What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So then I totally stick by my initial analysis: the version of the LOTR that Tolkien "channeled" was the Gondorian Library's "Authorized Edition" whereas what PJ has given us are the "unauthorized biographies."
Like the unofficial guide to Disney World. Handy to have. ;)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

know you are, that's why I was so surprised when you said they were going south anyway...
I didn't mean to imply they all lived in and around Minas Tirith with Boromir, just that all three of them had to cross the Misty Mountains and two of them also had to cross the Anduin to get to their home. Just like the One Ring. Yeah, the Ring went south. It also went east. Its goal was Mordor, which according to the maps I have is south of Mirkwood and the Lonely Mountain, all east of Anduin.

As an oft-used designated driver, I perhaps have a broader definition of "on the way" than others.

Once again, an Internet discussion of great literature becomes a semantic argument (though argument is a strong word here...I'm not upset in the least and hope you aren't either).

And Curufin, we really need to discuss these issues some time. I can only think of two Sindar who were legitimate jerks. The Noldor, on the other hand, had an entire branch of the family who were certifiable A-holes. Sure, they were valiant and likely had luxuriant hair flowing in the breeze of battle but otherwise what a bunch of tools. :p

Actually, this is such a broad topic, I'll start with something kind of narrow and then see where it goes. Check out the Silm forum....

[Curufin]

I'd love to have a discussion on the Noldor. They're my favorite of all of Tolkien's creations (and probably the ones I know most about). ;)

I'll watch the Silm forum!

[katya]

...thirty or forty Legolasi (is that the right plural? lol) ...

Maybe in Quenya :p

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'd love to have a discussion on the Noldor. They're my favorite of all of Tolkien's creations (and probably the ones I know most about). ;)

I'll watch the Silm forum!

I love 66.667% of the Noldor! :D

[Curufin]

Let me guess. The Houses of Finarfin and Fingolfin. :rolleyes:

[Earniel]

The side-discussion about Legolas' age has been moved to its own thread here. (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=14734) I should have said something earlier, but as it was already that long, I decided to split it off instead. Feel free to continue the Legolas-discussion there. :)

[Jon S.]

Two nights ago, I re-watched the first of the two TTT EE discs with my son. Last night, we re-watched the second. While the Arwen flashback swoons and Frodo freak-outs continue to disappoint, the Elves showing up at Helms Deep scene just gets better and better with every viewing. Loved it when Legolas, in the middle of conversing with Aragorn, looks up and speaks, "Those are no orc horns!" and when the soldier on guard screams, "Open the gates!" It was also very cool how when Haldir intends to greet Aragorn formally, Aragorn rushes to hug him, saying, "You are most welcome!" It only lasts a fraction of a second - you'll miss it if you don't look carefully - but the smile then on Haldir's face is priceless.

"We have come to honor old alliances." Noble words befitting noble men and women engaged in a noble cause.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

So who was left to defend Lorien again?

[Curufin]

Who cares about Lothlórien (or Tolkien's themes, for that matter) as long as we can have a heart-rending "multiculturalism" scene? :rolleyes:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So who was left to defend Lorien again?
The second unit. ;)

[Curufin]

Oh, them. :rolleyes:

[Jon S.]

Most droll, DRP. I'll edit the rest out, on second thought, I don't mind being the lone movie lover. :)

[Curufin]

for canon-based support for Elvish telepathic capabilities:

And the Ósanwe-kenta. :rolleyes:

And if they came from Rivendell why in holy hippos was Haldir - a March warden of Lothlórien there?

And it still doesn't change the question, just the place.

Who's defending Rivendell?

EDIT: Ha, Jon, I'm faster than you. :p

[Jon S.]

But as the Good Rats put in in the song Tasty, "Speed ain't nothing w/o class." ;)

P.S. I'm joking back, really. :)

[Curufin]

:p:p:p

And as for your (erased) post (:p) I have no trouble with Elrond and Galadriel communicating telepathically. Tolkien goes into depth about the 'telepathic' capabilities of the Eldar (and Valar) in the Ósanwe-kenta.

The problem is: sending the elves in the first place. And, as DPR says (making a good point) - who's left to defend Lothlórien/Rivendell (wherever they came from? :p)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

And the Ósanwe-kenta. :rolleyes:

And if they came from Rivendell why in holy hippos was Haldir - a March warden of Lothlórien there?
He went down for a high-up conference, and came as rep of his branch.

The elven group was a sort of UN business with elves from many areas.

They just sent for archers, the home territories were guarded by big-time magic and spearmen.

He was supervising archers doing community service.

It was his scout troop.


How many do you want? ;)

I should write a quiz, darnit. Except most of the people who'd understand it are too hidebound to laugh. :p

[Curufin]

*is not hidebound* :p

*laughs* :D

I especially like the UN and the Scouts. :D

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I liked the Scout Troop one.

If they had blue hats and just one arrow apiece, the UN analogy would have fit.

[Jon S.]

If nothing else, this thread is doing a fine job of illustrating the differences between blockbuster movie directors and internet forum movie critics. ;)

As Curufin has noted (REPEATEDLY!!! :o ), in my not-quickly-enough edited post, at first, I referred to the "Elves from Rivendell." Obviously, they were from Lothlorien. The reason I typed Rivendell is due to how the movie Haldir opened his remarks:

"I bring word from Lord Elrond of Rivendell. An Alliance once existed between Elves and Men. Long ago we fought and died together. We come to honor that allegiance."

Great line - just awesome (unless you're an internet forum movie critic ;) ).

[Jon S.]

:p:p:p

And as for your (erased) post (:p) I have no trouble with Elrond and Galadriel communicating telepathically. Tolkien goes into depth about the 'telepathic' capabilities of the Eldar (and Valar) in the Ósanwe-kenta.
Galadriel to Elrond (telepathically):

"The power of the enemy is growing. Sauron will use his puppet Saruman to destroy the people of Rohan. Isengard has been unleashed. The Eye of Sauron now turns to Gondor, the last free kingdom of men. His war on this country will come swiftly. He senses the Ring is close. The strength of the Ringbearer is failing. In his heart, Frodo begins to understand. The quest will claim his life. You know this. You have foreseen it. It is the risk we all took. In the gathering dark, the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find its way back into the hands of men. Men, who are so easily seduced by its power. The young captain of Gondor has but to extend his hand, take the Ring for his own and the world will fall. It is close now, so close to achieving its goal. For Sauron will have dominion over all life on this Earth, even unto the ending of the world. The time of the elves is over. Do we leave Middle-Earth to its fate? Do we let them stand alone?"

NO NO NO! First we help, then we leave. Way to go, Gal! :dudette:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

If nothing else, this thread is doing a fine job of illustrating the differences between blockbuster movie directors and internet forum movie critics. ;) Otherwise known as "the heathen" and 'the elect' " ;)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Gee, The Ring is stupid. It would rather be taken from Frodo by Boromir than be brought home to Mordor where it could be taken back by Sauron. :eek:

Oft evil will shall evil mar, I guess.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Gee, The Ring is stupid. It would rather be taken from Frodo by Boromir than be brought home to Mordor where it could be taken back by Sauron. :eek: It's like monologuing. Evil is easily distracted by the opportunity to gain another minion. :D

Oft evil will shall evil mar, I guess.Apt, very apt. :D

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I liked the Scout Troop one.

If they had blue hats and just one arrow apiece, the UN analogy would have fit.
like this?

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x273/siscuz/haldirun.jpg

[Curufin]

Otherwise known as "the heathen" and 'the elect'

I prefer 'Noldor' to 'elect' thank you very much. :p

And I didn't come here to be a movie critic. I just can't help it. ;)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I, for one, fled west in part to escape the darkness of certain movie critics.

[Curufin]

Ditto with you there, DPR.

And thankfully, the worst of the Nazgúl haven't found us here.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Yeah, we have the sweet Nazgul here. :p

[Curufin]

*pats Gordis on head*

Nice, friendly Nazgúl.

Of course, as I apparently shine like a beacon from the Wraith-world, let's hope I'm not followed.

:eek:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*pats Gordis on head*

Nice, friendly Nazgúl.

Of course, as I apparently shine like a beacon from the Wraith-world, let's hope I'm not followed.

:eek:Or create some. ;)

[Curufin]

*doesn't want to create Nazgúl*

:eek:

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

One's enough...

[Curufin]

That's for sure. :rolleyes:

[Gordis]

There are more nazgul here than you seem to think *ominous music*
Two years ago there were more than nine. It used to be a real nazgulmoot.:p

[Curufin]

Where are all the Ñoldor, though? :(

Or have you found us all already and sent us all to Mandos? :p

Maybe shining like beacons isn't a good thing? :rolleyes:

[Gordis]

The Elves don't need nazgul to send them to Mandos. They take care of it themselves.:p

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The Elves don't need nazgul to send them to Mandos. They take care of it themselves.:p

Complete agreement. :D

[Curufin]

:p

Yeah, okay, so we are pretty good at it.

[BeardofPants]

Oh, I think he was some talent. Just not exhibiting it in the LOTRs. Have you seen Heavenly Creatures? It's a great movie. And the one I'd recommend to people who want to watch a Peter Jackson movie. His earlier movies are great too (Bad Taste, et alia).

Curu - not sure if you caught this, but I'll re-post. Heavenly Creatures really is worth the watch. :)

[Curufin]

No, I'd missed that post. :)

Haven't seen it, but I have heard of it.

Don't know if it's really my kind of thing, though. ;)

[BeardofPants]

Fair enough... you ever want to give the elves a skip, then at least you've got a rec. ;)

[frodomerryandaragornrock]

Lotr ROX, no matter what any1 says!! i do say they changed many things, but the movies are already 3 hours long and i do agree the arwen dreams were a bit much, but most of the changes contribute to the movie, not take away from it.

[Curufin]

but most of the changes contribute to the movie, not take away from it.

This is most certianly a matter of opinion, and one I disagree with strongly.

[Gordis]

frodomerryandaragornrock: Could you, please elaborate: in what way the changes contribute to the movie.

[Jon S.]

There are so many it's difficult to know where to start. ;)

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

I just re-watched FotR and RotK extended for the first time in a long time. There are some parts where I still cringe when I watch them. :D
But watching RotK after I watched the appendices made me have a much greater appreciation for the movies and all the minute details. :eek:

[Freeflying]

I think part of the negative reception of the film (http://filme.hitmeister.de/lord-of-the-rings-ultimate-critical-review-260912/)is to do with its adaptation from the classic J. R. R. Tolkien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien) book. I mean once you´ve read the book you have the pictures that YOU created - when the film doesn´t match up (which i think it woudl be hard to do) you feel cheated somewhat - especially as after the film, (http://www.hitflip.at/books/title/Der_Schwarm_37399/) i find it hard to picture my original images.

[Gordis]

I think part of the negative reception of the film (http://filme.hitmeister.de/lord-of-the-rings-ultimate-critical-review-260912/)is to do with its adaptation from the classic J. R. R. Tolkien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien) book. I mean once you´ve read the book you have the pictures that YOU created - when the film doesn´t match up (which i think it woudl be hard to do) you feel cheated somewhat - especially as after the film, i find it hard to picture my original images.

That is undoubtedly true... But if it were ONLY that!:(

Here is a small example:
in FOTR, PJ had postulated "The Ring obeys ONLY SAURON. We CAN'T use it."

Minor thing, you would say?

But that stupid notion had a lot of consequences. They couldn't make Saruman want the Ring for himself - what for, if he can't use it? So now we have Saruman as Sauron's servant. Why then would Saruman's Uruks lead the captured hobbits west and not east over the river directly to Mordor? - no answer.

Galadriel also looks a total fool, becoming all radioactive-like about the Ring she can't even use!

And now why couldn't Gandalf take the Ring and carry it himself - if he couldn't use it? :confused:

Also, if nobody but Sauron could use the Ring, all the underlying reasoning devised by Tolkien for BOTH sides in the "Return of the King" crumbles. Why would Sauron worry who has got his Ring? Why would he be in such a hurry? Why would he offer any terms? He could have proceeded methodically, as a good strategist, and sooner or later he would have conquered the West and regained his Ring - because he was far stronger then the West.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The images were actually not so bad. Though New Zealand isn't much like Europe, they did a passable job with the scenery, costuming, etc.

It was the many, unnecessary changes in characters' personalities and motivations that were most egregious, IMO.

[Jon S.]

That is undoubtedly true... But if it were ONLY that!:(

Here is a small example:
in FOTR, PJ had postulated "The Ring obeys ONLY SAURON. We CAN'T use it."

Minor thing, you would say?

But that stupid notion had a lot of consequences. They couldn't make Saruman want the Ring for himself - what for, if he can't use it? So now we have Saruman as Sauron's servant. Why then would Saruman's Uruks lead the captured hobbits west and not east over the river directly to Mordor? - no answer.

Galadriel also looks a total fool, becoming all radioactive-like about the Ring she can't even use!

And now why couldn't Gandalf take the Ring and carry it himself - if he couldn't use it? :confused:

Also, if nobody but Sauron could use the Ring, all the underlying reasoning devised by Tolkien for BOTH sides in the "Return of the King" crumbles. Why would Sauron worry who has got his Ring? Why would he be in such a hurry? Why would he offer any terms? He could have proceeded methodically, as a good strategist, and sooner or later he would have conquered the West and regained his Ring - because he was far stronger then the West.
Oh, come on! It is clear, in context, that the intent was not to say others could not utilize the ring but that no one but Sauron could control it. That makes perfect sense to me.

[Amael]

From the Gandalf's hat and staff descrepenccies to other goofups happening in the movies, to the changing of the plot and eliminating of necessary stuff adding in weird twists, it just didn't bear much resemblance to the books. What of Sauron's spirit passing over the Armies at the Black Gates as a great hand trying to grab the good guys, but a west wind too his spirit away? I mean, I half expected to see that in Return of the King, but was extremely disappointed that they didn't put that in. The Mouth of Sauron has his head removed by Aragorn where in the book he just runs off and the armies come and meet Aragorn and his forces.

[Coffeehouse]

The power of the Ring & Sauron-Sarumann
--------------------------------------------

Oh, come on! It is clear, in context, that the intent was not to say others could not utilize the ring but that no one but Sauron could control it. That makes perfect sense to me.

I agree Jon, the rings obeys Sauron, but that obviously does not stop everyone else from craving it, wanting to use it to their own ends. Kinda goes without saying though..
It all makes sense: Gandalf and Galadriel know the ring is of Sauron's making, and thus obeys no other master strictly speaking.
They know this, but the entire evil of the ring is that it really doesn't matter, because they'll want it for themselves anyways. Yet they show sufficient strength to leave it alone in their (near) infinite wisdom:)

Sarumann too, knows the owner of the ring, and he sees Sauron, with ring or no ring, to be of such power that he really would prefer not to resist the darkness of Mordor (at least until he has the ring for himself!).. thus offers an alliance.
Yet Sarumann is, like all other creatures, affected by the Ring. He knows perfectly well who made it, but the possibilities that the ring offers blinds him so much that he decides to pursue it anyways.. and I don't think he wanted to hand it over to Sauron. He wanted it for himself.
It's really a bit like Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union during their years of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. What buying time was to the Nazis and the Soviets, getting the Ring is to Sarumann and Sauron. They both want it, they both set out to get it. We can't know what powers Sarumann could obtain with the ring, and if these powers could twarth the might of Sauron. I would guess in the end he too would become wrecked by the ring, the truth being that it always seeks its master Sauron.

Why didn't the Uruk-Hai of Sarumann head straight to Sauron after they had captured Pippin and Merry? Well basically because what we as a movie audience view as the obvious servitude of Sarumann in respect to Sauron, the Uruk-Hai may still believe Sarumann to be the one pulling the strings. After all he sends out their paychecks:p

[Coffeehouse]

Also..:p


Also, if nobody but Sauron could use the Ring, all the underlying reasoning devised by Tolkien for BOTH sides in the "Return of the King" crumbles. Why would Sauron worry who has got his Ring? Why would he be in such a hurry? Why would he offer any terms? He could have proceeded methodically, as a good strategist, and sooner or later he would have conquered the West and regained his Ring - because he was far stronger then the West.

It's true, Sauron does worry who has the Ring, to an extent I'd imagine. He believes most creatures to be seriously inferior to him, but it is possible that in Sauron's mind the Ring+Gandalf, the Ring+Galadriel or any other uniquely wise (& immortal) are combinations that would seriously raise the bar for him taking over Middle Earth.

They keyword is good strategist;) The cold calculations of Sauron told him, at the time that he started the war that led to his final doom (events in LOTR), that the time was ripe.
He had discovered through Gollum the wherabouts of the Ring, the House of Kings of Gondor was scattered in the winds, Gondor was weak, Rohan was under the spell of Sarumann, Moria lay dark in the abyss. Things looked very good. And just like Hitler, or Napoleon for that matter (P.S! I'm definitely not saying Sauron is the fictionalization of Hitler, as Tolkien himself has rejected;)), Sauron struck when he felt ready.
It looked a good strategy when he initiated it (Why wait? The fading Elves and the corrupted kingdoms of Men surely couldn't get any much worse than at the time just before the war started). Sauron seemed a good strategist when it began: He would use Sarumann to take care of Rohan and any troublesome traces of resistance, and his own forces of Mordor would wipe out the last remnants of Gondorian rule.
Of course, Sauron knows that not having the Ring is very different from having it. So the Nine ride out to fetch it. I say fetch because Sauron must have thought the task a minor obstacle. The ring being in the hands of a hobbit:rolleyes:

But in the end he miscalculates, and he miscalculates badly. He doesn't understand the deep roots of hope and courage and love among not only Men, but Elves and Dwarves (and Ents!). He doesn't understand, quite ironically, that very small things (pun!:p) can do a great many things.
He thinks he has it all as he makes his moves, but with the help of misfortune, ignorance and an annoyingly omnipresent Wizard things go wrong. Another (I'm really trying to shy away from historical comparison) example is Napoleon's and Hitler's severe ignorance as to the true strength of the Russian motherland. From the outside looking fragile, yet when pressed at its hardest it does not give in but explode:cool:

So to answer why Sauron was in a hurry.. well, I don't think he was. But the time he chose I think he felt was perfectly suitable for his conquest of all Middle Earth. And he chose wrong.

[Jon S.]

He doesn't understand, quite ironically, that very small things (pun!:p) can do a great many things.
I know this is corny, Coffeehouse, but as I read this part of your post, I couldn't help but think, "The Master of Chaos would have benefited from a working understanding of Chaos Theory!" :p

[Coffeehouse]

I know this is corny, Coffeehouse, but as I read this part of your post, I couldn't help but think, "The Master of Chaos would have benefited from a working understanding of Chaos Theory!" :p

Hehe I know:p

I think though that's one of the things Tolkien wanted to show. Despite the pre-destiny of the Ring, seeking its master Sauron, the most random(?) creatures and events take place that send the ring all the way back to Mt. Doom. In his infinite wisdom Sauron forgot to sweep his own doorway, (the ring cleverly smuggled in), before venturing out into the world.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Oh, come on! It is clear, in context, that the intent was not to say others could not utilize the ring but that no one but Sauron could control it. That makes perfect sense to me.

Not at all. You are inferring based on what you know of the story, not based on what was shown in film.

"You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master."

And speaking of inference that isn't film-based, good posts Coffeehouse, but very little of what you say was shown or said in the films; you're inferring in a major way.

[Gordis]

Quite so, DPR.

[Coffeehouse]

Not at all. You are inferring based on what you know of the story, not based on what was shown in film.

"You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master."

And speaking of inference that isn't film-based, good posts Coffeehouse, but very little of what you say was shown or said in the films; you're inferring in a major way.

Actually.. no:)

It's not inferring, it's actually describing
what the movie portays, and I have tried to be
conscious of that in my posts.

Let's see:
1. I write that Gandalf and Galadriel know
the ring is of Sauron's making, hence obeying
no other master.
The movie: Gandalf discovers that it is the One Ring.
Couple that with the intro to the movies, showing the
elves neglecting to use the three rings they received
any more, when discovering that Sauron's ring had
power of the three.
Both the movie portrayal of Gandalf resisting,
and Galadriel resisting, shows an initial willingness
to take the ring.. thus its lure. Both then show
by actions and expressions that, in Galadriel's words
"passed the test". It's a nod to the fact that the
ring, when all comes to all, possesses a fundamental
evil that is bound to Sauron. No one can change it.
I can't remember who spoke this (Gandalf?)
line (I imperfectly remember), "It would be
used out of a want to do good, but through it would
come a wielding of power too terrible to imagine".

2. I write that Sarumann, too, knows the owner of
the ring.
Through his conversation with Gandalf in Orthanc we
learn that Sarumann has in a way, given up. He sees
it as a battle that cannot be won against Sauron,
to stand against Mordor. So he decides to ally himself
with him.
But, there's more to it than a mere bowing to Sauron.
Through Gandalf's observations in the movie we
understand that Sarumann is really a very self-cented,
power-hungry wizard. He has built his base in Orthanc,
and it is not without reason that he builds his very
own, original breed of army, the Uruk Hai. So he isn't
merely copying Sauron.. He may be rivalling him!

3. I answer why I believe the Uruk Hai didn't head
straight to Mordor when having captured the two
hobbits.
The movie: Shows the white mark of Sarumann that the
Uruk Hai wear, shows the scene in Two Towers when
Sarumann and Grima Wormtongue witness the readied
Uruk Hai troops and it is a nod to the peak of Sarumann's
power, that they hail him, in his tower.
Amongst many things, this can be seen as the duality
of competing evils, Sauron in Barad-dur and Sarumann
in Orthanc.

4. I write, "The keyword is good strategist", since
Gordis mentions this.
And I think this is neatly reflected in the movie.
With the build-up to the battle on the Pelennor fields
the movie audience witness a massive outpouring of
soldiers and equipment from Mordor and beyond. It's
a awe-inspiring build-up, meant to show the terrible
odds that Gondor faces.
The self-belief of the Orc general
(can't remember his name), the doomsday warning
of the Witch King as he breaks the staff of Gandalf,
the deafening roar of the troops of Mordor at the gates
of Gondor cast against the madness of the Caretaker
of Gondor, the ill-preparedness of the soldiers in the
city, the stupidity of the Gondorian charge on Ossgiliath
to save it just prior to the battle. It's all to pitch
to us in the audience that Sauron really couldn't
have picked a better time.
The lands of Men look weak and defenseless. And Sauron
believes himself to be so strong, that despite knowing
of the defeat of Sarumann's Uruk Hai at Helms Deep,
he still goes ahead with his battleplan to take Gondor.
It portrays Sauron as an inevitable champion.
But.. he loses, and he does it by miscalculating..
"with the help of misfortune, ignorance and an annoyingly
omnipresent Wizard". And it's all there;)

Lastly,
5. I write, "So to answer why Sauron was in a hurry,
well, I don't think he was."
The movie: Despite losing the battle of the Pelennor
fields Sauron has 10,000+ troops standing in Mordor,
ready to fight, heavily outnumbering all the combined
forces of Men.
He bides his time, and it's only when Aragorn and the
forces of Men show up personally at the Black Gates that
he decides, alright, now I can kill you off.
The movie portays the advent of a crushing defeat
just before Gollum falls into the fires of Mt. Doom
with the ring.

I think this is not inferring. It's precisely what the movie portrays:)

[Jon S.]

Quite so, CH.

[Gordis]

Well, DPR, I am leaving for vacations and entrust the task to defend the point to you.:D
I can only say that I have seen the films in the company of a friend who has never read the books. He didn't understand why everyone lusted for the ring that "answers only to Sauron". It is NOT clear from the film, you have to read the book. :p

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Actually.. no:)

It's not inferring, it's actually describing
what the movie portays, and I have tried to be
conscious of that in my posts.

Let's see:
1. I write that Gandalf and Galadriel know
the ring is of Sauron's making, hence obeying
no other master.
This, too, is an inference. Just because they know who made doesn't mean they know how it works and with whom. Besides that, the inference is wrong (or at variance with the book if you prefer). The Ring most certainly could obey another master and that is why Sauron was afraid Aragorn was wielding it.


The movie: Gandalf discovers that it is the One Ring.
Couple that with the intro to the movies, showing the
elves neglecting to use the three rings they received
any more, when discovering that Sauron's ring had
power of the three.
Both the movie portrayal of Gandalf resisting,
and Galadriel resisting, shows an initial willingness
to take the ring.. thus its lure. Both then show
by actions and expressions that, in Galadriel's words
"passed the test". It's a nod to the fact that the
ring, when all comes to all, possesses a fundamental
evil that is bound to Sauron. No one can change it.
I can't remember who spoke this (Gandalf?)
line (I imperfectly remember), "It would be
used out of a want to do good, but through it would
come a wielding of power too terrible to imagine".
So he could wield it after all.


2. I write that Sarumann, too, knows the owner of
the ring.
Through his conversation with Gandalf in Orthanc we
learn that Sarumann has in a way, given up. He sees
it as a battle that cannot be won against Sauron,
to stand against Mordor. So he decides to ally himself
with him.
This is in the movie version. Correct.

But, there's more to it than a mere bowing to Sauron.
Through Gandalf's observations in the movie we
understand that Sarumann is really a very self-cented,
power-hungry wizard. He has built his base in Orthanc,
and it is not without reason that he builds his very
own, original breed of army, the Uruk Hai. So he isn't
merely copying Sauron.. He may be rivalling him!
Not so. At all. The movie portrays Saruman as being under Sauron's control via the palantir, not working as an independent agent in rival of him.

"He may be rivaling him!" if you have read the books and know that in the original text he was rivaling him. Nothing in the movie (otherwise you'd have quoted/paraphrased it in your post) indicates the rivalry. In fact, quite the opposite is shown:

"<Scene: Isengard. Saruman is in the Chamber of the Palantir. His hand is suspended over the Stone, and a fiery light is in its depths. The eye of Sauron appears within the Palantir>

Saruman: <telepathically> The power of Isengard is at your command, Sauron, Lord of the Earth.

Voice of Sauron: Build me an army worthy of Mordor!

<Saruman is sitting on a chair in one of his chambers, his arms wound about him. He looks haunted. Three orcs file into the room.>

Pink Eye (an orc): What orders from Mordor my Lord? What does the Eye command?

Saruman: We have work to do!"


3. I answer why I believe the Uruk Hai didn't head
straight to Mordor when having captured the two
hobbits.
The movie: Shows the white mark of Sarumann that the
Uruk Hai wear, shows the scene in Two Towers when
Sarumann and Grima Wormtongue witness the readied
Uruk Hai troops and it is a nod to the peak of Sarumann's
power, that they hail him, in his tower.
Amongst many things, this can be seen as the duality
of competing evils, Sauron in Barad-dur and Sarumann
in Orthanc.
#3 follows #2. There is no competition expressed or implied.
#s 4 and 5, I'll save for later (or for someone else).

[Coffeehouse]

This, too, is an inference. Just because they know who made doesn't mean they know how it works and with whom. Besides that, the inference is wrong (or at variance with the book if you prefer). The Ring most certainly could obey another master and that is why Sauron was afraid Aragorn was wielding it.

There is quite a difference in, and if I didn't make that clear I'll spell it out now:), in a the-ring-obeys-the-one-who-wears-it and the magic of the ring that is forever bound to Sauron. This magic is, at its most basic, a force of surviving, which influences whoever uses the ring.
It is made clear that Isildur like Gollum like Bilbo like Frodo may use the ring, and be its master, the ring giving them invisibility whenever they put on the ring.
In that respect, and like Sauron fears Aragorn would get hold of the ring, there is a servitude inherent in the life of the ring. It is after all a ring. And so much is clear in the movie as well.
But, the ever-lasting obedience that the ring serves for Sauron is exclusive. He is it's maker, as the movie introduces, and no one else can claim to be completely in control of it. The first way the movie displays this is how the ring deceives its first master after Sauron, Isildur.. by slipping off his finger when he needed it the most. The ring is on a journey.. back to its owner, Sauron.
The only thing, (and here chance and the randomness of life, of which Sauron cannot be the master) that was not meant to happen was the ring falling into the hands of Bilbo. An unexpected turn in the ring's plans for an eventual reunification with its master.
Suma sumarum: The ring obeys whoever uses it. But at the same time it obeys Sauron. It tries to reach Sauron, but it cannot force the issue. But it tries, and it nearly succeeded at Weathertop, or in the Inn of the Prancing Pony, or amidst the ruins of Ossgiliath.. all scenes in the movie, all scenes meant to show how the ring tries and tries, but in the end fails its true master. It fails for many reasons, but there is one reason that stands out, which the movie, true to the book, shows in crystal clearness: The unpredictable ways of hobbits.;)


So he could wield it after all.

Read above answer. And no one is denying he could wield it.


Not so. At all. The movie portrays Saruman as being under Sauron's control via the palantir, not working as an independent agent in rival of him.

I did not argue that Sarumann works independently of Sauron. At all.
Rather the case is twofold. Yes Sarumann offers an alliance, and his resources and forces at Orthanc to Sauron's disposal. He uses the Palantir to communicate with Sauron, and he has obviously fallen under the influence of Mordor.
But there is more to it than a mere master-slave relationship. And the evidence lies in the movie just like the book.
Sarumann chooses not to use Mordor orcs for his pillaging of Rohan and for getting the hobbits. He produces his own, Sarumann-branded army. In the movie we see the Uruk Hai exclaim then name Sarumann in obedience, not Sauron or Mordor. They refer to their master Sarumann. They wear the white mark of Sarumann. They are encouraged to kill off the Men of Rohan not as a gesture of obedience to the power in Mordor, but in servitude of... Sarumann.
They even show up in 10,000+ numbers in square formations at the doorsteps of Orthanc, shouting in honour of Sarumann, making war on his behalf.
So I think it's quite clear, and just like the passionate Tolkien-fan Peter Jackson is, that he wants to show a two-fold relationship (he even discusses this in a DVD documentary about the many meanings of the name Two Towers) in Sarumann-Sauron: The servitude of the wizard Sarumann to the evil Lord of Darkness Sauron, but also a lust for the ring, for the power and glory of the ring, of winning a war, in the actions of Sarumann.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

There is quite a difference in, and if I didn't make that clear I'll spell it out now:), in a the-ring-obeys-the-one-who-wears-it and the magic of the ring that is forever bound to Sauron. This magic is, at its most basic, a force of surviving, which influences whoever uses the ring.
It is made clear that Isildur like Gollum like Bilbo like Frodo may use the ring, and be its master, the ring giving them invisibility whenever they put on the ring.
In that respect, and like Sauron fears Aragorn would get hold of the ring, there is a servitude inherent in the life of the ring. It is after all a ring. And so much is clear in the movie as well.
Which scene(s) show anyone at all mastering the use of The Ring? It makes people invisible whether they want to be or not; that's not mastery and it's not wielding The Ring. On the other hand, every time Frodo puts it on, he's cowed by Sauron and powerless to do anything. Again, that's neither mastery nor wielding of The Ring.

The movie does not show that anyone could wield The Ring. In fact, the opposite is shown.

But, the ever-lasting obedience that the ring serves for Sauron is exclusive. He is it's maker, as the movie introduces, and no one else can claim to be completely in control of it. The first way the movie displays this is how the ring deceives its first master after Sauron, Isildur.. by slipping off his finger when he needed it the most. The ring is on a journey.. back to its owner, Sauron.
The only thing, (and here chance and the randomness of life, of which Sauron cannot be the master) that was not meant to happen was the ring falling into the hands of Bilbo. An unexpected turn in the ring's plans for an eventual reunification with its master.
All true but there is no way for any of the characters to possibly know that. Yet, they act as if they do.

Suma sumarum: The ring obeys whoever uses it.
Not in the movie, it doesn't.

But at the same time it obeys Sauron. It tries to reach Sauron, but it cannot force the issue. But it tries, and it nearly succeeded at Weathertop, or in the Inn of the Prancing Pony, or amidst the ruins of Ossgiliath.. all scenes in the movie, all scenes meant to show how the ring tries and tries, but in the end fails its true master. It fails for many reasons, but there is one reason that stands out, which the movie, true to the book, shows in crystal clearness: The unpredictable ways of hobbits.;)
Yeah.

Read above answer. And no one is denying he could wield it.

"You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master." ~Aragorn


I did not argue that Sarumann works independently of Sauron. At all.
Rather the case is twofold. Yes Sarumann offers an alliance, and his resources and forces at Orthanc to Sauron's disposal. He uses the Palantir to communicate with Sauron, and he has obviously fallen under the influence of Mordor.
But there is more to it than a mere master-slave relationship. And the evidence lies in the movie just like the book.
Sarumann chooses not to use Mordor orcs for his pillaging of Rohan and for getting the hobbits. He produces his own, Sarumann-branded army. In the movie we see the Uruk Hai exclaim then name Sarumann in obedience, not Sauron or Mordor. They refer to their master Sarumann. They wear the white mark of Sarumann. They are encouraged to kill off the Men of Rohan not as a gesture of obedience to the power in Mordor, but in servitude of... Sarumann.
They even show up in 10,000+ numbers in square formations at the doorsteps of Orthanc, shouting in honour of Sarumann, making war on his behalf.
So I think it's quite clear, and just like the passionate Tolkien-fan Peter Jackson is, that he wants to show a two-fold relationship (he even discusses this in a DVD documentary about the many meanings of the name Two Towers) in Sarumann-Sauron: The servitude of the wizard Sarumann to the evil Lord of Darkness Sauron, but also a lust for the ring, for the power and glory of the ring, of winning a war, in the actions of Sarumann.
And the Morgul orcs wore their own symbol and answered to the Witch King. Was he a rebel against Sauron, too? You are still WAY over-exaggerating the meaning of what we saw in the film in order to make it coincide with the book.

I've had this argument way too many times. :(

[Coffeehouse]

Which scene(s) show anyone at all mastering the use of The Ring? It makes people invisible whether they want to be or not; that's not mastery and it's not wielding The Ring. On the other hand, every time Frodo puts it on, he's cowed by Sauron and powerless to do anything. Again, that's neither mastery nor wielding of The Ring.

No, no, unless you want to discuss semantics. We can talk about wielding a ring, as in using it, or we can talk about a "higher" definition, where wielding is to exert considerable influence.

1. to handle or use (a weapon or tool)
2. to exert or maintain (power or influence)

The ring does not make them invisible whether they want to or not. They choose to wear the ring when they want to. They use it to serve their means, just like Gollum was wielding the ring for so long, catching fish, eluding enemies and strangling goblins in the abyss of Moria.

The first person to get hold of the ring was Isildur and he meant to wield the ring as a means to become powerful. He felt a lust towards it. Though he did not get to spend much time with it..

Besides Isildur, only Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo are the owners of it at different times. By default this would exclude any intelligent mad-man wielding of power because none of these creatures crave such power.
But there are those who do.
Everyone from Gandalf to Galadriel to Boromir show in the movie want to use it (although with entirely different motives) to the purpose of wielding great power (in Boromir's case on behalf of his father). Sarumann too knows the power of the ring and craves such power. He sends his pack of Uruk Hai to obtain it, ordering it to be sent to him in Orthanc.

But let's not forget what we were discussing. No one denies that the type of wielding of the ring that Sauron exerts cannot be replicated by anyone else. Naturally.
We were however discussing the claim that PJ's movie shows that no one can USE it;)
It's quite obvious that no one can exert complete control over the ring, but there are those that are more prone to be successul than others (like Gandalf or Galadriel or Sarumann or even Aragorn)


All true but there is no way for any of the characters to possibly know that. Yet, they act as if they do..

You forget yourself;) All the users of the ring, including the Fellowship of the Ring, are presented to them why they really cannot claim to be in complete control of the ring. The most obvious example is the meeting in Rivendell when Gimli and Boromir and Legolas and Frodo and Sam and Gandalf and Elrond, etc physically witness the evil of the ring, how darkness engulfs the meeting when the words of Mordor engraved on the ring are uttered by Gandalf.


And the Morgul orcs wore their own symbol and answered to the Witch King. Was he a rebel against Sauron, too? You are still WAY over-exaggerating the meaning of what we saw in the film in order to make it coincide with the book.

The Morgul orcs displayed only the sort of military obedience that would be expected by the Witch-King, being the highest ranking commander on the fields of Pelennor. Goes without a saying;)

[Jon S.]

Denethor and Boromir certainly thought they could successfully wield the ring (good thing for everyone involved that they never got the chance). Just sayin'.

[Jon S.]

It crosses my mind, a couple of hours later, that perhaps this could serve as a useful partial analogy that most people can understand. Consider this rifle, the heaviest (weight-wise) in the US Marine Corp's diverse arsenal at the time:

Designation: M214
Weapon type: Heavy-duty squad automatic weapon/minigun
Ammunition: 5.56 x 45mm HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing)**
Overview: The M214 is the heaviest automatic assault weapon in the Marines’ arsenal. With six barrels and selectable rates of fire from 400 to 4,000 rounds per minute, the weapon easily destroys soft and lightly-armored targets. The HEAP ammunition is designed to penetrate its target before detonating, and is stored in a 1,000-round backpack worn by the operator. The M214 requires skill and strength to use properly, as its weight, bulk and exceptional recoil make it difficult to maneuver. Though it boasts the highest cyclic rate of all USCM infantry weapons, its rate of fire is reduced to approximately 1,200 rounds per minute when carried.6 A tripod mounting system restores its full capability, but limits the operator to a fixed position when in use.

Most of us could not "wield" this weapon. Oh, sure, some of us could pick it up and most of us could cause it to fire whether held or propped. However, we would not want to depend on the weapon in those circumstances as we would lack the sheer physical power and mental acumen to wield it effectively.

And before you start screaming, "The analogy is imperfect!," re-read my opening sentence carefully. The analogy is not that the M214 was specifically designed to match the physical and mental specs of just one user. It is that it takes a user with the appropriate physical and mental specs to properly wield it.

[Coffeehouse]

Well to those who have troubles understanding the whole wielding of the ring after this analogy then it probably never is going to happen (understanding it;)).

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

So now people who think Jackson did a crappy job portraying what Tolkien really intended in his book "have troubles understanding the whole wielding of the ring." Gotcha. It isn't an opinion, it's a mental deficiency. Thanks for the diagnosis. ;)

[Jon S.]

That's not at all what was said or meant. Let's move on.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Hey, I winked [ ;) ]. It's all good.

[Jon S.]

Sorry. :o (I'm "caffienated" now.)

[Coffeehouse]

So now people who think Jackson did a crappy job portraying what Tolkien really intended in his book "have troubles understanding the whole wielding of the ring." Gotcha. It isn't an opinion, it's a mental deficiency. Thanks for the diagnosis. ;)

Wow lol... Must have hit a soft spot:rolleyes:

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Hey, you calling me soft? :mad:

:p

[Jon S.]

Lol! :D

[Jon S.]

I do wish there were a bit more traffic on this site. :(

I guess there's only so much we can say about anything!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I do wish there were a bit more traffic on this site. :(

I guess there's only so much we can say about anything!And it's no fun to talk when only the righteous will be saved. ;)

[Earniel]

The side-discussion about Elven Ears has been moved here. (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=14834)

[Finarfin-1]

Just wanted to say,
As someone who read all the core books and several of the "secondary" books I just wanted to say that while the movies have some pretty significant flaws, abbreviate several important parts of the story to the point of insult (the removal of Saruman attacking the Shire bugging me the most), and the annoying nature of some of Arwen and Aragorn's "Will I, Won't I" meandering moments, I think that overall they're very entertaining and well done in many ways.

[Coffeehouse]

I think though it would have been fitting to include the meeting with Gildor and the High Elves, together with the journey they make towards Buckland, hitting upon Farmer Maggot's house (an not being chased away! like in the movies;)), and with the nightly ride to the Brandywine river and the crossing they make in the mist of the night. That would have been pretty cool since that part of the journey is oddly enough my favorite part:p

One thing PJ did get right though, which he has been criticized for, but a thing I found ironically enough is quite true to the character, is that of Pippin.
F.ex. this part from when Frodo, Sam and Pippin have just woken up in the leafy, secure place under the trees where they met Gildor and the High Elves the night before. And PJ has been criticized for portraying Pippin as too much the comic relief, when really that's actually pretty right-on;) Some of his comments in the book just makes you laugh!
I only have the book in Norwegian here and now so I'll quote it and translate it as well as I can manage:p

Sam satt på gresset i skogkanten. Pippin sto og studerte himmelen og været. Det var ikke tegn til alvene.
"De har lagt igjen frukt og drikke og brød," sa Pippin. "Kom og spis frokost. Brødet smaker nesten like godt som i går kveld. Jeg hadde ikke tenkt å la det bli igjen noe til deg, men Sam insisterte."
- Sam sat on the grass by the edge of the forest. Pippin was standing, watching the skies and the weather. There was no sign of the elves.
"They have left us fruit and beverage and bread," said Pippin. "Come and eat breakfast. The bread tastes almost as good as it did last night. I hadn't intended to leave anything to you, but Sam insisted."

[...]

"I så fall er jeg sikker på at Gildor ville nektet å si noe om det," sa Frodo skarpt. "La meg nå være litt i fred! Jeg vil ikke svare på en masse spørsmål mens jeg spiser. Jeg må tenke!"
"Du store allverden," sa Pippin. "Til frokost?" Han gikk sin vei mot skogkanten.
- "In that case I am sure Gildor would have refused to speak of it," Frodo uttered sharply. "Let me be at peace! I don't want to answer a bunch of questions while I am eating. I need to think!"
"My word," said Pippin. "During breakfast?" He walked away towards the edge of the forest.

[...]

"Er alt klart til start?" sa han da Pippin kom springende. "Vi må i vei med det samme. Vi har sovet for lenge, og det er langt å gå."
"Du har sovet for lenge, mener du vel," sa Pippin. "Jeg var oppe for lenge siden, og vi venter bare på at du skal bli ferdig med å spise og tenke."
- "Is everything ready?" he [Frodo] said when Pippin came running. "We have to be on our way at once. We've slept for too long, and there's a long walk ahead."
"You have slept too long I think you mean to say, " said Pippin. "I woke up ages ago, and we're just waiting for you to finish eating and thinking."

:D

[Zilbanne]

I like the fact the the movies will bring Tolkien's ideas and stories at least to some extent to those who will never read his books. I did enjoy the movies and accept that there must be many cinematic changes to bring the books to screen. It irks me too as some others have said in this discussion that Faramir's motivations and character was changed so much!

[Kennashi]

I rather liked Faramir's changes...it actually showed for once that no one was immune to the ring, even the so-called "righteous" counterpart of Boromir.

[vgoodgion@hotmail.com]

umm..
fit a great book into three hours
you have a year and 100 mill. get back to me then

[vgoodgion@hotmail.com]

I rather liked Faramir's changes...it actually showed for once that no one was immune to the ring, even the so-called "righteous" counterpart of Boromir.

i rather think faramir is a brat in the movies. i like him better in the books

[Jon S.]

I LIKE the Faramir of the Book better in some ways but I find the Faramir of the movie far MORE REAL.

[Grey_Wolf]

It might be that the change showed him to more human but it also was a blatant example of the meddling in the story by PJ.

[jammi567]

I much prefer the film Faramir, simply because it didn't make him above coruption and all the impurities in life. I mean, even Aaragorn was tempted for a moment!

[Gordis]

PJ and Philippa obviously thought Tolkien characters to be too "flat" - so they decided to remedy to it, "improving" the story. Now we have Hamlet-like Aragorn constantly undecided "to be or not to be ... King" and a matching Arwen who muses on "to sail or not to sail". :p

As for Faramir, he came out as a weakling - always so. His final decision to let hobbits go is left absolutely unexplained. It is not the result of the integrity of his character as it should have been, but just another whim. "Well I better take these two to Daddy... Nay, I better let them go... Yea, dad, if you command, I will go get killed - with all my knights." And at the end he smiles at Eowyn shyly and undecidedly like a poor lost puppy he is.

But what happens when PJ portrays a character that is NOT flat in the books - psychologically complex , brilliant characters like Denethor (and Saruman)? Why, he MAKES them flat! Who can be flatter that PJ's Denethor? Is he a man "in whom the blood of the Westernesse runs almost true?" No way. It looks like he was born a base evil madman and was never taught table manners to boot. Strange he has got more or less fine sons...doesn't agree with genetics.:p

And, could someone, please, explain to me, WHY in Osgiliath movie-Faramir let Frodo and Sam go free after witnessing how Frodo in a trance offered the Ring to a Ringwraith and then nearly killed his companion? :confused:
Normally Faramir, witnessing such strange behavior, would have been morally obliged to put Frodo somewhere safe - in a deep dungeon or in a fortified mental hospital. Instead, Faramir suddenly decided to let Frodo go free in the direction of the "Witch-King's lair" - so that he could offer the Ring to the Nazgul unhindered, when next they meet:p

[Coffeehouse]

But what happens when PJ portrays a character that is NOT flat in the books

I strongly disagree with that interpretation because it rests on the premise that most of Tolkien's characters were not 'flatly' portrayed in the books, while, in fact, they were. But that does not mean that flat characters ruins the books. I'll come back to that point later.

For of all Tolkien's brilliant storywriting he portayed no genious for character-depth. When it came to real-life believable, complex characters the peoples in LOTR fall short a good many times. There is little depth, a tendency of flatness, in Tolkien's characters. In fact I'll go as far as to say that the only character in the LOTR books that showed real depth of character was Frodo, whom ironically is one of the least successful portrayals in the LOTR-movies. Elijah Wood does an okay job, but there could have been other actors to starr in that role with more to contribute.

Whether Tolkien is intentionally shallow with his characters or not is hard to tell, but I believe that such a massive and multilayered story that LOTR is, with many, many characters, would simply become boring and winding to the readers if Tolkien had gone ahead with more colorful, diverse characterizations. The story is meant as a grand story. An epic. It probably wouldn't work.

[Gordis]

You call book-Denethor flat? :eek: Saruman? Boromir?

[Coffeehouse]

In the realm of literature my friend, none of these characters are particularly colorfully portrayed, nor are they especially deep.

[Gordis]

*shrugs*

[Coffeehouse]

Lol:)

[jammi567]

In the realm of literature my friend, none of these characters are particularly colorfully portrayed, nor are they especially deep.

Tolkien certainly was more of a plot writer, rather then a character one. But if you go too far the other way, you get stories like the Harry Potter series.

[Coffeehouse]

Tolkien certainly was more of a plot writer, rather then a character one. But if you go too far the other way, you get stories like the Harry Potter series.

You mean as in more in the direction of character-depth?

I actually like the way characters are portrayed in Harry Potter. J.K. Rawling certainly is talented.

The Harry Potter movies do however, as opposed to the LOTR-movies in my opinion, portray more flat characters than is the case of the books, and that's one reason why I'm disappointed with a few of the HP-movies:rolleyes:

[jammi567]

You mean as in more in the direction of character-depth?

I actually like the way characters are portrayed in Harry Potter. J.K. Rawling certainly is talented.

Yes.

But look what happened to the overall plot. It was weak and glaringly inconsistant.

[Coffeehouse]

Yes.

But look what happened to the overall plot. It was weak and glaringly inconsistant.

A few times yes, but it didnt really bother my pleasure of reading the story:)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

There are more ways to portray depth than just describing a character's inner thoughts and motivations. Tolkien's characters were plenty deep enough via their actions and spoken words.

Besides, depth is overrated. Most real people aren't all that deep. We're pretty much who you see. You are what you do. The pop psych stuff many writers and filmmakers inject into their characters and stories is often unnecessary filler.

A writer's rule of thumb should be: show, don't tell.

[Ant]

Hey all. Im a new poster here but long time reader.

My views on the movie I imagine are nothing new, but what the hey, still gonna post em.

For me the movie was a darn good effort at reproducing Tolkiens works in movie form. And the term 'movie-form' is the key issue here. The books could never be reproduced in moie form and remain entirely true to the tale. PJ obviously wanted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible, kids and adults and yet remain as true as possible to the books so as not to piss off all of us hardcore book fans. Quite clearly he could never keep us all entirely happy and many of us would be annoyed at differing parts of the movies.

The LOTR's could be said to be based on ethics that are not as prominent or as well defined as they used to be. Morals, courtesy, fellowship (fellowship..who would use that word in todays society?) valiantry, loyalty. These are all words that we can see today, but the meaning is not what it was back when Tolkien wrote the LOTRs. And so these terms and ideals, as well as the book itself, would need to be adapted to suit modern times. Let's not forget, PJ wanted to make money. I would imagine that that was his greatest motivation. In fact, if I recall, PJ had not actually read the books before the idea of the movie was raised. I certainly don't think that he wanted to make Tolkiens great works (in my opinion, the greatest fictionary work of all time) known to the 'youth of today' or people that were not aware of it.

Ok, I could yack on like that forever. Things that annoy me about the movies...

As one person has said, the Hollywood feel. Forget the fact its made in NZ. That's irrelevant. The movie is Hollywood through and through. Look at Arwen and the raising of the river that 'destroys' the nazgul. If you're gonna pay a hot gal like Liv Tyler a crap load o' cash, you gotta give her somthing to do. Glorfindel was a great character. An elf lord. One of the few that can actually withstand the Nazgul (though not all 9 gathered together) yet he was omitted. Why? To sex up the movie of course, and to get the moneys worth out of Liv Tyler. Much better to have her stand across the river and to cast her silly spell, than to have Glorfindel and his great horse outrun the Nazgul and to have Elrond raise the river and Gandalf -with his flair for the dramatic- add the horses for nothing more than aethstical purposes. Movie watchers need to have women in the books and the corny romances, which is also why the entire droning dream scenarios keep popping up all over the place. Remember, LOTRs has very few women in it, and they do very little in the sense of action.

On the point of sexing up, look at Aragorn. He's meant to be ugly of course. Or at least very rough looking. Instead PJ gives us the shiney actor whos name escapes me. All of the hair flicking, the lovely camera angles, the photo shots as he looks over his shoulder and smiles. Makes me shudder. And his falling over the cliff is also vital to our modern day cinema. It's meant to add some cliffhangers (pardon the pun)..to keep us on the edge of our seats. To give Eowyn a chance to cry and all that crap. Im pretty sure even had I never read the books that id have known he wasnt really dead, so poor was the delivery of the drivel we had to endure.

Another matter of great annoyance is the swiftly fading terror of the Nazgul. by the third survived encounter with these dreaded ring-wraiths, i'd imagine that even the youngest and nerviest of kids watching would have not been afraid. Far too many close encounters with them. Far too many unharmed escapes. For me PJ came nowhere near to capturing the utter terror that is meant to shroud the Nazgul.

There's a great many cinematic errors too. Watch the Two Towers, the scene after the Rohirim have slain the orcs and Aragorn is reading what came next. The part where he traces the hobbits to the edge of Fangron...the mighty forest that they hadnt even noticed looming over them. Makes me chuckle.

I've typed for ages! I will maybe type some more later. There is a great many issues i'd bring up. But...having said that, I repeat what I said at the beginning...

A great effort of a movie. As one poster brilliantly put earlier: I just mentally hold my breath through these things.

(edited to fix a few spelling errors)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'll just respond to one of the things mentioned in the above post: the quickly diminishing fear inspired by the Nazgul.

In addition to showing them too often, PJ showed them WAY too early and WAY too clearly. We're much more afraid of the unknown than what we can see.

[Jon S.]

And, could someone, please, explain to me, WHY in Osgiliath movie-Faramir let Frodo and Sam go free after witnessing how Frodo in a trance offered the Ring to a Ringwraith and then nearly killed his companion? :confused:
Normally Faramir, witnessing such strange behavior, would have been morally obliged to put Frodo somewhere safe - in a deep dungeon or in a fortified mental hospital. Instead, Faramir suddenly decided to let Frodo go free in the direction of the "Witch-King's lair" - so that he could offer the Ring to the Nazgul unhindered, when next they meet:p
http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

This article focuses on the changes in Faramir rather than why he let the Hobbits go after witnessing the impact of the Nazgul's arrival on them. As for the latter, this is not rocket science, my friends. The scene with the Nazgul reinforced to Faramir the impacts of the Ring on its holder, including succeptibility to the Nazgul who where there at the time specifically due to being attracted by the armies and battle. This outcome was one more nail in the coffin of any further thought on Faramir's part of transporting the Ring to his father in the capital city. Far better to let it be carried off alone by the Hobbits.

Was it a poor decision? Based on the end results and outcome, it was anything but.

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you underestimate Gordis, Jon, and overestimate Peter Jackson. Prejudice works both ways.

I'm someone who actually liked the movies when they came out because I watched them for enjoyment without a lot of analysis or comparison to the canon. I saw Fellowship of the Ring EIGHT TIMES at the theater. But the movies, even as movies disregarding their relationthip to Tolkien, got progressively worse as the series went on. Then, upon reflection, study, and comparison to Tolkien's canon the flaws began to stand out as more and more egregious. Realizing that most of the flaws were not necessary but just added in for adolescent coolness factor only made it worse.

I don't abhor these films. I own the DVDs, both theatrical and extended editions. But I don't blind myself to their blatant weaknesses just because they say Lord of the Rings on them.

As I said, I think prejudice can work both ways when it comes to evaluation of these films.

Besides, this thread is for criticism of the films. I don't think it is productive to defend them here or to "attack the messenger" as it were.

[Earniel]

Gordis, I think your difficulties with this (and other) parts of the movie are not due to them not making internal-to-the-movie sense. It's because your prejudiced - you've decided the movies suck, PJ's changes are lousy, and with due respect, it seems to me that when you approach the changes from this mindset you're setting yourself up to routinely fall somewhere between "I don't understand" and "I can't stand ..."
Come now, Jon, let's not resort to calling everyone who's critical of the movies prejudiced. I too didn't think much of the way Faramir's decisions were handled in the movie. I can understand and see the reasoning you gave. But just because I still find it weak and that it could have been better handled differently, doesn't make me or anyone else prejudiced against it.

Surely one can find something flawed without this being due to an inflexibility of mind.

[Jon S.]

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

[Earniel]

No harm done. :) (Or did you just accuse us of being too sensitive? :p)

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions.
I won't deny that. In that view it will be interesting to see how the Hobbit movie will be received, since it'll have another man at the helm.

[Coffeehouse]

I spend far more time on musicians forums where the banter is rougher and folks less sensitive. I usually adjust to the prevailing mode upon returning here, this time apparently less so, and I recognize that "prejudice" is a loaded word in our culture. My apologies.

This being said, adopting an overall negative view of a director can color one's case-specific judgments on his decisions. I do see this here but will henceforth find a gentler way to express it and/or not post. Thanks.

Hehe well Jon.. I share your sentiment (definitely on adopting an overall negative view of a director, no matter what..). I coin it OTDFETUFD... Obsessive Tunnel-vision Detail Fixation & Excessive Time Utilization Forum Disorder:)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I don't know. I kind of liked that ghost movie with Michael J. Fox in it. The material was clearly more suited to Jackson's abilities and I think he did a good job with it.

[Gordis]

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

[mithrand1r]

I certainly wasn't prejudiced against PJ when I went to see the "Fellowship". I simply knew nothing about him and didn't care at all what he looked like or what other films he had directed. I simply wanted to see Tolkien's book on screen and hoped it would be good.

But then, watching this "masterpiece" I couldn't help to judge: the film AND the director. The Fellowship was bad enough, but I really didn't undersand how awful it could get before I saw the TT and ROTK and worst of all, the extended ROTK.

Especially grievious is that it were only the director and the scriptwriter who did the loosy job. Props, in contrast, were wonderful. I pity all these costume designers and weapon-makers and the computer guys who made such a wonderful Gollum and nice Fell-beasts - they deserved to work for a better film.

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.

From there, IMHO, more and more problems (for me) entered the film.

I expected differences between book and movie.

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen.

(somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)

Overall, I enjoyed watching the films, but it could have been so much better with the resources available. Separated from the books, the films are not bad. When I consider them as adaptations of the books, I think the films fail at this attempt. At best a C.

http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=588490&postcount=21

[Gordis]

I thought the Props, music, locals used, costumes and special effects were well done.
Props were very good.
Music was good, IMO, but here I am a poor judge. Yet, I think some scenes would look better with less loud music. Silence is a great addition to horror scenes.
Locals - good, except Rohan (can't imagine horses enjoying these rocky barren lands) and the ridiculous beacons set upon mountain tops of the Hithaeglir.:rolleyes:
Costumes were good, except for the nazgul. I can understand why the poor Nine had donned such trashy old robes with frayed edges while on a secret mission, but why in Angband the WK wears the same old cloak at the Pelennor is beyond my understanding. And his helmet... Why not take the old-fashioned steel crown?

Special effects were good in FOTR and I think in TT, but not in ROTK. I hated these unrealistic catapults throwing pieces of masonery huge enough to kill a mumak and breaking walls of Minas Tirith like those of a sand castle.

In fact FOTR was (except for pippin and merry) very good upto Bree.
Even Bree was not that bad. I started to feel sickened only after the wizard kung-fu fight and the ridiculous setting the nazgul on fire at Weathertop. Arwen scratching Aragorn's throat with her sword and muttering spells at the Ford didn't help either. And then I saw Elrond - and that was the end for me. HOW could they choose such an actor for Elrond????

I expected differences between book and movie.
As did I. I am fine with no Tom, no Barrows etc. But why such unnecessary additions and long and boring fights?

Considering the amount of source material available, I did not expect the movie to need to add material which did not IMO help the story move along.
(This was also annoying since I heard PJ&Co say how you cannot fit everything into 3hr long films, yet they added at least 30-60 minutes of material into each of these films)
I second that.

Boromir was one character that I thought the movie improved upon. It made him seem more noble, real and understandable to me than he was in the book.
He was OK. Only why not give him and Faramir dark wigs? Strawberry blondes among the Dunedain... hmm.

Faramir and Aragorn were not the same characters that I knew from the book.
I didn't like them either, esp. Faramir, but I am cool with them. Denethor's portrayal, in contrast, makes me spit and swear.

The Ents seemed inconsistent to me. (even if you only use the film material)
Never cared about them much anyway...

The battle scenes were done well (mostly) and ok to watch, but I could have lived with shorter battle scenes if it meant that the book could have been better adapted onto the screen. (somewhat ironic since Tolkien spent relatively few pages when describing battles, yet battles take a relatively large portion of the movies.)
So much time wasted on that and Aragorn-Arwen additions that could have been used for something vital.


As a matter of fact, the whole battle of Helm's Deep could have been omitted saving the time for the principal scenes: the Parley with Saruman, Gandalf and WK at the Gate, Houses of Healing, Mordor scenes etc.

[mithrand1r]

I didn't like them either, esp. Faramir, but I am cool with them. Denethor's portrayal, in contrast, makes me spit and swear.

I must have blocked my memory. Denethor was a hatchet job. In the book he was much more noble. Unfortunately the strain finally over took him and he went mad with dispair. In the movie, he appeared to be a madman. Sauron may have been an improvement. ;)

So much time wasted on that and Aragorn-Arwen additions that could have been used for something vital.

Agreed.


As a matter of fact, the whole battle of Helm's Deep could have been omitted saving the time for the principal scenes: the Parley with Saruman, Gandalf and WK at the Gate, Houses of Healing, Mordor scenes etc.

Not a bad idea. I could have lived without the olympic torch orc. ;)

Bree was a bit darker for my tastes, but I could live with it.

Dark wigs? not a bad thought, but wrong hair color is minor compared to some of the portrayals in the movie. Although this is a minor issue that could have been corrected with little effort.

Regarding battle scenes from ROTK. What about the scrubbing bubbles (army of dead)? They really cleaned up the battlefield of enemies. ;)

Regarding Rohan: Never considered what horses would like. Makes some sense though.

[Gordis]

Although this is a minor issue that could have been corrected with little effort.
This is exactly what bugs me here. Such a minor thing, so easily done right - why had PJ change the brother's hair color? Because he knew better than Tolkien? Here he can't argue the lack of screen time, necessity to "enrich" the character etc.
Same with tomatoes everywhere (Weathertop, Denethor's scene). Tolkien expressly objected to tomatoes in ME in his letters. It is as if PJ inserted them just to spite the late Professor. What - couldn't he find some other vegetable or fruit for Denethor to make a mess with?

What about the scrubbing bubbles (army of dead)? They really cleaned up the battlefield of enemies. ;)
Silly, disgusting, fake. Everyone was cheated of glory by some green jelley: Aragorn, Eomer, the soldiers of Gondor, even the valliant enemy. Why had all these Gondorians and Rohirrim to die? Only because Aragorn brought the jelley a bit too late?
It had to be a Great victory of Men led by the King Returned and the King of Rohan brought back to light from the Shadow. What is it in the movie? -It is the victory of supernatural forces over some orcs. And PJ claims to remain true to the spirit of the book.:(

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Now we're back on topic. :D

I am in agreement with most of the last series of posts.

The top annoyance for me is the 30-60 minutes of invented material that adds nothing to the film except time while taking away from Tolkien's story. THEN, PJ has the gall to try to explain leaving out so much of the original because of time constraints.

No wait. That's my second to the top annoyance. Top is the changing of the characters' personalities in almost every character.

Like Gordis, I'm fine with no Bombadil or Barrow Downs.
I'm fine with the props, casting, and effects.
Even the NZ location doesn't bother me too much, though they could have done more to make it look bigger and fit Middle Earth better.

Almost every gripe I have personally, and have seen expressed by others, comes down to two things: screenplay and direction.

I don't think that's coincidence.

[Earniel]

This is exactly what bugs me here. Such a minor thing, so easily done right - why had PJ change the brother's hair color? Because he knew better than Tolkien? Here he can't argue the lack of screen time, necessity to "enrich" the character etc.
It has puzzled me also. And surely it was due to wig-shortage, after all, about every male Elf in the movie is equiped with one.

[Ant]

I hate the balrog too! The Balrog is NOT some 20' huge winged demon. He looks awsome sure, but not for LOTR's. It's simply another thing added to appeal to kids and to jazz things up. The makers of the movie clearly dont know how to make something scarey without it being some 'in your face' monster (see my point on Nazguls earlier). I prefered the quiet frightfulness that Tolkien grasped so well.

I hate the orcs. Thats not how I pictured them at all.

Irish hobbit....scottish dwarf. Blegh.

If ya gonna get Liv Tyler in a movie......ya gotta give her a nudey scene *nods* It wouldn't have been with the feel of the movie, but what the heck. He added a load of crap...I coulda forgiven him had we had a nudey Liv. (Oh...and Galadriel too)

[Gordis]

If ya gonna get Liv Tyler in a movie......ya gotta give her a nudey scene *nods* It wouldn't have been with the feel of the movie, but what the heck. He added a load of crap...I coulda forgiven him had we had a nudey Liv. (Oh...and Galadriel too)

[stern voice]You can't have nude Liv and Glad. It is against the spirit of the books.[/stern voice]
At best you can have some nude hobbits in the bath and a nude Gandalf on Caradhras.:eek:

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not to get too far off topic here but I wonder whether there is some reason none of the non-Hobbit women seemed to sport anything more than an A-cup. I wonder if Fran Walsh forbade PJ from casting any women with anything but a boyish figure. Certainly Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are beautiful but neither are anything approaching full-figured.

Now that I re-evaluate the title of the thread, I don't suppose I'm off-topic after all. Another flaw in the movie is not enough full-figured women. :p

[Gordis]

Not to get too far off topic here but I wonder whether there is some reason none of the non-Hobbit women seemed to sport anything more than an A-cup. I wonder if Fran Walsh forbade PJ from casting any women with anything but a boyish figure. Certainly Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are beautiful but neither are anything approaching full-figured.

I think Tolkien always described Elf women as willowy - though I am not sure.

As for Eowyn, she could hardly pass for a man if she had D-cups.:D
Merry at least should have felt them.;)

Eowyn (http://wizardsofur.blogspot.com/2008/03/eowyn-gets-color-treatment.html)

[feawen]

As a fuller figured woman i guess with the above post! why is middle earth filled with boyish hobbit woman and stunning thin flat chested elves? where are all the normal beauties? Inner beauty! Surely the books taught us to not judge by appearances, if a humble hobbit can save the world surely an average looking women exists in middle earth!

so anyway rant over! I am sure you're gone over the whole elves in Helms deep. But my it gets on my wick! It never happened! What did it being to the whole thing? Nothing it being nothing expect from death elves. If you wanted to show that the war was going on in other places stick Legolas on a wall have him look towards home and say people are fighting, just like the books!

Oh and now im started, where was the scoring of the shire. Make a big point that the world will never be the same and at the end the shires not changed oh ya thats good! Not!

And i would have liked to see now of the houses of healing one of my fav bits in the books and you get 3 minutes when you get who knows how long on arwen. Who asks i never liked her anyway!

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The Houses of Healing could have told the audience so much about Aragorn, his personality, leadership style, and nobility. Instead we have a generation of movie-goers who think the King Elessar is an angst-ridden warrior with self-esteem issues.

[Ant]

Very true about the houses of healing and the scouring of the shire, but I have to admit that if the movie had gone on much longer id likely have died of boredom.

We also have to remember that LOTRs the movie is basically an action movie where the books are if anything...well I guess its a drama. But its the kind of book that you couldn't really put a tag on. Theres so much to it.

With that in mind, there are somethings that are considered important by PJ and many that are considered irrelevant, even to the point of adding things in order to add extra dimensions.

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!

[Ant]

(And as for Bombadil, i'm truly glad PJ left him alone. Had he been in the movies, he'd have been a nightmare. PJ would probably have gotten Sly Stallone to play him. Hehe)

[mithrand1r]

Very true about the houses of healing and the scouring of the shire, but I have to admit that if the movie had gone on much longer id likely have died of boredom.

I think that the they could have shown the scouring of the shire. I think it would have been difficult to do, since it is easy to make it seem to much of a let down from the defeat of Sauron.

We also have to remember that LOTRs the movie is basically an action movie where the books are if anything...well I guess its a drama. But its the kind of book that you couldn't really put a tag on. Theres so much to it.

LOTR was definitely an action film. I think PJ&Co wanted to use the Tolkien name to see as many tickets as possible. In this respect, Mission accomplished. I think the film could still have succeeded if it stayed closer to the source material. The film did a decent job of giving the flavor of LOTR, but it fell short in adapting the book to film.

With that in mind, there are somethings that are considered important by PJ and many that are considered irrelevant, even to the point of adding things in order to add extra dimensions.

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!

Disappointing characters for me: Aragorn, Frodo, Faramir, Denethor, Merry/Pippin, Awren.

Aragorn: Too wishy washy at times. It seemed that he did not want the kingship.

Frodo: Too much like baggage at times, although he had his moments.

Faramir: Barely recognized him in the movies.

Denethor: Why anyone in Gondor woulf follow this madman is beyond me.

Merry/Pippin: Too much used for comedic relief.

Awren: Tried too hard to expand her role. Could have possibly had her in a flashback with Aragorn.

[Earniel]

Oh and now im started, where was the scoring of the shire. Make a big point that the world will never be the same and at the end the shires not changed oh ya thats good! Not!
This is where I think the movie-makers handled it well enough. You get to see the scourging in Galadriel's mirror, neatly explaining this will happen in they fail, so if they succeed, Jackson doesn't have to add another 30 minutes of movie. I think it worked well enough, even though it did mess up some of the themes Tolkien included in the book.

And i would have liked to see now of the houses of healing one of my fav bits in the books and you get 3 minutes when you get who knows how long on arwen. Who asks i never liked her anyway!
Ah, the Houses of Healing, I would have loved to see more of that as well! It is a lovely chapter that could have worked on film IMO.

While I agree some pieces of Arwen could have been cut, I do like the fact that the movie shows more of her. In the book, on my first reading, I hadn't had the foggiest where this Elf-woman comes from and who she was. The movie-Arwen has a bit more substance. That said, I had hoped they would have done it differently nevertheless. I quite liked the scene where she's leaving and has a vision of her son, but all the nonsense of her fate being tied to the ring or that silly bit with the nazgul was somewhat a waste of time.

I must say though that perhaps the most irritating thing for me about the movies -and its been said already- is Elrond. That dude who plays him must be THE worst possible choice. He's not handsome. He's not fair to look at. He has really wierd eyebrows..and why does he look so grumpy all the time? When Merry and Pippin come running out at the council and say they're going too...whats with Elronds face?!
I don't mind Hugo Weaving, and I'm sure he's a good actor, but he is just not Elrond. The frown, oh the needless frown! Why? Elrond, who is described as wise and kind as summer, a grumpy frowning guy? No, no, no. I'm pretty sure the man's capable of a smile. I blame mis-directing on this one.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not to dwell on the Arwen thing but in the book it was supposed to be a surprise. We were supposed to wonder why in the world Aragorn didn't go for Eowyn, and what his cryptic explanations really meant. I personally liked the mystery not being revealed until the end. It was for us the readers just as it was for Frodo and the Fellowship.

As for not having time to add Scouring, Houses, etc. I never thought this story was suited to a theatrical set of movies in the first place. Make it a full-season miniseries on HBO or Showtime and show EVERYthing. That would have been awesome.

[Gordis]

That would have been a good idea - to make a TV series. Does anything preclude Tolkien Trust to sell the rights to the TV series to someone other than Jackson and K?

I think BBC could have made an awesome series out of LOTR...

[BeardofPants]

Depends on who they attached to it.

Russell T. Davies.

:eek:

[Grey_Wolf]

Well - bearing in mind the thoroughness of BBC productions - see The Impressionists, all the different crime series, comedy shows etc, I think we need not feel overly anxious about the Trilogy being treated with anything but respect.

[Kennashi]

Same with tomatoes everywhere (Weathertop, Denethor's scene). Tolkien expressly objected to tomatoes in ME in his letters. It is as if PJ inserted them just to spite the late Professor. What - couldn't he find some other vegetable or fruit for Denethor to make a mess with?:D:D:p:rolleyes:

[Grey_Wolf]

My conclusion to all the changes in the story is that PJ desperately wanted to make the trilogy his story - there are after all 10 million people who has read LOTR. This was PJ's vision.

The omitting and changing of the personalities of the characters and LOTR in itself can then be explained as simply this:

This is my project, so dont whine about what I have done - live with it!

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I suspect based on what we can tell of the dynamics of the writing team via interviews and extras on the EE discs that PJ simply couldn't say "no" to either of the other two women on the committee even had he wanted to.

[Curufin]

Re: Helm's Deep.

This is probably the change that bothers me the MOST in the whole movie. Helm's Deep was the battle where men start to take the reins from the elves and begin to be able to defend themselves. It's a poignant reminder of the beginning of the ascendency of man and the downfall of the elves that PJ obviously missed.

[ringbearer]

No one who has loved any novel as much as most of us "mooters" do has ever liked a film version as much as the novel. (maybe one exception would be "To Kill a Mockingbird")
In my opinion, the films cannot be compared to the books at all. Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words).
I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours.
Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.
Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...
With all that stated, I do wish more time would have been spent on the aftermath, after the ring perished. Especialy Aragorn's healing of Faramir, Eowin amd Merry. AND the celebration in the Field of Cormallen(SP?) Along with the courtship of Eowin and Faramir.
Sam still cries to much in book and films!:eek:

[Galin]

(...) Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words). I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours. Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.

Fair enough in general, but what had to be added and taken out is a matter of debate when one gets down to what Jackson actually did.

Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...

Well, that depends upon what you mean by perfect adaptation. A good or even great adaptation can include cuts and changes due to the mediums being different. But that's where the discussion begins, I think.

'There is insufficient rigor in film criticism in distinguishing between changes that actually are necessary because of the differences in the media, changes that are not necessary but are made to fit the director's or screenwriter's preferences (usually dignified as 'expressing a vision'), and changes that are made purely out of guesswork or superstition about what will sell to movie audiences. The screenwriter William Goldman's first Law of filmmaking is 'Nobody knows anything' David Bratman, Tolkien On Film

Earniel wrote: You get to see the scourging in Galadriel's mirror, neatly explaining this will happen in they fail, so if they succeed, Jackson doesn't have to add another 30 minutes of movie.

I'll just add that Jackson might have considered crafting a film that included the Scouring. Not that you claimed so, but there's no real reason, of course, that the Scouring of the Shire must 'fit on the end' of Jackson's movie as it now is, in order to be included, and so his decision to cut it arguably involves his vision for all three films before any filming started.

Grey Wolf posted: My conclusion to all the changes in the story is that PJ desperately wanted to make the trilogy his story - there are after all 10 million people who has read LOTR. This was PJ's vision. The omitting and changing of the personalities of the characters and LOTR in itself can then be explained as simply this: This is my project, so dont whine about what I have done - live with it!

I think people can be expected to object to (what they might see as) the distortion and cheapening of a beloved book. The film's credits say 'Based on the book by JRR Tolkien' and Jackson obviously didn't write the story, so was it his intent to be faithful to his source? and in what measure?

[Coffeehouse]

Tolkien fan Michael Martinez writing in 2001:
"It has been said that Peter Jackson treats the camera as another person in each scene. This is his way of drawing the audience into the story. He uses changing angles, reverse-action whatchamadiggits, and sweeping panoramic shots that scope out the countryside, focusing in on the action as it heats up. If anyone is afraid that the movie departs from Tolkien's book, they may rest assured that it does. If anyone is hoping that the movie brings Middle-earth to life, they may rest assured that it does. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? Of course not. It's Peter Jackson's Middle-earth. But it's a beautiful image and one well worth absorbing at least once or twice."

[Galin]

It might be a given that the film is going to be Peter Jackson's Middle-earth, and I respect the right of artists to do their own thing, but I don't think that's reason enough to expect Tolkien fans not to criticize the films in the arena of faithfulness.

'Artistic vision is personal interpretation. Either Jackson and his crew were devotees of the original text and setting, and did their best to keep true to the text and spirit of Tolkien, or they were determined to put their interpretation on the text, to make the movies uniquely theirs. You can't have it both ways. (...)

To defend Jackson by saying his films aren't Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is not an answer to criticism, but a throwing up of the argument in mute agreement (...) As his defenders say, any director will necessarily pursue his own vision. So what is his own vision? The answer turned out to be something incompatible with Tolkien's vision, and the solution would have been a director whose own vision was more compatible with Tolkien's. David Bratman, Tolkien on Film

I know already that not everyone agrees with David's last statement at least, but the statement 'it's Jackson's vision' (or similar) throws open very wide doors to my mind.

[Coffeehouse]

Let's be honest. Some readers of Tolkien's works simply wouldn't like any cinematic adaptation whatsoever. The reason? Because no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of Tolkien's literary work. It's then meaningless to set any movie up against such a standard because it will be by default well below par compared to the actual literary work. I can only say to people who insist on comparing them this way: why bother?

So what we get is a discussion about how faithful, given an unpassable obstacle of a direct literary-to-movie translation, the cinematic adaption is to the literary work. The quote presented here claims that either the director and his crew remain loyal to the original text and its spirit or the director and crew insert their own interpretation, giving the literary work a snub.
The claim itself isn't false, but it leaves out an important third way of doing it. What Peter Jackson and his crew have done is try to stay faithful to Tolkien's Middle Earth conception and the central themes that they thought Tolkien had highlighted, but having and needing also if you may to take artistic liberty to actually produce a coherent, cinematically-pleasing motion picture. What they haven't done is make the movie something of an adaption beyond the recognizable. As an avid Tolkien reader it's breathtakingly clear just how much of the storyline they managed to get into something of 9 hours of final footage. And with the musical and visual effects that becomes quite amazing really.

In that respect I think they did a very good job. The Lord of the Rings motion picture conveys the story, the setting, the characters, the central battles and most of the central themes of the literary work. Yes they leave out certain characters, certain events and a shipload of dialogue, but as a cinematic adaption I think it's as close to what you can achieve in a movie with a realistic timespan of 3 hours or less per movie.

Finally, it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson is a genuine Tolkien fan having used so considerable amount of input from Tolkien experts, Tolkien artists and last but not least the whole range of Tolkien fans. Having watched about 3 documentaries about the making of the movies I can tell you there is was no other person on that set that seemed to reminded himself and everyone else more that they were making the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and not some distantly related new tale where artistic liberty was endless.

In the end, insisting that the movie is not faithful enough becomes a matter of taste, but it doesn't bear down on what seems to be a genuinely good-hearted attempt by Jackson nor the fact that the three movies together are the single-most watched motion picture in human history, creating a subsequent avalanche of interest in the books. It is the reason why Tolkien forums across the web have flourished:cool:

[Galin]

Let's be honest. Some readers of Tolkien's works simply wouldn't like any cinematic adaptation whatsoever. The reason? Because no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of Tolkien's literary work. It's then meaningless to set any movie up against such a standard because it will be by default well below par compared to the actual literary work. I can only say to people who insist on comparing them this way: why bother?

Perhaps these some would begin by saying something like: 'While no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson's version yet...' and go on to make the same arguments you have read.

The criticisms I have seen appear to spring from realistic soil (and consider a reasonable length for a film). And of course, people are going to use the book to compare. Film scenes do not have to be slavishly copied out of the book to be faithful, and being too strict can actually hurt a film in given cases -- but on the other hand, if a given section of the book arguably provides perfectly good film, and Jackson has introduced or altered something for arguably 'Hollywood reasons' (for instance) -- to my mind that seems an argument for a better and more faithful fillm, despite its agreed upon limitations.

Jackson's alterations begin very early and are of all kinds, and they tally an ultimate sum. The Lord of the Rings is an admittedly difficult task for any filmmaker, but I think two people can come out on opposite sides of the coin as to whether or not Jackson gets a gold star or a rotten egg in the arena of being faithful enough to Tolkien -- both working from the same or similar place with respect to what a film can realistically convey of Tolkien's amazing work -- or if not, both thinking they are working from a realistic enough place, in any case.

The quote presented here claims that either the director and his crew remain loyal to the original text and its spirit or the director and crew insert their own interpretation, giving the literary work a snub. The claim itself isn't false, but it leaves out an important third way of doing it. What Peter Jackson and his crew have done is try to stay faithful to Tolkien's Middle Earth conception and the central themes that they thought Tolkien had highlighted, but having and needing also if you may to take artistic liberty to actually produce a coherent, cinematically-pleasing motion picture.

I think your third option is basically a more detailed description of one of David's: if Jackson and crew are trying to stay faithful in whatever way they think they are being faithful, then that is essentially different from purposely making the movies uniquely their own -- in other words, if they are trying to stay faithful to what 'they thought Tolkien highlighted' that is essentially trying to stay faithful, and David's choice does not omit artistic liberty in order to achieve a great film (while trying to be faithful), nor pretend that any director is not going to have to make decisions as to what to cut or highlight.

(...) Yes they leave out certain characters, certain events and a shipload of dialogue, but as a cinematic adaption I think it's as close to what you can achieve in a movie with a realistic timespan of 3 hours or less per movie.

I probably would have cut out more of the book than Jackson did -- I think some of his pacing appears rushed because he tried to fit in too much (in places). But that said, I would also cut out a lot of what Jackson added. Peter Jackson not only altered Tolkien's books, he added things that took up screen time, or chose to take certain sections of the book and make them relatively long. In my opinion there is screen time here that would have been far better spent on other things.

Finally, it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson is a genuine Tolkien fan having used so considerable amount of input from Tolkien experts, Tolkien artists and last but not least the whole range of Tolkien fans. Having watched about 3 documentaries about the making of the movies I can tell you there is was no other person on that set that seemed to reminded himself and everyone else more that they were making the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and not some distantly related new tale where artistic liberty was endless.

Jackson hired an expert in Elvish, for example, and put a lot more of it in the films than appears in the books. He certainly seems to be going above and beyond here, and I guess people will see this effort in a certain light, and praise him for it.

On the other hand, well-intended or not, Jackson chose to discard most of Tolkien's own Elvish, and replace it with not only fan-invented examples, but chose to replace it with a different order of Elvish. Here an arguably more faithful approach was easier and less costly.

So some will say Jackson has been faithful with respect to the languages -- others will say no. But the opinion to use Tolkien's Elvish as in the book is not unrealistic to my mind, or a suggestion that automatically swims against the tide of crafting a good film. I would say it's a perfectly legitimate and specific criticism; and the languages can be merely issue number one on a long list.

In the end, insisting that the movie is not faithful enough becomes a matter of taste, but it doesn't bear down on what seems to be a genuinely good-hearted attempt by Jackson nor the fact that the three movies together are the single-most watched motion picture in human history, creating a subsequent avalanche of interest in the books. It is the reason why Tolkien forums across the web have flourished:cool:

Well opinions can be stamped as subjective of course. And I think you might agree that the fact that the movies are popular do not necessarily make them faithful however, whether a good-hearted attempt or not. Interest in the books is another matter. The Lord of the Rings was not lacking in readership in any case, was not obsolete or revived by Jackson. The films could be advertising yes, but how much will Jackson change the reaction to the books because of expectations that might hail from the films?

Oh, sure, you always have some who don't want to read period, but usually in a fantasy course (and students can choose among many courses -- my fantasy lit, southern lit, detective fiction, sci-fi, etc.) students are already readers (of sorts at least) who are able to tackle lengthy works full of description. (...)

'My experience is simply that overall PJ's films have not done Tolkien any real favors in terms of new, appreciative readers. I know there are some, but I think they're the minority.' Dr. Ted Sherman, Editor Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature & Professor of English

That's one experience anyway. David Bratman also notes:

(...) But that depends on the person being attracted to Tolkien through the films. The films having attractive qualities quite different from Tolkien's, a person who might like Tolkien could easily be repelled by the films and never realize that he or she might like the books. That would certainly be the case with several people I know, particularly women, who are attracted to the book for its beauty and wonder, and by its remarkable lack (for a war story) of long gruesome depictions of battles. These are qualities in which the films are very different. (...)

In any case, interest in the books and interest in forums would arguably be just as good if Jackson had made, what in my opinion could have been, a much more faithful adaptation of his source (which does not mean a lesser film).

[Coffeehouse]

So it's all a matter of preferences and taste, as we've made now made abundantly clear..

[Galin]

Perhaps no one will agree with my opinion on Jackson's approach to the languages, for example, but considering the thread title, this seems the place for it anyway.

:)

[Coffeehouse]

In fact this grand old Moot is quite accustomed to the creation of new threads for the most specialized conversations, so I see no problem in one being created a.k.a. a thread on 'Elvish language in the LOTR motion pictures' or what may you.

I disagree with the view though, be it yours or anyone else's that it is poor judgement or an unfaithful act to include Elven language created by someone else than JRRT, if that was what you meant.
Language is humanity's ultimate tool of communication, and as JRRT would know more than anyone else, goes through a constant change. It never remains idle, but changes with time and the amount of people who use it. It also goes through changes in the same literary work, the Bible being a great example, yet few would disown the changing of words in the Bible if the meaning and spirit remained the same.
To JRRT it can be nothing but the ultimate nod to him and his titanic linguistic project for Middle Earth, that fans, drawing nothing but inspiration from him, create new words and meanings. JRRT would want the language to, repeating myself, widen in depth, breadth and complexity! And who better suited for this than the fans of his writings. What started with his exquisite creation of several languages, drawing from languages as different as English and Finnish, Gaelic and Latin, has given way to a linguistic project which I think would be more than happy that take place.

That Peter Jackson then chooses to use (besides the literal phrases taken from the book itself) other altered Elven words and phrases created by someone else than JRRT, is to me no problem at all. On the contrary, I like the fact of it and I applaud whichever people contributed to it.

Most good literature gives the reader the pleasure of the story and its characters.
But truly great literature enlightens the reader and its meaning and spirit transcends time and place. The reader can draw infinite inspiration from it and forge new ideas, new passions and new meaning on the basis of it.
Tolkiens Lord of the Rings is of the latter kind, and I think that be it linguistic additions, visual realization or placing music with the story, if done professionally can enhance the work without trying to replace it.
That's how I see the motion pictures, as a bonus to an already truly great story that only the books can provide.
Mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive.

[Galin]

I disagree with the view though, be it yours or anyone else's that it is poor judgement or an unfaithful act to include Elven language created by someone else than JRRT, if that was what you meant.

There is more to it that using fan-made Elvish, but Tolkien language expert Carl Hostetter already said it better than I could:

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).

Carl Hostetter

In any case I recommend, for anyone interested, the essay Elvish as She Is Spoke on line at the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship. This next quote is but a small part of the essay.

Indeed, it seems plain that it was never Tolkien's purpose either to fix and finalize his invented languages, or to make them 'usable' in narrative or in any other prosaic or quotidian application, even by himself; or to describe them in such a way and bring them to sufficient completion that they could be learned and used by others as a living speech.

Elvish as She Is Spoke Carl Hostetter

[Coffeehouse]

Right, in the first quote you provide Carl Hostetter disapproves of Peter Jackson's usage of Elvish because Peter Jackson did not appreciate, quote, "the tone and 'feel' of Tolkien's work".

So what then is Carl Hostetter (and yours I presume) rationale for disapproving? It is because Peter Jackson substitutes "[...] them [for] long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) dialogue of the sort entirely missing from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story".

Thus Carl Hostetter's problem with the Elvish in the Lord of the Rings is that, instead of being several poems or songs it is instead actual conversation. Carl Hostetter also calls the conversation mostly banal, however skillfully it has been put together. Nevermind the banality, that is his personal preference.
I can't say it's a very convincing set of argument though as Carl Hostetter himself shows why Tolkien did not write long, dialogue passages in the Lord of the Rings. As can be found in "Elvish as She Is Spoke":
Carl Hostetter: "There are a number of answers to this question, not least the one Tolkien himself gave in the letter quoted above: that his readers could hardly have been expected to stomach long passages in an utterly foreign language, and that as a consequence at least some of the language element had been edited out. [...] But even if this entirely practical concern for reader interest were set aside, I believe that there would have remained an obstacle to extended Elvish narrative composition far more fundamental and no less practical: namely, that Tolkien himself was neither fluent in either of his two chief Elvish languages, nor himself able to compose in them with anything like the facility that would be required to produce substantial amounts of Elvish narrative."

Indeed Carl Hostetter has just pointed two very important reasons for why, bar the obvious cinematic reasons which I'll return to, Peter Jackson, and not JRR Tolkien, made use of more dialogue and less Elvish poem recitation and singing. Peter Jackson, unlike JRR Tolkien, had a host of Elvish language experts and fans to contribute to the script, whoms combined years and depth of expertise in the context of the situation (the movie-making) made possible just the sort of creation of Elvish dialogue that JRR Tolkien would have found both difficult and uneccessary in his medium.

The difference was that JRR Tolkien was writing a poetic literary work, in tune with his favorite subject: ancient European (mostly poetic) literature and mythology, whilst Jackson & company had the leisure of having a script with living actors and the neccessity of living dialogue. Bar the many instances of chanting and singing, Elvish too, in the movies, a motion picture requires dialogue. You simply can't have, in contrast to a book-trilogy, broadsheets upon broadsheets of poem recitation. In contrast to vivid and passionate 12-stanza poems in the book, at which point a reader can stop, read and interpret at leisure, having actors standing around reciting these same poems doesn't quite do justice to the viewers imagination.
In a book you read the poem and you create your own images, whilst in a movie the visuals are what the director provides. Left of the spoken word is thus the dialogue, and that is precisely why some of the Elvish found in the Lord of the Rings motion picture is Elvish not always found in the books. It is a case of adaption and one cleverly at that. I found, and I imagine most people too did find, the Elvish spoken in the movies to be both beautiful and sometimes very appropriate.

Carl Hostetter also writes:
"To the extent that others found pleasure in the glimpses of that expression provided by the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was no doubt quite gratified. But this in no way implies that Tolkien meant for others to “develop” his languages, his personal expressions, into a “useful” form, or into any other form than his own."

And I couldn't agree more! I would imagine that JRR Tolkien would be very pleased with finding such a great following of Elvish fans so many years after he passed away, with all sorts of Elvish having sprung up in literature and of course on the Internet. But whatever Tolkien meant the language to be used for, the Elvish language has evolved and become deepened, widened, more diverse and of greater complexity. With it, as any language can attest to, comes new usage. If anything, whatever Tolkien's initial private pleasure in having Elvish as a language, he has achieved something remarkable: Several languages that now have taken on a life of their own. We can debate whether he meant them to evolve this way or that, but I think it is erroneous and narrow-minded to assume that the Elvish in the motion pictures somehow are 'cheapened' versions of Tolkiens passages just because they are not the exact Elvish laid down in the books.

Tolkien himself never settled on any finalized Elvish, like Carl Hostetter observes:"Indeed, to the extent that we can speak accurately of Quenya and Sindarin as single entities at all, it is only as continuities of change over time, not only within their fictional internal histories (continual change being of course also a feature of primary world languages), but also across Tolkien’s lifetime."

[Galin]

(...) Thus Carl Hostetter's problem with the Elvish in the Lord of the Rings is that, instead of being several poems or songs it is instead actual conversation.

As I read it you are oversimplifying the argument in your conclusion ('Thus...' seems to begin a conclusion), including simplifying the examples to poems and songs.

(...) Indeed Carl Hostetter has just pointed two very important reasons for why, bar the obvious cinematic reasons which I'll return to, Peter Jackson, and not JRR Tolkien, made use of more dialogue and less Elvish poem recitation and singing.

Carl's statements in the essay concern the book and possible 'long passages', of some kind, in Elvish. We don't know how long, nor what the passages would be, in essence, just the bare bones that readers would likely skip them and possibly be annoyed simply due to lengthy enough passages in a foreign tongue. His statements also concern the fact that Tolkien's languages were not complete enough to make this easy, even if Tolkien had desired it.

But you didn't argue that Peter Jackson's reason was that film audiences could stomach 'long' passages delivered in a foreign tongue, you chose the wording 'more dialogue' instead -- in other words audiences could stomach sporadic examples of simple dialogue -- if that were the phrasing, then yes I would agree. They could.

In any case this approach to the languages is not necessary because audiences at large would not object (nor would they have objected to Tolkien's work, I would argue, if integrated creatively regarding the poetry). Nor was it necessary to substitute Tolkien's art simply because fan-elvish is available today.

In this context it's also that Jackson's fan-fiction Elvish is not simply in addition to Tolkien-made (actual) Elvish, but largely excises Tolkien's own art while adding so much of it, which to me reflects his approach to the films in general. My guess is that he would claim ignorance in the matter. As far as Jackson probably knew the hired expert was producing 'Elvish' in the same sense as if he (Jackson) had asked for Latin. But when the speculative smoke clears, in any event Tolkien has now passed and his art, as it is, is right there for a filmmaker to consult and judge for him or herself how the Elvish is being used, and how one might go about trying to be faithful to that.

The difference was that JRR Tolkien was writing a poetic literary work, in tune with his favorite subject: ancient European (mostly poetic) literature and mythology, whilst Jackson & company had the leisure of having a script with living actors and the neccessity of living dialogue. Bar the many instances of chanting and singing, Elvish too, in the movies, a motion picture requires dialogue. You simply can't have, in contrast to a book-trilogy, broadsheets upon broadsheets of poem recitation. In contrast to vivid and passionate 12-stanza poems in the book, at which point a reader can stop, read and interpret at leisure, having actors standing around reciting these same poems doesn't quite do justice to the viewers imagination.

Of course films require dialogue, but you say these are 'the obvious cinematic reasons' and I'm not sure how the fact that Viggo is alive and working from a script means he can't say a given sentence in English. You say Tolkien has written a book (whose sources are poetic), and this is a film with a script with living people -- but I don't see how we get from there to a 'necessity of living dialogue' in Elvish particularly -- by which I guess you mean that significant amounts of comon phrases would help demonstrate that Sindarin was a living language, for some, in Frodo's day.

I see no necessity here anyway. I don't think anyone would argue that a film would flop if there were no Elvish in it at all actually, but of course there's no real film-based reason to not include the languages, and I really can't imagine audiences complaining that the Elvish didn't seem alive enough if given the language from the books.

Is fan-made Elvish available? Sure, and so is fan-fiction about Arwen and Aragorn, or Legolas, or whatever. Personally I'd rather hear and see something from Tolkien, if it's at all workable on film, which the Elvish certainly was, just as it was.

No one has argued that there should have been broadsheet upon broadsheet of poem recitation in the film. No one argued that Jackson should have actors standing around reciting poems of any sort, which implies a boring visual might be the only way to incorporate poetry into a film, which is not true of course.

Maybe instead of the time and money it took to create Elvish common dialogue Jackson might have poured more creative energy into working Tolkien's art into the films in interesting ways.

In a book you read the poem and you create your own images, whilst in a movie the visuals are what the director provides. Left of the spoken word is thus the dialogue, and that is precisely why some of the Elvish found in the Lord of the Rings motion picture is Elvish not always found in the books.

I'm not really sure what this second part is attempting to say, but something I can comment on here is your choice of expression which seems to minimize what Jackson has actually done: 'some' of the Elvish in the films isn't found in the books -- versus -- notable amounts of fan-Elvish in the films that can be found nowhere in any Tolkien book.

It is a case of adaption and one cleverly at that. I found, and I imagine most people too did find, the Elvish spoken in the movies to be both beautiful and sometimes very appropriate.

Utilizing Tolkien's Elvish would have been beautiful and very appropriate too :)

If anything, whatever Tolkien's initial private pleasure in having Elvish as a language, he has achieved something remarkable: Several languages that now have taken on a life of their own. We can debate whether he meant them to evolve this way or that, but I think it is erroneous and narrow-minded to assume that the Elvish in the motion pictures somehow are 'cheapened' versions of Tolkiens passages just because they are not the exact Elvish laid down in the books.

But 'just because they are not exact Elvish laid down in the books' is not exactly the argument. And I could spend time, for example, making an argument grounded in intense respect for Tolkien and his work to justify why Welsh was substituted for Sindarin in some film version (if it theoretically was).

The tough part of the sell with this or other justifications however, would be why Sindarin was taken out in the first place, and how a different order of language (at least in a cumulative sense with respect to amount), taken in tandem with largely substituting Tolkien, can be regarded as a 'faithful' approach to both Tolkien as an artist, and the tone and feel of the particular source being adapted.

__________

On another note, Jackson fans do not necessarily reflect Peter Jackson himself with respect to his decision making (whether their arguments are compelling or not). For instance, the Wizard-fight:

Having Saruman betray Gandalf increases the level of danger, especially since Frodo knows nothing about it. Having him do so brutally, makes it clear that Saruman really is more powerful than Gandalf, and that the threat is not abstract but terribly real.

OK that's a reason (lifted from the web), even a film-based one -- having him do so 'brutally' makes is clear visually -- but whatever one thinks about that, my point here is to compare the reason from a Jackson fan to what Jackson himself said about Wizard-fu: 'I thought it would be funny, and more interesting, to see two old guys just beating the crap out of each other.' (quoted in Thompson 'Fantasy, Franchises, and Frodo Baggins: The Lord of the Rings as Modern Hollywood.')

[Coffeehouse]

I can't say there is much point in debating this answer, since really what I find you arguing is that Peter Jackson's degree of direct JRR Tolkien-written quotes, passages, etc. isn't high enough. As far as I can see you aren't completely disagreeing with Peter Jackson's usage of Elvish, just the degree to which he was faithful.

That's an okay argument though the main thrust of it seems to be that 'if only Peter Jackson had used more actual quotes'. I think what you should ask yourself though is why you think Peter Jackson, having so much resources at his disposal, chose to create dialogue not present in the books. For me the answer would be because probably more often than not the dialogue Peter Jackson wanted for this and this scene just wasn't present in the book in Elvish. That doesn't mean it wasn't written as a direct quote or nearly the same in English in the book.

What your insinuating though it seems is that Peter Jackson, instead of having Elvish dialogue (not present in the book) to suit particular contexts out of necessity, instead chose Elvish not present in the book because he could, it was his movie which again demonstrates some sort of act of unfaithfulness. Now there may be valid arguments that Peter Jackson has taken longer routes at times when the shorter one would have worked just as well, but all in all I find much of the sort of degree-arguments to come off as nitpicking contrary to being criticism with actual substance.

Edit: I must say that the last quote with Peter Jackson concerning the conflict between Gandalf and Sarumann obviously comes off as humour on Peter Jackson's part. I think it's quite incredible that you're using that quote to show Peter Jackson's primary intentions for that scene. Let's get out of the ivory tower for a moment shall we?;)

[Galin]

(...) That's an okay argument though the main thrust of it seems to be that 'if only Peter Jackson had used more actual quotes'.

I prefer my arguments, as I choose to phrase them :) Yes, 'if only' Jackson had not largely substituted actual Elvish, found right there in the book -- Tolkien's personal art where he decides not only the aesthetic of a language as a whole, but for a given statement, and idiom, and in what context he's going to employ Elvish at all.

If only Tolkien's work on the languages, comprising decade after decade of his life, and especially those portions which he finally decided to publish himself (for he was a natural niggler of details, and publishing something made it a different animal, so to speak), was put first and foremost above fan-fiction and what Jackson 'wanted', then maybe I might not have posted in a thread entitled 'What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR'

I think what you should ask yourself though is why you think Peter Jackson, having so much resources at his disposal, chose to create dialogue not present in the books. For me the answer would be because probably more often than not the dialogue Peter Jackson wanted for this and this scene just wasn't present in the book in Elvish. That doesn't mean it wasn't written as a direct quote or nearly the same in English in the book.

What Peter Jackson wanted once again ended up leaving too much Tolkien on the doorstep. He 'wanted' Arwen to put her sword to Aragorn's neck too, and deliver her 'fan fiction' lines there, and then he wanted Frodo to become mere baggage at the ford. Jackson wanted a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to agree with him that they were either faithful, or the most faithful route he could have taken.

Now there may be valid arguments that Peter Jackson has taken longer routes at times when the shorter one would have worked just as well, but all in all I find much of the sort of degree-arguments to come off as nitpicking contrary to being criticism with actual substance.

Well actually I've seen the 'nitpicking card' thrown into plenty of criticism with real substance IMO. You don't agree, OK; but I don't think my argument here is nitpicking.

Edit: I must say that the last quote with Peter Jackson concerning the conflict between Gandalf and Sarumann obviously comes off as humour on Peter Jackson's part. I think it's quite incredible that you're using that quote to show Peter Jackson's primary intentions for that scene. Let's get out of the ivory tower for a moment shall we?;)

Well maybe it's obvious to you, and I'll grant that you might be right, but I'm not so sure Jackson is not being purposely irreverent at times, admitting elsewhere that he used Gimli 'as my kind of foil to get a bit of irreverent humour out there.'

When I saw this scene there were points in it that seemed purposely ridiculous, which unfortunately some people might find funny. Looking at Jackson's 'humor' elsewhere in the films, I have to say I'm not necessarily in any ivory tower here.

[Coffeehouse]

I prefer my arguments, as I choose to phrase them. Yes, 'if only' Jackson had not largely substituted actual Elvish, found right there in the book -- Tolkien's personal art where he decides not only the aesthetic of a language as a whole, but for a given statement, and idiom, and in what context he's going to employ Elvish at all.

If only Tolkien's work on the languages, comprising decade after decade of his life, and especially those portions which he finally decided to publish himself (for he was a natural niggler of details, and publishing something made it a different animal, so to speak), was put first and foremost above fan-fiction and what Jackson 'wanted', then maybe I might not have posted in a thread entitled 'What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR'

What Peter Jackson wanted once again ended up leaving too much Tolkien on the doorstep. He 'wanted' Arwen to put her sword to Aragorn's neck too, and deliver her 'fan fiction' lines there, and then he wanted Frodo to become mere baggage at the ford. Jackson wanted a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to agree with him that they were either faithful, or the most faithful route he could have taken.

In this type of criticism Galin you are staying true to that hopeless endeavour of setting the motion picture up to the standard of the book. This way a fan of JRR Tolkien, myself included, could go on indefinitely without getting nothing but disappointment because the movies are not the books, will never be the books and cannot be compared to the books as anything else than an adaptation. An adaptation is not a direct translation into f.ex. the cinematic media and does not pretend to be. By comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth one can only achieve a verdict of different shades of inadequacy.

By all means pursue that (fruitless) route, but as criticism of a motion picture one should avoid drawing lines to all the instances where a literal translation from the book to the motion picture did not take place. Why? Because it is neither fair to the motion picture as an adaptation, fair to the comparison itself or especially constructive. I mean you could literally go on for ever doing it!;)

Peter Jackson:
"The book is regarded as being [...] incredibly dense and detailed and rich, which is why it has such a huge fan following and I've tried to catch the feeling of Tolkien for the people that like the book but simplify it to the extent that you don't have to have read the book to enjoy the film, so, it's a fine line. You cannot please everyone, and I'm sure that we haven't, but you can only ultimately, I think, make the best film that I could."

Edit: Let me end on that quote by Peter Jackson with a comparison for a person and whoms literature I have admired since I was 16 years old: T.E. Lawrence or 'Lawrence of Arabia'. Having studied his years in the Middle East (Arab Revolt, 1916-1918) rather meticulously I was really excited to find that there was a 1962 motion picture, Lawrence of Arabia biographing that same period. I can tell you that my first impression of the motion picture was that as a motion picture it had some of the most beautiful, sweeping cinematic takes I had ever seen. There is a shot (set in slight fast motion though it doesn't seem like it) of the rising sun from the horizon and up into a pristine blue sky above the Arabian desert. That kind of imagery I gladly watched, just as I looked in fascination when the Fellowship entered Lothlorien in the movies. But, joining my feelings of awe for the cinematic beauty was a real annoyance at the complex character that T.E. Lawrence really was but which became simplified in the motion picture. Many months of journeying which I had read in his biography/diary called Seven Pillars of Wisdom were just gone from the movie and I can remember being pretty mad about that.

But I realised that comparing the motion picture to the books by T.E. Lawrence (he wrote poetically and in vast detail about his stay in Arabia during WWI) was going to lead to one place: inadequacy! Instead I've come to accept the movies as a simplified version of something I can read about with greater richness and pleasure in the books themselves, yet the motion picture also provides imagery and a musical score that is on par or perhaps even better than the sweeping scenes and musical score that was in the Lord of the Rings movies:)

[Galin]

In this type of criticism Galin you are staying true to that hopeless endeavour of setting the motion picture up to the standard of the book. This way a fan of JRR Tolkien, myself included, could go on indefinitely without getting nothing but disappointment because the movies are not the books, will never be the books and cannot be compared to the books as anything else than an adaptation. An adaptation is not a direct translation into f.ex. the cinematic media and does not pretend to be. By comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth one can only achieve a verdict of different shades of inadequacy.

Hmmm, back to 'it's a movie, not a book' :) but I don't think movies are books, or that an adaptation need be a direct translation.

And 'comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth', is not the same as essentially saying: how about copying the actual Elvish in the book -- that's a relatively simple approach for any filmmaker concerning a somewhat unique matter that's easily open to direct translation, and just asks for a bit of creativity to work some of it in, in an interesting way.


Incidentally I would recommend (or would have recommended) for example, a Saruman scene appear before the meeting between Gandalf and Saruman -- before the one where Saruman is revealed I mean. I have my own ideas about how a film could approach the journey from Bree to Imladris -- it doesn't follow the book -- but I think it's more faithful to it than Jackson's version. I also have my own ideas about Gandalf's confrontation scene with Saruman, not exactly described by Tolkien, but not the Wizard-fight Jackson gave us.

In my opinion there is a very well done scene in film two that was not in the book, for instance, and one I could applaud Jackson for. He cut if from the theatrical release in any case.

More generally, I think a film could be much truer to Tolkien (than Jackson's films) and have less to do with the specific storyline of the book (less than Jackson's did).

"The book is regarded as being [...] incredibly dense and detailed and rich, which is why it has such a huge fan following and I've tried to catch the feeling of Tolkien for the people that like the book but simplify it to the extent that you don't have to have read the book to enjoy the film, so, it's a fine line. You cannot please everyone, and I'm sure that we haven't, but you can only ultimately, I think, make the best film that I could."

Jackson uses 'feeling' here; and as I read things at least, IIRC no one yet has really disagreed with Carl's implication that the sum feel of Jackson's use of the languages is different from the books. Justifying Jackson's choice to add notable amounts of dialogue seems to me an attempt to give it a green light despite that it is different, mutely agreeing with Mr. Hostetter on that much. Giving a reason why it was done -- to make the languages feel more alive -- does not in itself dispute that the films and books are different in feel and tone here, as in Carl's original quote.

With respect to Jackson's quote I must disagree. In places, yes; in certain areas, like some (not all) of the imagery, yes; but in my opinion he did far more than simplify the book to the extent that non-readers could enjoy the films.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm basically with Galin here.

It isn't that Jackson added some stuff and left out some stuff. It is what he added and how he added it, then justified some of the leaving-outs with a tired, "there wasn't time for everything" line.

Indeed, it is rare for any film to live up to its literary counterpart, but some films come close, either in faithfulness or in quality and even more rarely in both.

[Coffeehouse]

I'm basically with Galin here.

It isn't that Jackson added some stuff and left out some stuff. It is what he added and how he added it, then justified some of the leaving-outs with a tired, "there wasn't time for everything" line.

Indeed, it is rare for any film to live up to its literary counterpart, but some films come close, either in faithfulness or in quality and even more rarely in both.

Yes some in here keep saying this, but anyone can find something that made quite the difference for them in reading the book, yet which was left out in the movie. For me the trip between Bag End and Bree undertaken by the hobbits was the best part, and it wasn't even remotely close to being portrayed right in the motion picture.

But you know I made the decision, for my own pleasure and to avoid falling into this fruitless circle of disappointment after disappointment (which a few seem to enjoy) by reminding myself that New Line's Lord of the Rings had to capture the main plot, namely the power of the ring and its journey, and several other important subplots like the struggle of Men and the chaos of a world disunited against darkness. It's what I would expect of the movie and it seems to be what the great majority of Tolkien fans expected as well as I've seen a whole lot more positive response from ardent Tolkien readers than negative.

And the reason is that I think most Tolkien fans have come to the movie theatre, lowered the shoulders and taken the movie as an adaptation and to enjoy visual glimpses into the vastness of the universe Tolkien created in his works.

The movie gave us, I believe, as good an adventure as a cinematic adaptation could give (just think about all the things they could have done wrong! That list is endless too) readers of Tolkien. I'm glad Peter Jackson and his team did the movie. It has so many visual and musical pluses that despite the at times loose paralell between scenes (and the sometime exact parallel in others) I have decided to enjoy what it can give me instead of fretting over all the things it didn't give me because as I keep saying that list is endless and the satisfaction from having a go seems to be next to nil;)

I'm signing out of this debate now, just wanted to put some perspective:cool:

[shesabrandybuck]

Yes some in here keep saying this, but anyone can find something that made quite the difference for them in reading the book, yet which was left out in the movie. For me the trip between Bag End and Bree undertaken by the hobbits was the best part, and it wasn't even remotely close to being portrayed right in the motion picture.

But you know I made the decision, for my own pleasure and to avoid falling into this fruitless circle of disappointment after disappointment (which a few seem to enjoy) by reminding myself that New Line's Lord of the Rings had to capture the main plot, namely the power of the ring and its journey, and several other important subplots like the struggle of Men and the chaos of a world disunited against darkness. It's what I would expect of the movie and it seems to be what the great majority of Tolkien fans expected as well as I've seen a whole lot more positive response from ardent Tolkien readers than negative.

And the reason is that I think most Tolkien fans have come to the movie theatre, lowered the shoulders and taken the movie as an adaptation and to enjoy visual glimpses into the vastness of the universe Tolkien created in his works.

The movie gave us, I believe, as good an adventure as a cinematic adaptation could give (just think about all the things they could have done wrong! That list is endless too) readers of Tolkien. I'm glad Peter Jackson and his team did the movie. It has so many visual and musical pluses that despite the at times loose paralell between scenes (and the sometime exact parallel in others) I have decided to enjoy what it can give me instead of fretting over all the things it didn't give me because as I keep saying that list is endless and the satisfaction from having a go seems to be next to nil;)

I'm signing out of this debate now, just wanted to put some perspective:cool:

You stole the words right out of my mouth. Yeah, to me it was a little disappointing that there wasn't Bombadil, not enough songs, and ruined my favorite character of Faramir (along with a bunch of other things), but honestly I think PJ did the best that anyone could have done (if not better). I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that Tolkien himself said that LOTR was the unmakable movie, which is true in a sense, but PJ did an awesome job, IMO, about making it into a film.

[Galin]

(...) and ruined my favorite character of Faramir (along with a bunch of other things), but honestly I think PJ did the best that anyone could have done (if not better).

Hmmm, how many other things are included I wonder (Faramir 'along with a bunch of other things') ;)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you're right, Coffeehouse, in a sense that some of us seem to enjoy the disappointment, though I'm not sure disappointment is the right word. I can only speak for myself, but I can be critical of a movie and still like it a lot.

I liked PJs movies enough to see Fellowship 9 times in the theater, Two Towers 5, and RotK 4, which includes an all-day marathon of all three back-to-back which I drove nearly two hours to see. Then I bought both the theatrical and extended editions of each.

At the same time, I feel like I can give them failing grades on many counts, especially in faithfulness to Tolkien, and enjoy bashing the Wingnuts for the films they made. So yeah, I guess I do love to hate certain parts of the films.

[Galin]

I originally jumped in here because, whether intended or not, to my mind some commentary I saw might imply that anyone who has a negative opinion of the films should be silent -- and also to react to certain things that I think are really basically agreed upon by most, before criticism begins.

I wanted to like the films and was thinking about possible versions likely before some here were even born (Jane Seymour for Arwen anyone?) -- not that that means anything really, but anyway the thread seemed to ask for what people thought was wrong with the movies, so once here, I tossed in a few things too... including something on the languages from an expert (Carl Hostetter) as possible food for thought.

I don't think I really post anywhere about the films much at all, and actually I don't remember them as well today, in any event.

[Coffeehouse]

I think you're right, Coffeehouse, in a sense that some of us seem to enjoy the disappointment, though I'm not sure disappointment is the right word. I can only speak for myself, but I can be critical of a movie and still like it a lot.

I liked PJs movies enough to see Fellowship 9 times in the theater, Two Towers 5, and RotK 4, which includes an all-day marathon of all three back-to-back which I drove nearly two hours to see. Then I bought both the theatrical and extended editions of each.

At the same time, I feel like I can give them failing grades on many counts, especially in faithfulness to Tolkien, and enjoy bashing the Wingnuts for the films they made. So yeah, I guess I do love to hate certain parts of the films.

Looking at this I can only say this reminds me of my own experience:) I have only seen each of the motion pictures once in the movie theatre (including a really worthwhile attendance at one of the world premiere's of RotK, where I had the immense pleasure of sitting beside JRR Tolkien's great grandson!) but one of my sisters bought the Extended Edition for the entire trilogy and so I've seen it quite a few times. Usually sit down and watch the trilogy with my sisters during the Xmas holidays f.ex!

I have nothing against criticism of the movies, or nailing certain scenes. I for one find the inclusion of that greenish mass that was the Undead Army to completely ruin the Battle of the Pelennor Fields because up until that moment it had been one excellently filmed string of scenes. That for me put a damper on it, and so did the meeting at the Black Gates with Sauron's Mouth. In the Extended Edition we see this meeting and I find it horribly off what is in the book. It's also a rare case in the movies of poor acting, or at least a poor script. So yeah, I get what you're saying.

What I don't understand though, which some people seem to have a great desire for, is this sort of fretting over Peter Jackson as if he'd walked up to JRR Tolkien's grave and shown it the finger or something. It's okay with criticism of the motion picture, but let it be fair and keep in mind what the alternative could be (Not as you see it in your minds, where we all imagine the perfect scenes), but as how you could envisage that a living director could, with a living script and film team, produce a movie. Let it be fair, because JRR Tolkien's work, as Brandybuck wrote, is perhaps the unfilmable.

[Galin]

It's okay with criticism of the motion picture, but let it be fair and keep in mind what the alternative could be (Not as you see it in your minds, where we all imagine the perfect scenes), but as how you could envisage that a living director could, with a living script and film team, produce a movie. Let it be fair, because JRR Tolkien's work, as Brandybuck wrote, is perhaps the unfilmable.

OK, but is what you think is fair criticism based on the level of faithfulness you think Jackson's team achieved -- based on what you think is realistically possible for a film with respect to adapting The Lord of the Rings?

I don't expect Jackson to see the languages exactly as I do, and thus consider all the details I raised in my response to your 'if only' remark -- that was a response to what seemed (to me) to be a de-emphasis of my perspective; and some people might read that commentary with a tone that I didn't write it in (which is why I edited in a smiley face incidentally). But I agree with Carl's commentary in the main and thus think he has raised a fair enough point, while others who disagree might think it's nitpicking or 'unfair'.

One man's nitpick might be the next man's rather notable miss.

As far as 'it could have been worse' -- to my mind this is another mutually agreed upon statement. A really great film could have been worse, a very terrible film could have been worse. And to a person who thinks the films failed much more than the next guy did, it was worse by that comparison.

[Harkov]

"Copy the book into the film is impossible, keeping to thebook spirit is very hard" is not an argument that will convince me of PJ being successful. That's a fact that when turning a book to a film you can't just copy, you are forced to make changes to adapt to the medium. But if each time someone finds faults to say the film didn't keep loyal to the film, saying it's very hard it's not a valid defense. The only defense is analyzing why the alleged difference was needed, not harmful or not enough to invalidate the film as a good adaptation.

Because if we were to conform to "it's very hard" as the answer, then we would have to accept if instead of what he did, PJ had taken Don Quixote and changed the names to those of LOTR, making Quixote Gandalf, Sancho Panza Frodo and Dulcinea be Arwen (though he could have had the guts of making Dulcinea be Faramir).

For example, I hate the way he dealt with Saruman in the extended version, to the point that I almost prefer the theatrical forgetfulness of it, which I hate, too. But I can accept it as something of an aftermath that, while fun and meaningful, is not essential to the world and the tale Tolkien tells us about.

But when you have a book that as one of the core tells you about the corruption that power brings to the point that even the strongest can fall to it, turning Denethor from a noble great man into a demented power hungry man from the beginning, Boromir a man who is victim to the thirst for power from the start and Faramir one who doesn't have to fight against the corruption of wishing the ring's power, making it so that those who fall were corrupted from the start and that the one who overcomes it not even sweating it, pretty much ruins it. The final fall from Frodo doesn't count; and while Galadriel has that trance, she's not as much about to fall to it as playing with the idea of walking the verge, teasing with going evil, more than being pulled by the ring and finally resisting it it's more like willing and knowingly letting her thirst be expressed openly to then refuse it, more a taunt to the ring that a real test of her heart.

Overall I don't rate PJ's work badly, though. Though as director he's crappy. I almost didn't resist watching ROTR when I saw it in DVD extended. As soon you take him out from a battle he can only make scenes one way, which has three flavours but are the same:

- Two actors facing away from the camera. The farther one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the camera.

- Two actors facing the camera. The closer one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the other.

- Two actors face each other, one to the camera and one away. Dramatic line, the closer turns to face the camera.

Again and again and again and again and again and again. I'd not be surprised if the actors drained the stocks of biodramine in NZ.

If the Hobbit is made I'm glad PJ won't make it. Also I predict a lot of fans yelling SW prequels syndrome.

[Attalus]

My main problem was depicting Sauron as a disembodied eye when PJ could have done some cool things with him.

[Harkov]

Well, I don't have a problem with that... until he decides to express the way Frodo feels his gaze by using a more than obvious spotlight. Gah, that was a hideous moment. So much money spent and then go and use the cheapest idea there is. Even nothing but Frodo shinking to hide would have worked. But not a spotlight that makes you even picture a guy behind Sauron's eye turning him around to see.

[EricD]

Well, the thing I noticed that was most wrong was how the Siege of Gondor and subsequent Battle of the Pelennor Fields was handled. From the books, I got the impression that though Gondor was in a very serious decline, her people were still valiant and her soldiers still brave and skilled. In the book, the Siege of Minas Tirith resembled the 1453 Siege of Constantinople: The Byzantines/Gondorrim were killing Turks/Orcs by the thousands, but were just being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Contrast that with the movie version, in which Gondor was going out like a punk. Sure, we see many orcs killed by arrowfire, but once the siege towers roll up, and the gate is breached, do we see the men of Gondor successfully defending their city at any point? I recall seeing precisely ONE orc killed by a Gondorrim soldier in close quarters. That would be after the gate is smashed by Grond, and the orcs charge through. You see orcs smashing against the Gondorrim all over, and then all of a sudden one Gondorrim soldier seems to say "Oh screw this,", lunges forward and impales and slams an orc onto the ground with his spear. After that, the orcs just plow through, making mincemeat of the Gondorrim, until the Rohirrim make their charge. For Lord's sake, we don't even see the Gondorrim using their swords on orcs, in the retreating to the second level sequence right before the Charge of the Rohirrim, the Gondorrim seem to be wrestling and punching orcs rather than fighting them with sword and shield.

If I had been in PJ's position, I definetely would've handled it differently. The shield wall in the courtyard would've held up to several charges from the orcs, and then the Witch-King would've landed on the field and asked Gothmog what the problem was. Gothmog would've made some complaint that his troops just couldn't break through the shield wall, and then the Witch-King would've rode in and had his exchange with Gandalf. Cue the charge of the Rohirrim, and as the Gondorrim see this, they are visibly heartened by the sight. Rallying behind Imrahil or Gandalf, they charge out of the gates simultaneously as the Rohirrim hit the Mordor flanks, and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields really begins. No Army of the Dead either, Aragorn would show up with the armies of southern Gondor and the battle would've been much longer, perhaps fading out to black and then fading back to show all the carnage after the battle is finished. Afterwards, I would definetely have a scene where Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas walk in the streets of Minas Tirith and there are huge mounds of dead orcs being piled up by Gondorrim workers cleaning up after the end of the battle.

Does anyone agree with me that Gondor was 'pussified' in the movies?

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I hadn't noticed that much among all the other problems but I agree, EricD.

[Earniel]

I have to say I don't remember noticing the Gondoreans not making any kill at the siege. But I remember that the charge, from which only a wounded Faramir returns, was just so totally rediculous and without any tactical or military purpose. I have to say it looked nicely dramatic when the cavalry walked through the city and people were throwing flowers before the horses' feet, but it was so pointless and did not at all give a favourable impression of Gondor's military mind.

I suppose one could -perhaps easily- explain this characteristation with the theme Jackson seemed to wish to introduce: that Gondor was just in total shambles with such a loon like movie-Denethor in command, and that they really, deperately needed someone like Aragorn to clean the mess up and lift Gondor back up to a higher level op competence. Personally I prefer the far more balanced view Tolkien envisioned, it's more interesting.

[The Black Captain]

Okay - I realise that there are MANY, MANY pages here, but I get the general gist of people's nuances with the movies from reading just the first 3 pages I believe. So I would like to just give a general summary of what I think in relation to the huge book vs. movie debate.


- Faramir
Some people here are saying that Peter Jackson and the script writers turned him into an evil character. There is a site that endless people keep linking to here (http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html) that explains pretty well why they changed it.

I read something else entirely about the issue: in the book, basically Faramir's reaction to Frodo and Sam's quest to destroy the ring is "Oh, very good, tell me all about it and let's sit down and have a cup of tea."

IT JUST ISN'T INTERESTING WHATSOEVER IN A MOVIE.

In essence, they didn't change Faramir, except perhaps made him a but sullen and grieving over the death of his brother. They changed Frodo and Sam's willingness to tell Faramir details about their travels. Honestly - what would you think if you saw Frodo and Sam out in a place like they were? A species notorious for not travelling about at all yet here they are in a place far from home and near the battle scenes of Gondorrim forces fighting the orcs from Mordor? Very suspicious. He treats them with apprehension just as a normal person would do. He doesn't need to be the stark polar opposite of Boromir for people to like him. He never treats the hobbits badly either, all he does in capture them and interrogate them to which they are of very little help. Yet despite this all he still comes to the final wise conclusion that Frodo and Sam are well intentioned and he shouldn't come in the way of these good intentions and give them his blessing when he finally lets them go - in the hopes that they are successful as he sees first hand how having the Ring himself will probably lead to his death, just like it did for his brother.

- Saruman
The way he died in the extended edition was just plain bad. We finally get to see a bit more of magic and spell casting (which PJ stated his adversion of) which is why it was surprising. Yet then they kill him off so pathetically. It would have been better to keep him in until the Scouring of the Shire where he can be humiliated that this once great wizard is now an outcast from his own palace and wonders now around the likes of hobbits. Even a bunch of hobbits overpowering him and "de-staffing" him would have been much better. Heck - i reckon the audience would erupt in cheers seeing the hobbits showing this nasty piece of work who's the boss! ;)

- The Mouth of Sauron
Come on - he wasn't even that nasty or that hope-destroying, which is what he's supposed to be. If they wanted to ad-lib in the movie, they could done a much better job about it so it's much more painful for Aragorn to hear this spokeperson for Sauron's words. They way Aragorn killed him was pretty lame as the Mouth didn't really set himself up as a powerful adversary.

- The middle movie
It suffers the same fate as POTC:DMC does -- it just seems far too "middle movie." It relies far too heavily on the fact that FOTR was it's beginning and ROTK was it's end so it really doesn't work as a stand alone movie that well. I think the battle scene at Helm's Deep was much better filmed and the tension was many times greater than the comparatively disappointing battle of Minas Tirith / The Plennor Fields in the final movie. But this movie in general just doesn't try hard enough to have the same great "beginning-middle-and-end" storytelling.

- Wargs
Unlike everyone else here, I know it wasn't much like in the book, but I still thought that it was handled well in the movie. They just looked more like wolf-and-boar hybrids than Tolkien would have wanted.

- The Undead Army
When they came and just swept over the forces of orcs and other such enemies from Minas Morgul..... it was just a cop out. It was just really annoying to see this great evil force so pathetically eradicated.

- The Torches
Remember the scene where all the torches light up because Merry has lit the one in Gondor on Gandalf's orders? And we see this great, immense distance that the lights follow to get the message eventually back to Rohan? We are supposed to believe that Gandalf and Merry rode all this way in just THREE days!!!!! So unbelievable. Through snow capped mountains and all too! I know you want to make Middle Earth look very big, Peter Jackson, but here you just made it look too big. FAR too big!

- Duel between Gandalf and the Witch King
I've read somewhere a long time ago that Peter Jackson has an adversion to actual magic being performed. Which is why he took "spell casting", for all intents and purposes, out of the movie. I think he should not let his personal tastes get in the way of telling a great story. There needed to be much more of an actual fight between the two of them to show just how much more advanced the two bearers-of-magic are beyond the capabilities of mortal men. All we got was a lame shattering of Gandalf's staff.

- The Witch King fighting
He didn't!!! He just targetted King Theoden and that's it. We never get to see him in motion with his mighty morning-star taking out his enemy. No sooner does he attack a single person, he is killed. He goes out like a sissy. If they made him look more foreboding by letting him slaughter more of the Rohirrim et. al. this short ending would have been much better received.

- The eagles
Yet again, another cop out. They come just in the nick of time to save the Fellowship and Gondorrim from the remaining Nazgul. Puh-leeeeeeeease! Really terrible!

- Trolls from "The Hobbit" vs. trolls from "LOTR"
While I think the enslaved trolls may have just never learned to talk because of the way they live, I still think that there should have been some middle ground somewhere, as of course, in The Hobbit they spend all night talking and arguing about (eating?) who they have found. People will be seriously scratching their heads when it comes to seeing the far different version of them in GDT's The Hobbit.

- Shelob
It would have been nice if there was more of a mention that she is actually an ancient demon that takes the form of a spider rather than just let people believe that Shelob is nothing BUT a spider.

- Were they goblins or orcs coming out of the high vaulted ceilings of the Mines of Moria (just before the Balrog came along) ???

- The 3rd movie makes you think that almost all Gondorrim die. Refer to the people below me for why I was remembered about this.



Honestly - I didn't hate the movies though. I thought they were all good. The above just lists the most annoying things about the movies to me, otherwise I think it is a more than fair adaption from book to screen as IT IS very hard to preserve the same kind of story-telling in a book on a screen. I think FOTR makes the best stand alone movie out of the three of them.

[Galin]

Were they goblins or orcs coming out of the high vaulted ceilings of the Mines of Moria (just before the Balrog came along) ???

Well according to JRRT at least, there is no difference in any case :)

[Beor]

You know, I just recently re-read Lord of the Rings, and I realized that I am very very disappointed (wroth, even) as to how they portrayed Theoden King in the movies. Actually they messed up all the main people of the Mark, but whatever, I could go on. Anyway, Theoden in the book is freakin AMAZING. He is kingly, and wise, and does not despair, whereas in the movie, he is all like, "Man, we are all going to die horribly", and, "We have to stay in Edoras, because Helms Deep sucks." They make Aragorn (and I love Aragorn, he is much like Beren, they say) the main mover and shaker of Theoden. Dammit!! Why cant Theoden be strong on his own?! I understand the Wormtounge thing, thats cool, even the Saruman exorcism, it doesnt really matter, but after that, they could have done way better. He didnt despair, he loved battle, crazy old coot! One thing I did like though, was his expression at Helms Deep when it started to rain.

Also, they messed up his speech before they rode onto the Pelennor.

[Voronwen]

Indeed, so much was lost in "translation" from books to films... :(

While i am happy that someone made the films... And i do admit that i enjoy them, at least on the level that one would enjoy reading fanfiction, perhaps... i think maybe it was too ambitious a project to try to fit into three films. I think this is where we lose a lot, because of all the changes that needed to be made to condense everything down.

That is not to let anyone off the hook for all those mistakes, though. :(

[Beor]

I agree, Voronwen, I also enjoyed the films. I always expect the film industry to butcher books a little (ever see Timeline?). I think overall they were quite good. I just get a little nitpicky. They could have done each book (1-6) as a whole movie, but people would never have put up with all that, plus, it might have been a bit long...

[Voronwen]

I just get a little nitpicky.
That is entirely OK! Wait and see if anyone makes films about the Second Age and Numenor, how picky i would get!!! :p I'd be unstoppable!

They could have done each book (1-6) as a whole movie, but people would never have put up with all that, plus, it might have been a bit long...
That would have been great for us, but it's true, the general public would not have liked that very much. :rolleyes:

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Why wouldn't the public have watched six movies? They watched six Star Wars movies, four Indiana Jones movies, six Rocky movies, four Rambo movies, dozens of Bond movies, etc. It is the studios who wouldn't have paid for six movies. At least not up front. Not until they were sure all six would sell.

[Voronwen]

Why wouldn't the public have watched six movies? They watched six Star Wars movies, four Indiana Jones movies, six Rocky movies, four Rambo movies, dozens of Bond movies, etc.
Good points, and i have to agree. It does all come down to "selling", doesn't it? :( :(

[PorterW]

I am very surprised that no one yet has mentioned the portrayal of Gimli in the films. The character Gimli was utterly butchered by the script writers. Gimli, one of the fairest speaking, intelligent characters in the books was turned into, sorry for being blunt, a complete moron. Sorry PJ, Tolkien would have scorned you for your treatment of Gimli the dwarf.

[Morwen]

The only thing I disliked in the movies was the changing of Faramir's character. He was awesome because he wasn't tempted by the ring - he was ultimately stronger than his brother because of that.

[basti]

He was a bit too much of a comic relief character.. But that's movies.

[Snowdog]

Although the LOTR trilogy was pretty good, it was far from perfect and much of it strayed terribly from Tolkien, such as the Elves at Helm's Deep.

IMHO, what really kept the series from being a disaster was the strength of Tolkien's work, a work so powerful that even those two dopey women, Fran and Philippa, couldn't screw it up too badly. In contrast, compare LOTR to PJ's next effort, King Kong, to get a better feel for just how totally incompetent those two screenwriters were (and are).

The question should have been 'What All Was Right with PJ's LOTR. It would be a shorter list. Having recently read through the books again, it really showed how much PJ Boyens & Co glossed over, especially in RotK. I have the EE of all three movies, and have considered casting them into the firey pit from which they came, but will keep tthem for the sole reason that had these movies not been made when they were, I would not have met my dear wife on a Tolkien forum discussing the movies and RP'ng at the time. The pinnacle of these movies for me was 'Trilogy Tuesday' when the EE of FotR & TT were shown in the theatre, and at midnight, RotK. premiered. What did he get right? Well, The Shire.

[Valandil]

:
:
:
What did he get right? Well, The Shire.

But even THAT was left unscoured!

[Snowdog]

Yes, quite. I should clarify that the look of the Shire was fairly right with my vision. Maybe Bree and the Prancing Pony.... like I said, it would be a shorter list. :)