entitled to my own opinion about what I believe Tolkien believed in. And I will fight anyone to the death about what those beliefs are. From what I have read in The Letters I can see and get a feel for what Tolkien's ideas are. I can also get a feel for Tolkien's ideas by reading his books. What PJ put on screen was not uniform to what I have witnessed in Tolkien's books. That is all I am saying, and I have a perfect right to say so. I am well aware of Tolkien's quote, but unfortunately cannot relate to him. I am afraid I am much more into the great author's works than he himself would have liked me to be. And I do think that he would have been indignant at TTT, simply for the reasons I have stated. The story is there, but the passion and underlying truths are gone.

Nom, I myself do not mind the comedy all that much. I only mind things that are totally out of character (Legolas and skateboard) and things that change characters and the underlying parts of the story. I admired FOTR so much because it had that Tolkienish passion in it... TTT does not because of the reasons I already mentioned. :(

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Flandaar
Nom, right on - I should have left it with the Tolkien quote and let other people come to my conclusion without me having to tell them!
Since you were able to neglect telling us that it was your interpretation or opinion I suppose you can understand how others could do the same.

I think this issue is something that everyone would have different opinions about, I mean, where does one draw the line? Which subjects are sacred (for lack of better word) enough that people should take great care in how they present their opinions or speculations?

1. Is it okay to speak opinions about the movie or even book without stating that it is just an opinion?
For myself, I sometimes neglect to say that I am speaking my opinion, but when dealing with the books I normally say that it is my interpretation simply because I hold Tolkien's books miles above the movie and I would not want anyone who doesn't know better to read my interpretation, speculations or opinions as fact and there be misinformed about the books.
I think it would be good if everyne did the same, but they just aren't going to. I think that ultimately it is up to the person reading the post to keep in mind that what he/she reads (if it is beyond her/his knowledge range) may very well be speculation, or just plain wrong. I could post in a thread saying that Feanor tried to kil Gandalf (NOTE!! THAT NEVER HAPPEND!!)and there are people who would not know better and some of those people would stick this piece of misinformation into their brain right along with the facts they read in lotr.

2. Is it okay to give your opinion about what Tolkien would have thought without stating that it is just your own opinion and telling what it is based on?
For myself I keep such speculations to myself. I don't understand why others do not... or at least make very clear that they sspeak opinion.. however, once again, it ultimately lies with the reader of the post to keep in mind that what they are reading is opinion and speculation.

[Flandaar]

Regarding my thoughts on Tolkien's opintion, I *did* say it was "my conclusion" and didn't mean to state it as a matter of fact. I do understand that when someone states something it can always be construed as an opinion or theory, and will try to keep this in mind.

However, in my discipline (physics and engineering), when stating an "opinion" (or theory) it is important to provide factual evidence and put together a case that supports and justifies your opinion. Like I was trying to do with the statement from JRRT.

I guess it much depends on why you are writing and posting on this board. If you are trying to convince others of your beliefs, I think it's important to provide evidence and justification and try not to be too emotional. If you are just venting and want to share your feelings (not caring whether you convince anyone or not), fine, let it fly, but don't be surprised when others aren't convinced and "let it fly" right back. It can make you feel righteous, but isn't very effective communication.

Remember the good advice that, when you have written something while in high emotion, it's generally best to tear it up and throw it away - write again when you have cooled down.

[Flandaar]

Xinia on theonering.net posted thoghts that in my opinion would refelct what JRRT would think. I think she makes a good case.

"So many have felt that JRRT must be rolling over in his grave because of the changes made to his story but I have quit a different view of him in my imagination. I feel that his soul is cheering, “Yes, this is what I wanted, people taking my ideas and expanding on them.” In a very famous letter quoted in many books about Tolkein, he stated that he hoped that his stories would “yet leave scope for other minds and hands.” I am sure he is amazed, as I am, with the richness that has been created in his name and I am sure he loves every bit of it, as do I. I imagine him sighing over the sublime, laughing at the humorous, gasping at the profane and shaking his head over the idiotic. He, I am sure, would not agree with everything either, but he would defend to the death the right to express one’s self in whatever medium one chooses."

[Tar-Ancalime]

*claps* Yay! you sure showed them!

[Nenya Evenstar]

Flandaar,

I do not agree with your statements. I was venting, and when I vent I always agree with how I vent. I challenge anyone to disprove any of the statements I have made -- it would be refreshing. I have formed those statements out of what I have read and have backed them up in this thread. I have told you why I believe what I believe.

Why am I on this board? To share my love of Tolkien's works with others. And when I feel that Tolkien's works have been done a dis-service, I will speak out against it and let my fellow friends and Tolkien lovers know exactly why I feel the way I do. That is what I have done. And, I wasn't in high emotion. I only wish you could have seen me post right after I saw the movie! As it is, I waited a few days before posting.

As for the quote, that is simply one person's opinion, and I do not agree with it. I believe that Tolkien would be distressed because, as I have said, the underlying themes in his books were taken and destroyed. I do not see how people cannot see this. I love Tolkien for this very reason. I do not love him because he was a good story writer but because of the way he has complete "good" and comlete "evil". In TTT this was lost.

[BelDain]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
But in the end of the movie Faramir says that he's going to give up his life to let Frodo and Sam go, but he mary's Eowyn in ROTK?? So what is PJ doing??

Maybe PJ will have Faramir die and Aragorn marries Eowyn in his version. :D

[Tar-Ancalime]

hmm...sound too stinky!

[Flandaar]

Nenya,

I don't think any of the really important themes, like environmentalism, brotherhood, love were lost at all - I think that came through very very clearly. Such as in the destruction of the trees near Isengard - Saruman was so malevolent in that scene - "tear them all down!" - what a setup for the Ents and pro-environment statement!

As for friendship and brotherhood, again I thought the relationships were clearly drawn. Elves at HD echoed that theme of brother hood among the folks of ME, even though it wasn't in the book, it supported, rather than detracted, from that theme of good helping good.

Re: love and the Aragorn/Arwen story, I don't agree that Aragorn was "Thinking about Eowyn" in terms of being attracted - just don't see any hard evidence of that. He clearly was seeing that she was attracted, but he didn't return that in any way. The appendices to RotK (Appendix A, part (v), Aragorn and Arwen story) I think did indicate he was conflicted about having her stay with him, and it was very clear that Elrond didn't want her to stay, saying it would come to a "bitter parting of the ways". True Love sometimes means giving up what you want for the good of others (reference O Henry's the Gift of the Magi). I could easily see Aragorn trying to persuade Arwen to leave, if he didn't I think that would indicate he was being selfish.

I thought the humor was generally OK, people really do make jokes during times of great tension (e.g., right before a battle). I really didn't appreciate the dwarf tossing jokes though, as that takes you right out of the immersion in the movie.

As for the Faramir item, it's been discussed to death, but I thought Jackson in a recent interview explained their conundrum well in that they (and Tolkien) had spent hours of movie time and hundreds of book pages setting up this Ring as incredibly powerful and seductive, to powerful beings like Gandalf and Galadriel, yet here is this fellow Faramir who seems not to be attracted at all - that was jarring to me in the book. Frankly I think it was more of a Tolkien inconsistency with his own writing than anything else.

So these are my opinions, backed up as best I can, and we'll have to leave it at that. I think we're going to have to "agree to disagree" in that you haven't convinced me of your views and clearly vice-versa, I haven't convinced you, and that's fine. Progress is not made when everyone agrees, but we have to keep our minds open to others. I do appreciate your passion for the work. That is the most important thing. Keep fighting! :-)

[markrob]

Originally posted by Flandaar

As for the Faramir item, it's been discussed to death, but I thought Jackson in a recent interview explained their conundrum well in that they (and Tolkien) had spent hours of movie time and hundreds of book pages setting up this Ring as incredibly powerful and seductive, to powerful beings like Gandalf and Galadriel, yet here is this fellow Faramir who seems not to be attracted at all - that was jarring to me in the book. Frankly I think it was more of a Tolkien inconsistency with his own writing than anything else.


MAGNIFICIENT STATEMENT, SUMS UP A LOT. BLESS YOU FLANDAAR. :D

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Flandaar

As for the Faramir item, it's been discussed to death, but I thought Jackson in a recent interview explained their conundrum well in that they (and Tolkien) had spent hours of movie time and hundreds of book pages setting up this Ring as incredibly powerful and seductive, to powerful beings like Gandalf and Galadriel, yet here is this fellow Faramir who seems not to be attracted at all - that was jarring to me in the book. Frankly I think it was more of a Tolkien inconsistency with his own writing than anything else.



NO CONFUSION/INCONSISTENCY AT ALL... the msg from tolkien is clear, the common man is both weak and stupid. he accomplishes things thru bit of luck and persistance........only the poweful is seduced by power....and sam is the common man's man lol :P

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by BelDain
Maybe PJ will have Faramir die and Aragorn marries Eowyn in his version. :D

I hope not, the hell he will!!!! that would make me so madd!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

[Nenya Evenstar]

So these are my opinions, backed up as best I can, and we'll have to leave it at that. I think we're going to have to "agree to disagree" in that you haven't convinced me of your views and clearly vice-versa, I haven't convinced you, and that's fine. Progress is not made when everyone agrees, but we have to keep our minds open to others. I do appreciate your passion for the work. That is the most important thing. Keep fighting! :-)
Thank-you Flandaar! I will keep fighting! ;) Yes, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, but I will be installing you with a new segment of my thoughts after I have seen the movie for the second time today. Perhaps I will be able to condone what I feel in a better way. I think I owe you another segement after your last one so that you can see my thoughts like you have shown me your's. I will keep an open mind when watching and see what I come up with.

[Aragorns_girl00]

YOU GUYS AND GIRLS FOCUS WAY TO MUCH ON THE NEGATIVE THINGS! PJ DIDN'T MAKE THIS MOVIE EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK, THAT IS WHY IT IS "BASED UPON...." WHEN YOU GO TO THE MOVIES, YOU WANT TO TRY TO ENJOY IT, NOT JOT DOWN THINGS TO POST IN HERE TO CRITICIZE IT, OK? THAT BUGS ME SO BAD. WHO REALLY CARES IF ARWEN'S LIPSTICK WAS A DIFFERENT COLOR EACH TIME IN A SCENE? HUH? I'M SURE TOLKIEN WOULD NOT WANT A MOVIE BASED ON HIS BOOK TO BE CRITICIZED SO BADLY. THAT'S MY OPINION.

[Aragorns_girl00]

Originally posted by BelDain
Maybe PJ will have Faramir die and Aragorn marries Eowyn in his version. :D
I WANT ARAGORN AND EOWYN TO MARRY!! THEY ARE BETTER 2GETHER THEN ARAGORN AND ARWEN! EOWYN IS A HUMAN, JUST LIKE ARAGORN AND SHE IS PRETTIER! please don't criticize me, it's my opinion. i know you are also entitled to one yourself, though.

[Nenya Evenstar]

I just saw TTT for the second time this afternoon. I watched it with an open mind (once again) and noticed that the movie grew on me. The same thing happened to me with FOTR, though I did not have any problems with that movie. I still have three major pet-peeves with TTT that I fear I will never get over. However, I am going to mention both the good and the bad in this post so that I don't convey the idea that I hated the movie. Remember that these are just my humble opinions.

The soundtrack of TTT is completely brilliant just like FOTR's soundtrack was. I get chills listening to the music and become completely submersed in the movie because of it.

The friendship development between Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli is wonderful. I think that a great job was done here.

Eomer is wonderful and passes my greatest expectations. He is perfect in every way.

Frodo's instances of greed with the Ring are done very well. I think that the idea of the Ring's getting control of his mind is portrayed excellently.

Gollum is done extremely well. His split personality is done tastefully and allows for a lot of information to be given.

Gosh! I could continue, but I do not want to bore people. Overall, I will say that the movie has so many good points that it still ranks as my second favorite -- it doesn't beat FOTR because of my pet-peeves in the film. I still detest the following items:

Aragorn and Arwen's romance. In the books there seems to be a certain sanctity, a knowledge that love is there no matter what the cost and no matter what will happen. You never doubt for one moment Arwen's undying love for Aragorn, and you never doubt that Aragorn respects that love. However, in the movie Arwen is persuaded by Elrond to depart for the Gray Havens. Where has the promise of love gone? Where is that firmness and sacrifice on Arwen's part? Aragorn, on his part, is uncertain of whether or not Arwen really loves him enough to stay with him and therefore does her disrespect by requesting her to leave. There is no certain bond between the two, only an uncertainty of what will pass if their marriage happens. I cannot like something that undoes the wonderful and sacred aspect of Aragorn and Arwen's love.

Faramir, Captain of Gondor. I feel that by allowing Faramir to take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath that he as a person is degraded. In the books we admire Faramir for his ability to resist the will of the Ring, and he is contrasted against his brother to show us that not all men are corrupted so easily. In the movie this is lost. Faramir is shown as yet another man who is easily seduced by the will of the Ring, and not as the strong Captain of Gondor who shows his quality by allowing Frodo and Sam to go free once he has found out the truth. We are no longer left with Faramir as a strong individual who has overcome this evil but are left with just another man.

Theoden. My problem with Theoden is simply personal. I feel that he is a wuss, to speak plainly. He is constantly giving up for seconds at a time only to be prompted back into hope by some outside influence. Where is the nobility and courage of the leader of Rohan? I feel that the courage and persistence of all the rest of Rohan (in Eomer especially) was portrayed very well with the exception of Theoden. I feel that he should not have given up so easily and that he should have been more of a backbone behind his men instead of despairing. This, however, is just a matter of opinion.

Of course I still hate Legolas's skateboarding down the stairs at Helms Deep, but that can't be helped.

What it all boils down to is I feel that the aspect of sacrifice, courage, fidelity, and assurance of friendship was lost in these characters. I feel that Tolkien's characters were bound together with much more than simply friendship -- they were bound together in goodness. With Faramir outstepping his bounds, Aragorn doubting, Arwen forsaking, and Theoden's lack of courage I feel that we lose this goodness. In a perverted society there will be people acting for their own good, people who are looking out for themseleves and who doubt what others will do because they themselves have similar thoughts. In Tolkien's books, yes, there were some moments of wrong, but there was an ultimate good. Good has outlines and if those outlines are overstepped it is known. In the movie, however, I feel that people are able to overstep these outlines and go passed what is really good and into the middle field of semi-good. This is what I find revolting. Tolkien was so clear about the morals of his characters, and I feel that these morals were lost.

[chrome_rocknave]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
I't wasn't that bad, the worst part was when Legolas jumped onto the horse really wierdly.

What was up with that anyways?? It looked not only:

a. completely fake
b. cheesy
c. stupid

but also.....incredibly un-elf-like

[Flandaar]

I think the director was playing a little "trick" on us. Did you notice she did NOT have a lantern?

[Flandaar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nenya Evenstar


"Aragorn and Arwen's romance. In the books there seems to be a certain sanctity, a knowledge that love is there no matter what the cost and no matter what will happen. You never doubt for one moment Arwen's undying love for Aragorn, and you never doubt that Aragorn respects that love. However, in the movie Arwen is persuaded by Elrond to depart for the Gray Havens. Where has the promise of love gone? Where is that firmness and sacrifice on Arwen's part? Aragorn, on his part, is uncertain of whether or not Arwen really loves him enough to stay with him and therefore does her disrespect by requesting her to leave. There is no certain bond between the two, only an uncertainty of what will pass if their marriage happens. I cannot like something that undoes the wonderful and sacred aspect of Aragorn and Arwen's love."

I disagree on Aragorn's motivation - I think he knows full well that she loves him enough to stay, but he believes that she will end up unhappy at the end, so he does what I think is a very noble thing in trying to get her to leave.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Hmmm... if what your first post said and Arwen is going to leave the gathering of elves and go to Aragorn instead, I will not have such a problem with that aspect of the movie anymore.

You may be right about Aragorn's love. I would like it much better if it was that way. All in all, if Arwen does NOT have it in her head to go to the Gray Havens and if Aragorn's thoughts are as you say, then I will be able to check that part of the movie off my list. :D

[Flandaar]

I *think* things will turn out that way and *hope* they do!

After the third viewing yesterday - this was at the Cinerama theater in Seattle which has a great projection system and a sound system to die for - I felt the movie affected me the most of all. It was powerful and so tragic. I almost felt depressed but elated at the same time, but that is the effect I think was warranted. So much death and destruction, so much despair, so much personal turmoil, yet occasional triumphs and reasos to hope, as well as character growth!

The difference to me between FoTR and TTT was FoTR tugged at my heart and TTT hit me in the stomach! It was so *visceral*!

[Nenya Evenstar]

And may your optimism serve you well! ;) I hope that things do turn out that way -- if they don't I will be disappointed, just like I am disappointed with Faramir's character and certain other things that I have outlined.

FOTR hit me in the stomach. TTT hits me in the stomach in most parts, but it has a twist which makes it a little bit revolting to my mind -- a twist that I don't think quite fits. All in all, however, it is wonderful. I know exactly what you mean by it making you both happy and sad. Listening to the music conveys the same emotions to me. It is an odd feeling!

[indexerkevin]

I have just posted a major screed in the thread "What was PJ thinking" covering some of the points that I now see mark me as an NPW. However since I was prepared for bogusosity relative the book I still ended up loving the movie.


http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8195

[*Lady Aragorn*]

i understand that this movie was nothing like the book, but just try to forget that and enjoy it like all the non-readers out there!

[Nenya Evenstar]

i understand that this movie was nothing like the book, but just try to forget that and enjoy it like all the non-readers out there!
That is something I cannot do. To me Tolkien's books are the best books ever written and to see someone change things that are in those books seems like blasphemy. I cannot except the fact that someone tried to make the books "better" by changing vital parts, IMO, of the story.

[Flandaar]

Nenya,

Although I can't agree these are the greatest books ever written, they are quite good (despite what "intellectuals" say about them). Shakespeare for example does a much better job at characterization, and I thought the movie Theoden was almost Shakespearean in his doubt and depression. I found Brad Dourif's depiction of Wormtongue shivering. A good actor can add layers and layers of subtlety and depth to a book character with tone of voice and expression (which aren't in a book). Wacth David Wenham's eyes as he observes Frodo and Gollum - what thoughfulness and intellect come through!

For myth and fantasy, though, I will give you that LotR is the absolute best!! However, no matter HOW good the book, there are parts that just cannot work onscreen (e.g., description and narrative). Since books cannot "show" they must tell, and they can do this because thier time constraints are not nearly as severe as a movie, which must be seen in one sitting and can't be paused like a book.

On the other hand, movies must "show", for example, Treebeard shown "seeing" the destruction, not just "talking" about it. Theoden's "exorcism" also. These may have been melodramatic and less-than-accurate, but especially for non-book readers, these conveyed the situation much better than some off-screen narrator or minutes of dialog.

You also cannot introduce and sustain as many characters in a movie. In a recent interview, Fran Walsh said they will have 17 or 18 major characters - wow! This is almost unheard of in a movie, but it still is a reduction from the books. Hence no Glorfindel or Erkenbrand. But these characters had important but brief functions, so how do you accomplish those? Using an existing character, e.g., Arwen and Eomer!

Walsh also mentioned their workroom has every book and letter written by Tolkien, as well as all the books written ABOUT Tolkien, which they used as references all the time. They brought in materials outside the main work (such as the Arwen/Aragron romance from Appendix A). They had access to Tolkien's comments and suggestions to previous moviemakers. The cast went through at least 27 copies of the trilogy.

They hired artists who had illustrated Tolkien for years. They hired professional armorers to design and build authentic weapons and armor. They put more love and effort into the details of this movie than any other movie I'm familiar with. So while you may disagree with their choices, they had to make hard decisions to make a successful movie, and they did it with full knowledge and appreciation of the source.

[Isenho]

wow great points there.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Flandaar,

Forgive me if this is too long, but I feel that this topic cannot be said in less words. :)

Hmmm... where to start? I understand what you are saying, and I agree with it -- to a certain point. Yes, things that are written out in a book cannot necessarily be put on the big screen sufficiently without adding a few things in order to establish the characters. I could not agree with you more, for what can be said in words cannot always be seen. I also agree that reducing the characters was a good idea which is why I do not have a problem with Arwen taking Glorfindel's place or Eomer taking Erkenbrand's place. I understand completely any change by the director in these cases.

I am well aware of the great wealth of Tolkien references that was used to make the movie. I also know that they tried their very best. However, I think they fell short in portraying the underlying networks of feelings that are in Tolkien's books and thus fell short of Tolkien's own meanings. Yes, I know that people hate to hear me talking this way, but this is how I feel.

Take FOTR. Sure there were changes made in the movie, but nothing was done to change the characters' overall passion, fidelity, courage, and strength. During the entire movie the Fellowship was united together with one cause and it was a given that they would do anything to complete that cause. They never faltered. People could argue that Boromir faltered -- yes, he did, but that was because he was seduced by the Ring. However, he recognized his fault and was therefore forgiven by all involved. In FOTR nothing was changed with the underlying feelings and motives in the characters. That is what makes Tolkien, IMO. Tolkien's books are not simply a great story. They are not simply something that we can enjoy. I know that the author was not trying to attain any sort of anything beyond a good story, but he did not accomplish that. He accomplished a lot more than just a story whether he wanted to or not. Ultimately, what he wrote was given a foundation of love, truth, honor, and a steadfast knowledge and passion to never falter. These attributes were placed in the very heart of the story even though the author perhaps did not mean for anything more lasting than simply a story. But they are there, and those underlying passions are what I feel lends to Tolkien's work its magic.

In Tolkien's writings there is a very fine line between what is good and what is evil. The Ring is evil and the consequences and ways it affects the people around it are recognized as evil. The elves as a race are recognized as good. We know without a doubt that the elves will fight against Sauron for their entire stay in Middle-earth. We know without a doubt that there are two forces fighting against each other and that ultimately these two forces are Good and Evil. Plain and simply that. The good is entirely good, and the evil is entirely evil. What do I mean by entirely good? Simply that within the good forces of Tolkien's writings there is not even a trace of "badness." He is very clear that those who are deceitful, cruel, and unkind are wrong. We know without a doubt that though there may be men like this within the forces of good that those men are in the wrong and that they will undoubtedly in the end be paid back for their misdeeds. On the same plain we are allowed to see into the forces of evil. There treachery dwells, and deceit, lies, hate, and anger are shown as attributes of that force. So, the two forces are like black and white: one is completely, utterly, without a doubt good, possessing all the qualities that the good in this world has lost, and the other is without a doubt completely bad possessing the qualities that this world has begun to see seep into its "good." So, the good in Tolkien's stories is without a blemish, unlike the "good" that we see in our world. There is a fine line and everyone knows that to tell a lie is wrong -- there is no question about what is right and what is wrong. It is there written out for everyone to see. It is written upon the hearts of Tolkien's characters. In FOTR this spirit was captured completely and wholeheartedly which is why I liked the movie so much. It did not bother me that certain parts were changed because they underlying heart was not changed.

However, in TTT this spirit is lacking. What you have in the case of Faramir, Theoden, and the way the race of men is portrayed is a case of good that is not complete good. This is what I have a problem with. I do not mind that Aragorn almost dies, I do not mind that Eomer is banished from Rohan, I do not mind that Frodo comes face to face with a Ringwraith, and I do not mind any of the other changes that were made to the books. What I do mind is the changes that were made to these fundamental and deep down concepts that Tolkien wrote into the inner parts of his story. In TTT when Theoden receives word that his lands are being pillaged by orcs he thinks that one path is correct and he sticks to that path; but Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, and Gimli do not agree with the decision of the king. They bicker amongst themselves and talk behind the king's back about how this is not the right thing to be doing. What is this? In Tolkien's books is there ever any reference of people bickering? No! There is nothing in his books because the good people are just that -- good. They have the respect of their superiors and they will die defending that respect. So, in contrast, in the books, instead of a disagreement between Theoden and his guests we have Theoden receiving advice from his guests with an open heart and acting upon the counsel he has just received. No, I am not saying that it is evil to refuse the counsel of someone if you deem that counsel to be unwise, but what I am saying is that in the ultimate good that Tolkien portrays in his books there is no doubt amongst the people that the counsel that is given or taken will be folly. They are working together and for one cause. So, to add in bickering and a lack of trust into a story that has neither characteristic is to me doing an injustice to the books. Bickering and a lack of trust are not characteristics of true good. They are characteristics of sinful man. What rings out so loudly and clearly is Tolkien's underlying fight against sin. His characters are good. Now, you might say that the characters in the books do at times falter. Yes, they do, but the difference is that they know when the falter. They know that when they bicker that they are wrong in doing so. However, the movie does not portray it this way. The disagreements are portrayed with each side thinking that he is right. Neither side backs down. There is no longer any true good. Good no longer has its fine line. What is truly good and right can now be played with and twisted.

Let me give you a few more examples. In the books Theoden is a proud king who does not ever despair even though the orcs of Isengard are knocking on his very door. In the books it is Theoden who wants to ride forth to meet the orcs, not Aragorn. However, in the movie Theoden does despair. He despairs more than once. He nearly gives up at the very end when the orcs of Isengard are ready to break into the Keep. But Aragorn has to speak words to him in order to bring him back. In Tolkien's books such an action would have been scorned because of this very little kernel of good that dwells in each and everyone of his good character's hearts. Theoden would never have given up for to do that would have been losing that good and going over into the middle between good and evil. In Tolkien's writings there is no middle. You are either good or bad. You cannot straddle between the two. Theoden in the movie straddles the two for a while.

[Nenya Evenstar]

In the movie Legolas doubts Aragorn's leadership and attempts to convince Legolas to leave Rohan to its fate. How is this good on the elf's part? He doubts Aragorn's leadership and questions leaving Rohan simply so that he and his friends do not die. Where is the good in such a thought? Would Tolkien have ever had any of his "good" characters think such a thing? No! Because a thought like this is straddling the line.

In the movie Faramir is tempted so much by the Ring that he falls for a while to its power and takes Frodo and Sam all the way to Osgiliath before he finally realizes his folly. As the brother of Boromir, Faramir does what the audience expects him to do, for the race of men has been painted up to be a race that is so easily corrupted. So, we have yet again another man straddling the fence between good and evil. Faramir knows that the Ring is evil, he knows that he should not do what he is doing, and yet he does it anyway. And yet again we have a picture of someone not listening to the counsel given him. Instead of listening to Frodo and Sam as they speak, Faramir listens to his own evil desires. Where is the true good in this action? Has Faramir really won since he was tempted for so long? Did he really conquer? He straddled the fence for too long! Instead of this character, we have in the books a Faramir who is only tempted for a moment by the power of the Ring. He listens to the counsel given him and stays true to the good of Tolkien's characters. In the movie, where has the strong Captain of Gondor who is so resistant to the power of evil and who is courageous and brave gone? He has been bashed into this character with a very major weakness. We come out of the movie theatre thinking that the race of men is easily corrupted, easily perverted, and easily swayed. There is nothing that assures us of the true goodness that resides within the hearts of Tolkien's men.

Now, the case of Aragorn and Arwen's romance is a little harder ground to trod because we are not sure quite yet what Arwen is doing. However, this part also falls short of that ultimate good. First of all, in the books Elrond is not so insistant that Arwen leave for the Gray Havens but has instead compromised and told Aragorn that his daughter will marry none other than the King of both Arnor and Gondor. So, in the books it is already decided that Aragorn and Arwen will be married if Aragorn accomplishes this deed. Aragorn's part in the books therefore is doubly potent, for if he fails then regardless of whether or not he lives he will not be able to marry his one true love. So, not only must he watch over the world, but he must also succeed or else lose that part of him. This makes the character of Aragorn so much stronger in parts such as when he is sitting outside of Gondor refusing to enter even though it is known who he claims to be. He refuses to enter and take what is rightfully his until Faramir lays down his leadership. Therefore, though Aragorn could have become king sooner, he waited it out so that he could take his proper post rightfully from Faramir. And thus was he awarded. This was ultimate good. But, regardless of all that, that part of the story is not there in the movie. Instead of a strong love based on a sure foundation and someone working hard to obtain the goal, we have Arwen who is still unsure about whether or not she is ready to give up her immortality. This is selfishness on her part and therefore Arwen gets placed out in the middle, straddling the fence. In the books Arwen makes her choice and stays firmly with her decision. There are no doubts. In the movie, we also have Elrond who attempts to convince his daughter to leave for the Gray Havens. He is also straddling the fence with these selfish thoughts. Where has the sacrifice that is so eminent in Tolkien's works gone? It has been squished by our modern-day, semi-good we-can-do-this-as-long-as-it-gets-us-out-on-the-top state of mind. On Aragorn's part it appears in the movie that he is actually tempted by Eowyn. Here is yet another example of being in the middle in a state of half-good. A completely good person living in a world where the foundations are set would not have even remotely thought about Eowyn especially since he already supposedly loved Arwen so much. I know that it can be said Aragorn was not meant to seem as though he were thinking such thoughts about Eowyn, but given the comment from my mom after seeing TTT with me I cannot agree with that. "What," she said, "doesn't Aragorn get together with Eowyn?" Where has that sure foundation, that true, pure, undoubtedly good relationship between Aragorn and Arwen gone? It was butchered.

I could go on about other instances where selfishness, doubt, hate, and other evil passions broke through the underlying parts of TTT. We have the Elves being selfish about helping men, we have the entire race of men seeming weak, we have the Ents unwilling to help because they do not want to risk hurt to themselves; ultimately what we have is a whole lot of supposedly good people who in Tolkien's books were only too sure about the fine lines between good and evil becoming modernized and taking on today's accepted "good." So, the audience is left with a completely different picture when they see the movie than they are when they read the books. The race of men is portrayed as completely weak, easily swayed, easily perverted, and selfish. The elves are portrayed as trying to save themselves; the ents as selfish, and ultimately we have what is so clearly written out and clarified as true good turned into a mishmash of semi-good. Semi-good is not what is written into the heart of Tolkien's books. True good is what stares people blatantly in the eyes, true good is what draws so many people to the books, and the true good underlying those very pages is that magic which touches so many peoples' hearts. This is what I have a problem with. To take LOTR and modernize it with our society's customs is to do a great disservice to the books and to Tolkien. If the foundation is taken away what are we left with? What is left of the magic that calls from behind the pages of LOTR? It is not there anymore. Though the people working on TTT may have researched deeply and long I cannot help but wonder how they could have missed this part about LOTR that makes it really, truly LOTR. Sure, they got the cultures, they got the characters, and they did a great job with most aspects of the movie. But what happens when the heart is missing? What happens to a story when its very core is left out, the part which makes the story what it is?

[Tháliõndágnir]

You probably don't care about my opinions, but I'll state them anyhow.

"In the Gollum vs. Smeagol fight (#1), Gollum is looking directly into the camera, making it seem that you are viewing the movie through another whole and active character, which contrasts the whole point of view of the movie."

I really liked this scene, and I thought it really showed how he had 2 sides to him: Gollum and Smeagol.

"The Lord of the Rings we not meant to be a comical piece, nor was Gimli meant to be a slapstick-stand up comedian. The constant comments from Gimli, such as 'Couldn't you have chosen a better spot,' entirely destroyed the tone of utmost importance of certain scenes, such as Helm's Deep, the tone that Tolkien so laboriously described. There was a girl behind me laughing at nearly every single one of Gimli's cracks."

I had actually told friends about how I despised how Gimli is the butt of every joke. Gimli's pride is what makes him Gimli, and the "short" jokes just make me feel bad for the poor guy.

"Dwarf Tossing: Eru save us! Aside from the fact that Dwarf Tossing has been outlawed in New York State (I'm serious.), it is completely unrealistic. When you consider the fact that Gimli probably weighed at minimum 150 Lbs without clothes or armor, and at absolute minimum 200 Lbs with armor, no man, be he a descended of the town drunk or Isildur himself, can throw a dwarf far."

This also was ridiculous, and indeed poked more fun at Gimli. He would never have a man toss him.

"Shield surfing: Seriously, give me a break! It was horrible enough that PJ managed to make Legolas' character look like a girl that so many real girls adore and pine for, but to take it to the point where 52% of the theater (the girls) starts clapping on his first appearance is just atrocious."

I actually kind of liked this. But, it actually made the movie feel like a sequel for once. Usually sequels are filled with eye candy. And this was too silly for me... it's supposed to be a serious film, is it not?

"Might I ask when Frodo and Sam were brought to Osgiliath? And when did Frodo look a Nazgul right in the eye? Had that truly happened, I have little doubt that the Nazgul would have spent so much time staring, rather than acting."

I haven't actually finished reading FOTR yet, so I cannot comment on this. Although, I found it really odd why Frodo did that, and why the Nazgul just flew away?

"Could we please get some medicine for poor Smeagol. He seems to have caught a case of a horrible disease, a case of the Jar Jar Binks."

I thought Smeagol/Gollum's voice was perfect for the part. It shows how decrepid he has become from the power of the ring. It doesn't really remind of Jar Jar Binks, because JJB really annoyed me.

[indexerkevin]

This is in response to the two long posts of Nenya. Those are passionate and well-articulated thoughts, about 99% of which I agree with.

If you go up about 5 posts from there and follow the link to my long post in another thread you will see that we note the same exact bogus points about TTT movie relative the book. Every point you have carefully raised is a major bogus point about the movie that I raised, though I still loved it. Fortunately the shock of the first movie relative the book was such that I was ready for anything in the second.

The Aragorn characterization is the weakest part of the movies in my opinion. A whole series of minor little scenes have chipped away at the heroic nature of his character as presented in the book. Such as 1) squandering the most important Aragorn scene in FoTR book: when they meet at the Prancing Pony. The movie was lame re the book. 2) the stupid "altar scene" in the first movie 3) in both movies diminishing "Aragorn as Ranger." At almost every important juncture in the book Aragorn is shown to carefully "read signs" and come up with a theory of what's up such as at Weathertop, when Frodo and Sam have left the company, etc. The one time that they do have have him do some of this, when the 3 chasers come on the smoldering orc remains, they first have him show despair.

Nenya your comments about your mother's noting Aragorn and Eowyn as a possible pair are telling. Everything in the TTT movie is designed to maximize the romantic possibilities of Aragorn-Eowyn at the expense of Aragorn-Arwen and fidelity to the book. This is very classic Hollywood however and not all that surprising. Some people may even get to the third movie, when hopefully Aragorn marries his true love, (although now I realize that nothing can be taken for granted with PJ as far as the plot goes,) and get mad thinking that Aragorn really belongs with Eowyn!! You know like: the nerve of that elf chick to desert him and then show up again once he's got all Middle Earth in his grasp and try to be all lovey-dovey; oh Aragorn baby I knew you could do it along; I was just walking with those other elves so they wouldn't get lost on the way to the Grey Havens.

We totally agree that the characterization of Theoden in TTT movie is totally bogus re the book, except for one very minor point: reread the Helm's Deep chapter and you will note that Theoden almost despairs just before the dawn, then Aragorn saves him.

[Nóm]

...we have Arwen who is still unsure about whether or not she is ready to give up her immortality.
I didn't get the impression that she was unsure of this.
I don't like the way Elrond is handling the situation though. He is the one being selfish, he knows that if Sauron is defeated his daughter will have a good life... and then go with Aragorn to where ever it is that the spirits of men go after they leave the world, wherever his own brother went.
He just doesn't want to part with his daughter, and who can blame him for that? But he is weak for trying to control Arwen in that way just to get her to stay with him.
I know I have compared movie Elrond with Thingol in the past, but the thing is that I never cared much for Thingol (and where would he be without his wife anyhow? ;)) and I am dispointed that movie Elrond took this turn. Though he is not like book Elrond of whom this was said...
...and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer.
... I liked movie Elrond from the start and it's a little sad that he has hurt his daughter in this way for selfish reasons. I trust that something will happen in RotK to make this right. Even someone as wise and kind as Elrond has a limit, and if losing his daughter doesn't put him over the edge nothing will.
This is said of Elrond and Arwen's parting:
None saw her last meeting with Elrond her father, for they went up into the hills and there spoke long together, and bitter was their parting that should endure beyond the ends of the world.
..and if that isn't sad enough, this was said of Melian when Luthien the mortal showed up in Menegroth

Those that saw them were both glad and fearful; and Luthien went to Menegroth and healed the winter of Thingol with the touch of her hand. But Melian looked in her eyes and read the doom that was written there, and turned away; for she knew that a parting beyond the end of the world had come between them, and no grief of loss has been heavier than the grief of Melian the Maia in that hour.
But maybe the grief of losing Arwen was comparable.


...and this is said of the Luthien's choice, and of the the elves losing her:
So it was that alone of the Eldalie she has died indeed, and left the world long ago. Yet in her choice the Two kindreds have been joined; and she is the forerunner of many in whom the Eldar see yet, though all the world is changed, the likeness of Luthien the beloved, whom they have lost.

Ah... I have been swept away, side-tracked, pulled into the story amid the post. But I think these things I quoted are respresntations of what is to me the major theme of these stories.
But I'll leave this for anyone who happens to be with me on this.

[Flandaar]

Wow - what an essay! Not to say I agree with you, but you did a great job articulating your thoughts!

However, what you say is a strength of the books is to me a weakness - the always good or always evil characters. Taking a contrarian view, this translates to "one-dimensional".

Let's take Theoden. It is completely unbelievable to me that this fellow would come out of his "bewitchment" and weakness and all of a sudden be completely the opposite! He would see himself to blame for the state of the kingdom and would simply HAVE to have some doubts about his leadership abilities and would err on the side of caution. If he was so "good" and "strong" how did he ever let himself become the sad wretch he was at the beginning? HOW COULD WORMTONGUE, EVEN WITH SARUMAN'S HELP, OVERSOME SUCH A PARAGON OF VIRTUE? Believable noble characters "grow" more slowly, not from one extreme to another in an instant. The struggle is important!! You appreciate their struggle and their overcoming - if there is no struggle, there is no humanity. I think the complexities the movie adds to Bormomir and Faramir are make these characters more sympathetic and more admirable, but not time to go into that now.

Remember too this was never advertised as a "translation" of the books, but an "adaptation", which allows a director a lot more latitude. For example, as I'm sure you know, West Side Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet - but in a whole different century, different names, and - oh my gosh! - SONGS! What heresy! But it's a pretty darn good movie!!

Well, have to sign out for now - am enjoying the dialog - from disgreement comes enlightenment. Happy New Year!

[Thorin]

The whole Arwen/Aragorn thing is disturbing me more and more and I feel that it is totally distorting the whole thing. Let's compare shall we?

BOOK

Aragorn waits for the time when he will step up to get the throne. The ring pushes that time up a ways. Aragorn is told that Arwen cannot be his unless he has the throne. He is proud to be the heir of Isildur and his love for Arwen spurs him on. Arwen has made her decision to be in ME and does what she can to help Aragorn discover his true destiny so they can be together forever.

MOVIE

Aragorn wants nothing to do with his heritage. He despises it and is practically forced towards it. He feels so little of this that he dumps Arwen so she won't be able to stay with him. Arwen, somewhat convinced by this is also feeling the pressure by daddy Elrond and begins to depart from ME. And by the end of TTT, we have no indication that this will change. Hence there will be some rushed changes in RoTK to accomodate the book

Changes of plot and meaning?? Surely not! :rolleyes:

[Flandaar]

I don't think Arwen is leaving ME at all! Maybe the director wanted to make us think that, but he also left clues that it wasn't the case. For one thing, she wasn't carrying the lantern. For another, Elrond's expression didn't seem very happy to me.

Also, there won't be any changes to RoTK to accomodate the book, RotK was pretty much done at the same time as the other movies. What it WILL do is clarify some of the ambiguous scenes in TTT and make us say "Oh - NOW I see what was going on!"

[Tar-Ancalime]

Flaandar...i could not agree more...and besides it was an
A-D-A-P-T-A-T-I-ON

[Nenya Evenstar]

It's long again. :o I hope you don't mind. I'm glad you enjoyed my last segment though -- I'm glad I was able to convey my thoughts! :)

indexerkevin:

Now, having read your post in the other thread I would like you to know that it is very refreshing to know that there is someone else who shares my thoughts about TTT. I agree with practically everything you have said, though things such as Arwen taking Glorfindel's place do not bother me all that much because none of the spirit that I have talked about was lost. Of course, I would have preferred the movies to follow the books in incidents like that, but I understand the necessity of the changes. But I could not agree more with your thoughts -- except for the part where the ents were redeemed by their awesome attack on Isengard. The spoiling of the ent's power and courage spoiled a lot for me, especially the first time through though I have redeemed it a little since then.

I am very intrigued by your last statement about the books and the movies. I have noticed for myself that when I watch FOTR I think that it is very true to the book... but then I will pick up the book and upon finishing I will not be as adamant of a fan of the movies as I was before. The movies and the books are truly two different things -- though I will say that the "goodness" that I described earlier was kept (as I felt) in FOTR except for a few minor incidents which were added in the deleted scenes such as was seen with Haldir's attitude. And since this goodness was there in FOTR, I feel that the main purpose was accomplished. However, I feel that TTT falls short of that.

Now, I would like to quote this part from "The Two Towers:"
Aragorn strode on through the inner court, and mounted to a high chamber in the tower. There stood the king, dark against a narrow window, looking out upon the vale. 'What is the news, Aragorn?' he said.

'The Deeping Wall is taken, lord, and all the defence swept away; but many have escaped hither to the Rock.'

'Is Eomer here?'

'No, lord. But many of your men retreated into the Deep; and some say that Eomer was amongst them. In the narrows they may hold back the enemy and come within the caves. What hope they may have then I do not know.'

'More than we. Good provision, it is said. And the air is wholesome there because of the outlets through fissures in the rock far above. None can force an entrance against determined men. They may hold out long.'

'But the Orcs have brought a devilry from Orthanc,' said Aragorn. 'They have a blasting fire, and with it they took the Wall. If they cannot come in the caves, they may seal up those that are inside. But now we must turn all our thoughts to our own defence.'

'I fret in this prison,' said Theoden. 'If I could have set a spear in rest, riding before my men upon the field, maybe I could have felt again the joy of battle, and so ended. But I serve little purpose here.'
'Here at least you are guarded in the strongest fastness of the Mark,' said Aragorn. 'More hope we have to defend you in the Hornburg than in Edoras, or even at Dunharrow in the mountains.'

'It is said that the Hornburg has never fallen to assault,' said Theoden; '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 I 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.'

'Do not judge the counsel of Gandalf, until all is over, lord,' said Aragorn.

'The end will not be long,' said the king. 'But I will not end here, taken like an old badger in a trap. Snowmane and Hasufel and the horses of my guard are in the inner court. When dawn comes, I will bid men sound Helm's horn, and I will ride forth. Will you ride with me then, son of Arathorn? Maybe we shall cleave a road, or make such an end as will be worth
a song-if any be left to sing of us hereafter.'

'I will ride with you,' said Aragorn.
You suggested that I reread the chapter Helm's Deep, so I did. And I still stick to my points. In this passage the only thing Theoden remotely despairs about is whether or not the Hornburg would stand. But I would not classify what he shows as despair, but as doubt. He also questions Gandalf's counsel. It still does not seem like despair to me. Also, it is Theoden who is wishing to ride out into battle instead of sitting and watching. Here Theoden is portrayed as strong and unwilling to despair. I cannot hear any ring of despair in his words, only a small tinge of doubt. But some of that doubt is cautioned by Aragorn and the rest is only too obvious. But, through it all, Theoden retains a strong and courageous countenance. But, I get your point. ;)


Nom:

I agree with your thoughts that state that Elrond was being extremely selfish and that he was at fault. But how is it possible to blame only him? Isn't Arwen also at fault if she suc***bs to her father's request?

Flandaar:

Yes, this dialog is refreshing for me too. :) I am enjoying it very much!

However, I do not agree with your thoughts. I know that most of the world does enjoy watching characters overcome great obstacles and things in life in order to become better people. We all go through that. And the characters in Tolkien's books went through that too. However, they had accomplished the already medial things which should have already been accomplished. That is why they make such great characters. Theoden would not be a very good king, IMO, if he did indeed despair as much as he did in the movie. I would not want him to be my ruler. The characters in Tolkien have already overcome those things which put them out in the middle between the two stark opposites. What they struggle with is defeating evil and having the strength to keep on defeating that evil. So you see, it is a magnified version of the struggles that a single man goes through -- huge good fighting a huge evil. But how can the good truly overcome the evil if the good in itself is semi-perverted? If the good is a good that is corrupted with small evil then how is it really good? You see, there is a major difference, IMO, between Tolkien's writings and the movies. The difference is that what is considered as "good" in the movies is not pure, wholehearted, completely good, good. It is corrupted by small, white lies, deceits, hatred, despair, and ignorance. But people accept that as good. However, in Tolkien's world, good has definite outlines and true boundaries, unlike in the movies where good is perverted into whatever it needs to be. Good in the movies is not TRUE good. It is merely a twist -- a whole bunch of sitting out in the middle of the two extremes. Now, I am not saying that Tolkien's characters never commit any sins but that they know exactly the fine lines between good and evil. They know what is right and what is wrong with no questions asked. But, if you notice in the movies there is not that fine line. What is completely right and what is completely wrong is overshadowed. There is leeway to stretch the truth. So, what you have in Tolkien's books is not simply perfect characters because those characters do at times make mistakes, but characters who know the direct definition of good and evil. In the movies what you have are characters who know the definition of evil but have a mixed mish-mash of good and evil as their idea of good. It does not fit Tolkien's underlying themes.

[Flandaar]

Nenya,

Thanks again! :-)

One more time with Theoden, sticking just with the book character. To me it is very inconsistent that Theoden could go from completely ineffective to a paragon of leadership in basically an instant. If he were so strong and "good", it doesn't seem believable that he could have been in the state of pathos we originally find him in. During this time he imprisoned Eomer, if he had such clear knowledge of good/evil, he wouldn't have done this. He would have seen right through ol' Grima's perversions.

I think you would admit he was a poor king while he was under his bewitchment, yet his people still followed him, so your argument about not wanting to follow him if he were so weak doesn't seem to follow, since the people oif Rohan did still look to him as their leader when he was basically lousy!

So, even given your viewpoint that JRRT wanted to depict clear good/evil boundaries, he wasn't consistent in doing so with this character. This isn't a conflict between the book and movie, but within the book itself.

[Orodreth]

The whole Theoden bewitchment thing in the movie was not quite what I pictured from reading the book. It appeared in the movie that Saruman was in constant control over Theoden and made him a prisoner in his own body. I always pictured Theoden old and witless on his own because of Grima, and that Gandalf didn't exorcise him, but pritty much told him to stand up and look around. Anyway, I haven't read the last few pages of this thread so this has probably been mentioned before. But one thing that irked me that is not on the topic of Theoden was Faramir. In the book, Faramir was wise and strong, and did not give in whatsoever to the ring. He was supposed to be stronger than his brother. However, in the movie, Boromir resisted the temptation for many months, whereas Faramir pritty much said "Hey look, there's the ring of power. Let's use it!" Did this bother anyone else?

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by Orodreth
In the book, Faramir was wise and strong, and did not give in whatsoever to the ring. He was supposed to be stronger than his brother. However, in the movie, Boromir resisted the temptation for many months, whereas Faramir pritty much said "Hey look, there's the ring of power. Let's use it!" Did this bother anyone else?

In the Council of Elrond, Boromir advocated to use the ring. He only reluctantly agreed with the majority view to destroy it. Faramir is out in the wilderness on his own w/o the presence of the Great and Wise like Elrond and Gandalf. I suspect Boromir would actually have claimed the Ring for himself had he been in Faramir's position. Faramir still comes out ahead.

fG

[Flandaar]

Originally posted by Orodreth
But one thing that irked me that is not on the topic of Theoden was Faramir. In the book, Faramir was wise and strong, and did not give in whatsoever to the ring. He was supposed to be stronger than his brother. However, in the movie, Boromir resisted the temptation for many months, whereas Faramir pritty much said "Hey look, there's the ring of power. Let's use it!" Did this bother anyone else?

This was another thing that seemed to be inconsistent in the books. Why was Faramir not attracted to the ring when beings such as Gandalf, Galdriel, Bilbo, etc were? And men were supposed to be "weak"? Seems to me that Faramir would have been the logical one to take the ring to Mt. Doom since he wasn't affected by it!

[Nóm]

Nom:

I agree with your thoughts that state that Elrond was being extremely selfish and that he was at fault. But how is it possible to blame only him? Isn't Arwen also at fault if she suc***bs to her father's request?

I had a complete turn around in the course of my post :p. Did you not pick up from the quotes that I gave (for example comparing Elrond's loss to that of Melien when she lost Luthien... the greatest grief of loss that has ever or will ever be) that I thought this would be extremely hard on Elrond , and did ya not read where I said that everyone has a breaking point and if losing Arwen doesn't break Elrond maybe nothing will.

I was disapointed in movie Elrond, but during my post above I came to understand, and I wont fault him for it. Who am I to blame such a great elf/man for one small thing... it isn't the real Elrond anyhow. ;)
Now, I never did blame Arwen of the movie because I have a hard time imaging that she has forsaken hope, even for a second. Had I not read the books I might be able to believe that she had, but we'll have to see part three to know for sure what she was thinking.
She may have thought that she needed to sneek out of Rivdendell. Maybe she thought Elrond would pull a Thingol and lock her in a tree. :D

[Nenya Evenstar]

Nom: :p:p:p

Flandaar:
During this time he imprisoned Eomer, if he had such clear knowledge of good/evil, he wouldn't have done this. He would have seen right through ol' Grima's perversions. You have to remember that evil still does exist. Even in the books it exists. Theoden was unable to counter the evil that assailed him because that evil was so much stronger than the good that he possessed. The evil shadowed his mind and did not allow him to see -- hence why when Gandalf lifted the veil from his eyes he was able to see once more. Theoden was not powerful enough himself to counter the evil that Saruman brought into Rohan. But Gandalf was.
I think you would admit he was a poor king while he was under his bewitchment, yet his people still followed him, so your argument about not wanting to follow him if he were so weak doesn't seem to follow, since the people oif Rohan did still look to him as their leader when he was basically lousy! Actually, this is yet another consistency in the book. The people of Rohan knew that their king was simply deceived. They knew that he was under Grima's hand. If they had turned on him they would have been forsaking the true good for they knew that their king really was a wonderful man. :)

I fail to see where any inconsitencies happen. Evil and good battle constantly in the book, and just because there is a "pure good" does not mean that evil will not conquer sometimes. In Theoden's case this was simply a case of evil conquering for a time. But Theoden knew right away that it was wrong after Gandalf came, and he turned began to live like all of Tolkien's characters lived. In the books Theoden shows Grima pity and allows him to leave with a horse. What a contrast from the movie where Theoden attempts to kill Grima! See? In the books Theoden has all the precepts of good written upon his mind, but in the movies Theoden doesn't take a second thought about killing Grima.

This was another thing that seemed to be inconsistent in the books. Do you truly wish to say things are inconsistent in the books on a Tolkien forum? ;) First of all, Faramir WAS attracted to the Ring. Only he was strong enough to recognize its evil just like Gandalf and Galadriel were. Faramir was affected by the Ring, and I can guarantee you that if he claimed it for his own he would have been unable to part with it -- it is exactly the same with Gandalf and Galadriel. And what is this about men being weak? Men are NOT weak! That is a thing that the movies have made up! That is one of the things I hate about the movies! The race of men is painted up to be weak... when in reality they are not. A good deal of men are noble and wise. However, the movies sell this false propaganda that men are these weak creatures who are easily seduced. I refuse to buy it.

[Flandaar]

Originally posted by Nenya Evenstar
Nom: :p:p:p

Do you truly wish to say things are inconsistent in the books on a Tolkien forum? ;) First of all, Faramir WAS attracted to the Ring. Only he was strong enough to recognize its evil just like Gandalf and Galadriel were. Faramir was affected by the Ring, and I can guarantee you that if he claimed it for his own he would have been unable to part with it -- it is exactly the same with Gandalf and Galadriel. And what is this about men being weak? Men are NOT weak! That is a thing that the movies have made up! That is one of the things I hate about the movies! The race of men is painted up to be weak... when in reality they are not. A good deal of men are noble and wise. However, the movies sell this false propaganda that men are these weak creatures who are easily seduced. I refuse to buy it.

Well, yes, I don't think any creative work of man is perfect! Even Tolkien said he regretted some things about the books and would have liked to change (such as Bombadil), and had many many changes during the writing process - did you know Bilbo was originally called Bingo? Glad he changed that!

I think the main theme of Tolkien was NOT good vs. evil at all, but instead overcoming weakness and temptation to do the right thing. If you think about it, this is a precept of the Christian religion, of which Tolkien was a proponent. The Temptation of Christ was a major theme that gives strength to Christians. An Indian friend of mine tells me there is a similar story of Buddha. So, yes, there is good vs. evil, but the theme is overcoming temptation. We must be made to feel the temptation is real (a weakness) and that overcoming it is noble.

I'm not sure where you got that Faramir was tempted by the ring, I sure did't see that in the books!

[wee kev]

WOW! This is some thread! It has taken a ME age to read. :rolleyes:

As someone wrote earlier the film is only an 'Adaptation' of the book and as such there has to be allowances made for cinema goers such as Gimli's humour, Legolas's inability to attract dirt, Sauraman possesing Theoden, etc..

Enjoy the book for the great work literature that it is and enjoy the film for the great work of film making that is. :D

[Flandaar]

Nenya,

You induced me to do some research on Tolkien's themes. I found something that addresses my notion of the importance of the growth of characters. This is taken from Colbert's recent book, "The Magical Worlds of The Lord of the Rings":

"Nothing moves my heart," Tolkien wrote, "beyond all passions and heartbreaks of the world, " as much as watching a character become noble - "from the Ugly Duckling to Frodo" (The letters of J. R. R. Tolkien edited by H. Carpenter with C. Tolkien, 232). ...


This process of becoming noble fascinated Tolkien even more than the struggle of good agains evil. (my emphasis) He retells the Ugly Duckling fairy tale many times in LOTR because he wants to see it happen again and again. Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and on, all overcome weakness to become great - they are not born that way!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Flandaar
This was another thing that seemed to be inconsistent in the books. Why was Faramir not attracted to the ring when beings such as Gandalf, Galdriel, Bilbo, etc were? And men were supposed to be "weak"? Seems to me that Faramir would have been the logical one to take the ring to Mt. Doom since he wasn't affected by it!

The reason being is that all the wise had the power to take the ring and use it freely. They truly understood the temptation to do so. Faramir had no desire to rule with the power the ring could offer. He was true to himself and therefore the ring didn't tempt him like it could Galadriel or Gandalf.

Boromir was lusting for victory and power and he saw the ring as that means to acheive it. Tolkien was trying to show the difference between the two brothers by using the ring as a reference point and to show that the race of man could be trusted.

[Flandaar]

Originally posted by Thorin
Faramir had no desire to rule with the power the ring could offer. He was true to himself and therefore the ring didn't tempt him like it could Galadriel or Gandalf. Tolkien was trying to show the difference between the two brothers by using the ring as a reference point and to show that the race of man could be trusted.

Thorin,

This seems to be even stronger justification for him to take the ring. The only other being in Middle Earth we are told is unaffected by the ring is Bombadil, and at the Coucil of Elrond, there were thoughts to give it to him, but this was rejected because Bombadil "... would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away." Such could not be said of Faramir.

Also, there is clearly precedent in the books that men could use the Rings of Power (hence the Nazgul), so the temptation need not be limited to the wise as Gandalf or Galadriel.

So, I still believe JRRT was inconsistent with his own premises when he desribes Faramir as untempted or untemptable, yet does not rely on him to participate in the destruction of the ring. Something is still missing for me....

[Snaga]

Nenya, I have read your posts. Hats off to you... if size was everything you would rule the forum!;) But I do not agree.

You see it seems to me that through out Tolkien's work characters, especially humans (and hobbits) are NOT wholly good. And to look at it as a battle between great good and great evil is to miss a central point.

In fact the whole point about the power of the ring is that it can corrupt even those who wish for good, by appealing to their desire for power. By its nature, the desire for power holds a corrupting peril: the great in LotR are not pure and the wisest refuse the ring. But even Galadriel, arguably the purest symbol of good is shown as tempted. Denethor is an example of the mind overthrown, even though it will not submit to Sauron.

In the end it takes a humble pair of hobbits, and a slice of good fortune to destroy the ring, and not force of arms. Force of arms is ultimately just an act of sacrifice to allow the weak to succeed where the strong would fail.

In doing so, Frodo goes through perils that are more internal than external. Yes he faces Shelob, and capture by orcs. But the greatest risk is from himself. And his key victory is to pity Gollum. He treats his enemy, one who is full of malice and hatred, with love and compassion. In this he is repaid by Gollums intervention at Mt Doom... for without Gollum he cannot destroy the ring. He actually loses the battle with temptation but is delivered from it.

You can say that the books do not portray doubt in the mind of Aragorn or Theoden. I would have to agree. Aragorn doubts himself when he leads the Fellowship, but is not on the same scale. But to say that the characters are simplistically good or evil, and a more complex portrayal is un-Tolkien is, in my view, just wrong.:)

OK...so this is quite a long post too. But I'm not gonna win a prize for it on this thread!;)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Flandaar
Thorin,

This seems to be even stronger justification for him to take the ring. The only other being in Middle Earth we are told is unaffected by the ring is Bombadil, and at the Coucil of Elrond, there were thoughts to give it to him, but this was rejected because Bombadil "... would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away." Such could not be said of Faramir.

Also, there is clearly precedent in the books that men could use the Rings of Power (hence the Nazgul), so the temptation need not be limited to the wise as Gandalf or Galadriel.

So, I still believe JRRT was inconsistent with his own premises when he desribes Faramir as untempted or untemptable, yet does not rely on him to participate in the destruction of the ring. Something is still missing for me....

I fail to see how PJ's Faramir supports your opinion. PJ's Faramir, well into the throes of temptation with the ring pretty much in his full possession gets to the point that he is willing to turn them over to his father with "a mighty gift" and then be lectured by a few hobbits and quickly turn them loose.
:confused:
This makes the ring more powerful? Tolkien's Faramir had not the time nor the train of thought to allow himself to be tempted. Especially when he finds out how it tempted Boromir. (Notice that the movie Faramir was aware of this before he STILL took them to Osgiliath!)

PJ's Faramir makes your argument look more foolish then Tolkien's Faramir. Tolkien's still makes more sense.

[Flandaar]

Originally posted by Thorin
I fail to see how PJ's Faramir supports your opinion.
PJ's Faramir makes your argument look more foolish then Tolkien's Faramir. Tolkien's still makes more sense.

I was not discussing the movie Faramir at all - just that I found the book Faramir not completely believeable, given Tolkien's own "rules" of his world.

PS I don't mean to give the impression I don't really love the books, but I didn't find F. all that compelling a character within them.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Flandaar, I have to disagree with you on your statement that overcoming temptation is the main theme in LOTR. Yes, it is a very big theme, but I do not think it is THE theme. Overcoming temptation, if you will notice, is a part of Good vs. Evil.

Everyone else: :p Have I ever said that the LOTR characters were born perfect? Have I said that they are perfect? No, I do not believe so. I know full well that the characters in the books overcome obstacles and grow. I know that they make mistakes and that they are reprimanded for them. However what I sense in Tolkien's writing is that what is really, truly good is written upon the hearts of the characters. They know the difference between those two fine points of good and evil, and they know when they cross into the evil. They know. In the movies what I sense is a case of people who are unable to discern what is truly good and what is truly bad. So their "good" becomes something that is not really good. So you see, it is not that the characters don't grow, it's that they know the fine lines and know what is really, truly evil and what is really, truly good. This does not mean that they are perfect or that they never commit sins... it simply means that they KNOW what is truly good and what is truly evil.

I like Thorin's explanation, though I still believe that Faramir was tempted, if only slightly. From "The Two Towers:"
'So it seems,' said Faramir, slowly and very softly, with a strange smile. `So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way -- to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.

Frodo and Sam sprang from their stools and set themselves side by side with their backs to the wall, fumbling for their sword-hilts. There was a silence. All the men in the cave stopped talking and looked towards them in wonder. But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again. It seems to me that Faramir was temted, if only for a slight second, given this passage. But, he was tempted, and then he overcame the temptation -- he was wise enough to see that the Ring was evil.

[Snaga]

Do you think it is 'evil' in itself to despair? I would say that if you feel your situation is hopeless it is only natural. OK, it can lead to evil... Denethor being a good example.

So the example of THeoden doesn't seem that could to me.

Also I wouldnt say that it was evil to express disagreement with a decision. Not if, in the end, you stick with your side and fight. So Legolas, Gimli etc doubting Theoden's plan doesn't seem evil either.

What PJ does is emphasise choices that characters make, by getting them to articulate alternatives. I don't see how that weakens their overall 'good' natures.

Why would it be better to do good by default, rather than good by choice?

[Flandaar]

OK, I think the picture of what you're trying to say is clarifying a little, so let's frame the discussion a little differently. First, I would say it's not a given that good vs. evil is clearly black and white. For example, is stealing food to feed a starving child good or evil? How about robbing from the rich to give to the poor - even if the rich are hard workers and the poor are loiterers? Is putting people out of work and into poverty to save a minor animal species good or evil? Is using an atomic bomb to stop a war that could lead to many more years of misery and even more casualties good or evil? Is using the One Ring to save your country good or evil?

I would say those questions are hard to know. But, even given that someone knows good from evil, that is far different from CHOOSING good over evil, or feeling despair and doubt, or making a wrong decision!

It seems to me you're saying "well, these particular Tolkien characters always know what's right and so will always do the right thing and will never feel doubt or despair" - and I disagree with that wholeheartedly. As I mentioned 2 famous religious leaders, Jesus and Buddha, both felt doubt and despair and were tempted, although they clearly knew right from wrong. Their triumph was overcoming the temptation and becoming stronger because of it.

Let's take the movie Theoden - I see nothing in that character's behavior that implied he didn't know good from evil after he was freed from Wormtongue. Why would it have been evil to kill Wormtongue, whose actions were traitorous and likely resulted in many deaths? Why was it evil to flee to HD instead of fight as what he saw as the best chance to save his people? Why was it evil to feel doubt and despair? I saw nothing in what he did that implied he didn't know good from evil.

So is this the crux of the debate? That knowing good from evil will always result in the good choice without doubt or anguish? What was it in the movie that led you to believe that characters didn't know good from evil?

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Nenya Evenstar
I know full well that the characters in the books overcome obstacles and grow.

I agree and I think that PJ's charaters should be given the same courtesy.

[Tar-Ancalime]

Forgive me for being totally off topic...but on the Extended edition in the cast commentary. Gimli (John-Rhys Davies) says that the fans have been totally agreeable and accepted the changes :rolleyes: (shortcommings to some)...hahaha! He really has to take a peak at these threads...Well one thing is totally obvious...he has made no ventures to the TTF :mad: :p

[quickbeam]

Nenya, you are eloquent.

[quickbeam]

Could somebody please post the link to hte "What was PJ thinking?" thread?

And what does NPW stand for?

[Nenya Evenstar]

Why thank you quickbeam! :) Here is the link: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8195

Ok, so you have understood me only partially. Hmmm... how do I say this. This is the first time I've ever tried to frame these thoughts of mine about the books, so bear with me. :p

To start off with Flandaar's first comments. There are many issues in this world which are unanswered. There is no religion which everyone can agree with. There is no true right and wrong because no one has set lines between what is right and what is wrong. But in Tolkien's world there is a true religion. The characters know what is truth. They are even guided at times by the Valar, and during LOTR they are guided by the Maiar. So I do not think it is fair to compare this world as it is now to the world of Tolkien simply for this reason: We are in this world. We live inside it and cannot distinuish between true right and true wrong. In Tolkiens books, however, we see what happens from outside the story. We can see the entire picture and we know for a fact what is good and what is evil. So how can we compare the two in the manner you are? In this world we do not know, but in Tolkien's world we do know.

I am saying that Tolkien's characters know right from wrong. This does not mean that they will always choose the right, though. Let me reframe: The issue that I am trying to bring across is not the issue that Tolkien's characters are perfect and will not stray from the good path, but that Tolkien's character KNOW the direct definition of good and evil. If they cross over into evil they know that they have sinned. I think that comparing our world to the movies is more than acceptable because PJ has taken the books and adapted them into fitting the modern social lifestyle. In our modern society, there is no true good. No one knows for sure what good is. People have been blinded and can no longer see what is truth. In TTT the same thing takes place. Instead of showing compassion, which is ultimately better than hate, Theoden tries to slay Grima. Instead of listening to one of the great Maia, which is humbleness and wisdom, Theoden trusts to himself (something which everyone in this world does) to make things right. Instead of forgetting about themselves and helping in the war, the Ents in the movie decide that "this is not their war." So you see, this is what I mean by fine lines. The good that is in Tolkien has been corrupted with our modern society into this mish-mash of "good." In the movies we no longer have that fine line to see what the principals and majesty of the characters are, we can no longer see their wisdom, we can no longer see that they know what true good is. For they do not live up to the standards that the book set. The do not live up to the true truth that is written in the books.

So the crux of the debate is not that the choice made will always result in good things because this is not the case. Take Feanor for example. His entire life was riddled with wrong. He did many wrong things in his life including deceit, hate, murder, and many others. However, he is not portrayed as a good character. We know when we are reading that what he is doing is wrong. We know that same for any other character in the books. We know that Grima is evil. We know that Boromir is tempted. But we also know that inside the characters know what is truly good. Sauron knows he's on the bad side. So does Melkor. So also does Boromir know that it is wrong of him to want the Ring. But he wants it anyway. So the difference is that in the books there is this TRUTH of what is right and what is wrong. When the characters mess up they know for a fact that they have, whether they change or not. But in TTT there is no longer this TRUTH. The characters no longer know when they have for sure messed up. The movie has been perverted with the way our society thinks. The unsureness that is in our society of what truth really is has been put into the movie. No one knows what is truly good or evil anymore.

Now, I am not saying that the characters are good by default but that by reading the books you as the reader get a picture and know what is good and what is evil. No question about it. And you as the reader know that when a character does wrong that he is doing wrong. And the character also knows this truth because there is but one truth in Tolkien's writings. In the movies there is not one truth anymore. There is instead a dab of our society stuck into the middle of one of the most epic tales.

Was it evil of Theoden to despair? Well, I can see that he had all the reason to, but would it not be better if he didn't? In the books Theoden knows that it would be better not to despair. But in the movies he seems to know no difference. Here is the mish-mas