What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Wally]

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).

My list of complaints include the dumb Arwen dream sequences, the 'dramatic' loss of Aragorn over the cliff during the fight en route to Helm's Deep, the aforementioned Elves, the numerous pointless changes to Tolkien's work (such as Frodo correctly guessing the password into Moria instead of Pippin [or was it Merry?]), and the omission of incredibly important plot points from these works (such as Denethor's use of the palantir). I am no PJ fanboy and do not hesitate to take him to task for these sins. For $300MM and 2 years of shooting, these films should have been perfect. Does anyone else have an opinion here?

[The Gaffer]

Does anyone else have an opinion here?
:eek:

Arwen sure is purty

[brownjenkins]

I think he did a good job all told. Out of the thousands of movies made based upon books, only a handful equal or exceed the book version. Many are terrible, many are average, and many are pretty good. I'd put LOTR in the pretty good category.

My litmus test was not how much I liked it, since I have too much book baggage to be objective, but how much my kids did. And the enjoyed them quite a lot (though their major complaint was the drawn out dream sequences as well :D ).

[tolkienfan]

I agree that it wasn't perfect, and there were too many changes.
However, I wouldn't call Fran Walsh (or Philippia Boyens) dopey. And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about King Kong, as the screenplay was by Fran Walsh and Philippia Boyens in King Kong as well. (or are you saying that the screenplay was incompetent in King Kong?) :confused:

[Kevin McIntyre]

Making a cinematic version of the Lord of the Rings is a very difficult challenge and changes in the story will always occur whoever were to make the movie(s).
Firstly the number of characters that appear in the book is much to high for movies (don't you hate when someone leans over and says 'now who is that again'). With this in mind the changes that I most disliked are:
Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this
Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.
Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)
Hems Deep - the battle is great, however Theoden decision to go there in the movie is not correct at all, and seems only done to make it appear that Aragorn is dead - not cool
I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.

However as a fan of cinema - PJ's movies are an incredible achievment and the few issues I have over a 12 hour movie seems like quibbling.

If you want to see a scene by scene recreation of the LOTR it would have to be done on TV where a scene like The Shadow of the Past can get a proper treatment. This could work if whatever network signed on was willing to produce a show with a finite storyline and ending.

[brownjenkins]

Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this

I suppose that, in part, this was to make the elves look a bit more involved. From reading the books you find out about all the behind-the-scenes work the elves did, along with some straight-out fighting on the part of those from Lorien, just not in Helm's Deep. Also, Elladan and Elrohir helped in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. So, while the event itself is not accurate, there is some basis for getting the theme of direct elven help across.

Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.

That wasn't too far from the book. The basic theme, that Merry and Pippen helped push the Ents into action, but that it was also a reaction to Saruman's destruction, is basically right.

Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)

I agree Faramir was off-base from the book, but he still comes out as a great character, maybe even better because, instead of acting noble just because he was just born as that kind of person, he actually makes the choice against his better judgement. In some ways, the movie Faramir is a more "real" character.

Hems Deep - the battle is great, however Theoden decision to go there in the movie is not correct at all, and seems only done to make it appear that Aragorn is dead - not cool

The one other quibble my kids had about the movies is how many times someone is presented as killed (i.e. frodo) and/or dead (i.e. gandalf/aragorn), and then miraculously come back. :p

I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.

I agree 100%. I would have editted those right out.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Faramir does come off better in the extended editions as it shows some backstory - although in the book it is clear Faramir made a choice - a choice that Denethor ridicules :
"For Boromir was loyal to me and no wizard's pupil. He would have remembered his father's need, and would not have squandered what fortune gave. He would have brought me a mighty gift."

[Jon S.]

Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)
http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

[Jon S.]

Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this
Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.
Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)
I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.
Elves at Helms Deep: emphasizes the interrelationship between the races and the the Elven leadership's decision to play an active, engaged role together with men in countering Sauron when they could have just ran (or rode) for the hills (or the Gray Havens).

Faramir - have you read this? http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html
According to the script writers, to have Faramir simply pass immediately on the Ring after all that have been emphasized previously as to its irresistability and utter corruptibility would have been unbelievable to most viewers.

Elrond and Galadrial's "teleknetic communication" - 100% true to the book. From the Tolkien Meta-FAQ:

Was there "telepathy" in Middle-earth?

Although it is not emphasized in the books, direct communication of thought from mind to mind was certainly part of Middle-earth. This is stated directly in the chapter "Many Partings" of LotR, when Celeborn, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond lingered before parting:

...they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro.

Another example is the voice Frodo hears in his mind on Amon Hen, saying, "Take off the Ring!", which was that of Gandalf as he "sat in a high place, and... strove with the Dark Tower" ("The White Rider"). ("The Black Gate is Closed" confirms that this was Gandalf, when it suggests that Frodo felt Gandalf's thought on him, "as he had upon Amon Hen".)

Tolkien discusses the details of this "telepathy" at length in the essay "Osanwe-kenta: Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", which was published in the journal Vinyar Tengwar #39 (available from http://www.elvish.org/). It seems that all minds had this ability, but that it was "dimmed" whenever it passed through a physical body. Elves could therefore use it more easily than humans, as their wills had greater control over their bodies. The essay contains many more fascinating details, but there is not space even to summarize them here.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Elves at Helms Deep: emphasizes the interrelationship between the races and the the Elven leadership's decision to play an active, engaged role together with men in countering Sauron when they could have just ran (or rode) for the hills (or the Gray Havens).

but this is in direct conflict with Tolkien's idea of the elves at the end of the third age - the elves were fading.


Elrond and Galadrial's "teleknetic communication" - 100% true to the book. From the Tolkien Meta-FAQ:

Was there "telepathy" in Middle-earth?

Although it is not emphasized in the books, direct communication of thought from mind to mind was certainly part of Middle-earth. This is stated directly in the chapter "Many Partings" of LotR, when Celeborn, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond lingered before parting:

...they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro.

Another example is the voice Frodo hears in his mind on Amon Hen, saying, "Take off the Ring!", which was that of Gandalf as he "sat in a high place, and... strove with the Dark Tower" ("The White Rider"). ("The Black Gate is Closed" confirms that this was Gandalf, when it suggests that Frodo felt Gandalf's thought on him, "as he had upon Amon Hen".)

Tolkien discusses the details of this "telepathy" at length in the essay "Osanwe-kenta: Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", which was published in the journal Vinyar Tengwar #39 (available from http://www.elvish.org/). It seems that all minds had this ability, but that it was "dimmed" whenever it passed through a physical body. Elves could therefore use it more easily than humans, as their wills had greater control over their bodies. The essay contains many more fascinating details, but there is not space even to summarize them here.

True, however - but in the movie they are hundreds of miles away from each other and just seems hokey. Just seems to me that PJ signed Cate Blanchett to the role of Galadriel and wanted to give here more to do (and why not she is amazing).

[Jon S.]

We've quickly exhausted what can be said on the other point so let me just respond respectfully to this one:
Elves at Helms Deep: emphasizes the interrelationship between the races and the the Elven leadership's decision to play an active, engaged role together with men in countering Sauron when they could have just ran (or rode) for the hills (or the Gray Havens).[/B]
but this is in direct conflict with Tolkien's idea of the elves at the end of the third age - the elves were fading.
Quick response. There's no inherent conflict between the Elves, in general, fading and a group of them coming to men's aide at this time. In fact, as we know from the book, Elves were engaged in many ways and in various fronts opposing Sauron and even allying themselves with men. The difference between the book and movie is not one of principle but of degree.

As Michael Martinez put it:

>> Tolkien wrote that the Third Age was "the fading years of the Eldar. For long they were at peace, wielding the Three Rings while Sauron slept and the One Ring was lost; but they attempted nothing new, living in memory of past." (The Return Of The King, p. 365). Perhaps they established no new kingdoms, but the Elvish songs relating the tragic stories of Nimrodel and the Ents' search for the Ent-wives show that the Elves continued to flourish and interact with other peoples around them long after the war was over.

P.S. In case you're wondering, yes, I do understand why many people, not just you, found the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep disconcerting/contrary to Tolkien's story. As a long-time Tolkien fanatic, however, I've never felt the need for the movie to mirror the book in every regard and I dug the Elves - no, not all of them, not Legolas's Green Elves of Mirkwood, for example, but Galadrial's Elves of Lorien - showing up to help.

[Jon S.]

P.P.S. Here's another POV on this subject which, may I say, is remarkably similar to my own.

>> Arrival of the Elves at Helm's Deep

>> The discussion between Elrond and Galadriel, and the subsequent arrival of a force of elves at Helm's Deep was (IMO) a great addition to the movie. In the books, and in the first movie, the first war with Sauron involved an alliance of men, elves, and dwarves. While it is true that the age of elves is passing, they are as yet a force in the Middle Earth. In the first movie, elves were portrayed almost as selfish pacifists who refused to get involved.

>> Anyone who has read the Appendices in the Return of the King knows that in fact, Sauron had several forces attacking the dwarves, elves, and men separately, so the non-human races ARE involved, they are just split into racial groups instead of all banded together as in the first war against Sauron.

>> By elves coming to Helm's Deep, it shows that the old alliance is still in affect (though fading) and that the non-human races are still involved.

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~sbeck/pers/ttt.html

[Peter_20]

I find it annoying how film versions of books always feel so damn rushed.
I mean, the movie starts out like "Frodo, this Ring is dangerous - oh no! take it to Bree, right this second!"

Then they arrive at Bree AT ONCE, and suddenly Aragorn bumps into their room and magically becomes their ally in a few seconds.
They could at least have had him chat with them for a while, so you got a feeling that he actually was included into the group.

The movie also felt way too Hollywood-ish; Elijah Wood is too much of a "cute boy for the 12-year-old girls", and I think that he'd come off much better as a character if he were a bit more reserved and mysterious.

[Rían]

The movies get enough right, IMO, that it's worth it - I just mentally "hold my breath" thru the terrible parts :D (and substitute the real story in my head)

[me9996]

One thing that realy bugs me is the army from Minus Morgal.

I'm pretty sure that it's wraiths in the book.
And even if it isn't, the army of orcs in the movie doesn't remotely fit the discription in the book!

From the book:
All the host was clad in sable, dark as night. Against the wan walls
and the luminous pavement of the road Frodo could see them, small black
figures in rank upon rank, marching swiftly and silently, passing outwards
in an endless stream. Before them went a great cavalry of horsemen moving
like ordered shadows.

[Peter_20]

Oh, and Orcs crawling up from the ground =/= corrupted Elves. :rolleyes:

[durinsbane2244]

The movie also felt way too Hollywood-ish; Elijah Wood is too much of a "cute boy for the 12-year-old girls", and I think that he'd come off much better as a character if he were a bit more reserved and mysterious.

ha, he was also too much of a 'cute boy for twelve-year-old boys'! :D :p

[Peter_20]

ha, he was also too much of a 'cute boy for twelve-year-old boys'! :D :pHaha, yeah. :D
2Look at me, ain't my big eyes cute?" XD

I mean, I have nothing against Hollywood, but it just doesn't seem right when the world of Arda sometimes feels like an American suburb or whatever.

[Olmer]

I mean, I have nothing against Hollywood, but it just doesn't seem right when the world of Arda sometimes feels like an American suburb or whatever.
American suburbs???
Does New Zeland look like the american suburbs?!!
Besides the movie has been made by a new zelander, who lives and works THERE, not in the Hollywood. Thank God for it, because I am shuddering as imagining a Hollywood version. :eek: Ralph Bakshi's is more than enough.

[Peter_20]

American suburbs???
Does New Zeland look like the american suburbs?!!
Besides the movie has been made by a new zelander, who lives and works THERE, not in the Hollywood. Thank God for it, because I am shuddering as imagining a Hollywood version. :eek: Ralph Bakshi's is more than enough.I guess I wasn't very clear. XD

I meant that the movies sometimes *feel* like Hollywood at some moments; they give off the same feelings as a Hollywood movie.

That's not good, because Arda and Hollywood aren't exactly the same things. :D

[mithrand1r]

American suburbs???
Does New Zeland look like the american suburbs?!!
Besides the movie has been made by a new zelander, who lives and works THERE, not in the Hollywood. Thank God for it, because I am shuddering as imagining a Hollywood version. :eek: Ralph Bakshi's is more than enough.

While I think that Bakshi had several problems with his adaptation of LOTR to screen, in some respects, I think he was closer to the spirit of the books than PJ et al. (Especially for the part of the movie upto when the hobbits arrive in Rivendell)

Overall, I enjoyed PJ&companies version of LOTR, but I think it could have been better. (especially considering the amount of resources that PJ had available for making the films.)

One thing I will definitively say about PJ et al. Their version of LOTR does not look like any US suburbs. (IMHO :))

(Peter I just say your comment. I am not sure about the impression of the movie not seeming like it was from Hollywood. It is difficult for me to tell where a movie is from, although this film did have the appearance (to me) of a big budget production.)

[Peter_20]

I don't really mean it looks like Hollywood (XD), but it tends to feel like a typical Hollywood movie. :)

[Kevin McIntyre]

I don't really mean it looks like Hollywood (XD), but it tends to feel like a typical Hollywood movie. :)
3+ hours per is not a typical Hollywood movie. Is it that we miss what was cut/never filmed or discouraged by what was changed?

[Wayfarer]

For the record, I wasn't a fan... well, I didn't actually like much of anything about the trilogy after half-way through the first, and come to think of it never bothered with the last one.

Anyway. I think Elijah Wood was pretty much spot on, physically if not in acting talent. Gandalf describes Frodo by mentioning his eyes as a striking feature, and Mr. Woods certainly pulls that off to a 'T.'

But yeah... what was wrong. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say 'the directing.'

[Peter_20]

3+ hours per is not a typical Hollywood movie. Is it that we miss what was cut/never filmed or discouraged by what was changed?I wasn't talking about the length, but about the atmosphere. :)

[Mark of Cenla]

I really loved the movies. Since I am a high school teacher and am off for two months, I pick a day in June and watch all three movies in one day.

My biggest problem with the flicks is the leaving out of the "Scouring of the Shire". To me that is one of the main points of the books: that the hobbits had to deal with evil by themselves, and did it quite well. The other plot changes are OK with me. Peace.

[me9996]

Yeah, the scouring of the shire showed that all hobbits were strong and if they chose to could go out and do great things.

But they don't want to, they just wanna stay around home and farm. :)

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

My list of complaints include the dumb Arwen dream sequences, the 'dramatic' loss of Aragorn over the cliff during the fight en route to Helm's Deep, the aforementioned Elves, the numerous pointless changes to Tolkien's work (such as Frodo correctly guessing the password into Moria instead of Pippin [or was it Merry?]), and the omission of incredibly important plot points from these works (such as Denethor's use of the palantir). I am no PJ fanboy and do not hesitate to take him to task for these sins. For $300MM and 2 years of shooting, these films should have been perfect. Does anyone else have an opinion here?
Merry guessed the password. It's little things that they changed that bugged me. That, and Arwen, Helm's Deep, and the non-existence of the Scouring of the Shire. I still like all three movies, though and have watched them countless (literally) times. :)

[The Gaffer]

Anyway. I think Elijah Wood was pretty much spot on, physically if not in acting talent. Gandalf describes Frodo by mentioning his eyes as a striking feature, and Mr. Woods certainly pulls that off to a 'T.'
That was my first reaction. He looks like he's got "an elvish air" about him.

However, as the trilogy went on, his performance (or the direction of his performance) got worse and worse. It was like he already knew the ending or something. I don't think Frodo's character was at all well portrayed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The book also gives you the feeling that he knows the end, sometimes.

[Lotesse]

The book also gives you the feeling that he knows the end, sometimes.


Yes, totally, I agree. Throughout the book, Frodo's got this sort of air of dutiful, weighted, but martyr-like resignation about him, which I thought was appropriate given his circumstances and that damn Ring and all, he knew it wasn't going to be days of wine and roses and that he'd get the short end of the stick at the end of the day. (heh - ws that enough cliche sayings in one sentence, or what? ) And in the films, I thought Wood played that off quite well; maybe it got old nearer to the end because, let's face it, surely the whole ordeal was getting old for Frodo, too, and harder to plod through, and so forth.


My biggest problem with the flicks is the leaving out of the "Scouring of the Shire". To me that is one of the main points of the books: that the hobbits had to deal with evil by themselves, and did it quite well. The other plot changes are OK with me.

I pretty much feel exactly the same way, here. The Scouring would have been so, so awesome to have seen all those guys play, especially after the 9 hours of the series. It would have been such a satisfying way to wrap it up, better I think than all that crying and hugging at the Grey Havens.

I love the films - but one's got to bear in mind that they are an artist's (the director's) interpretation of the story, based on the books, not meant to be an exact play-by-play duplication of the books. Anyway, I love the books and the films. Both. In different ways, for different reasons, I suppose...


That was my first reaction. He looks like he's got "an elvish air" about him.


You know, I think he might actually be some sort of elvish hobbit faerie-child or something, for real. He hardly looks pure human. But I love it, it's sort of like Bjork - she looks elvish-faerie too, doesn't she? Some people make me stop & wonder, "Hmmmm... well, maybe... maybe..."

[Miss Cassandra]

You know, I think he might actually be some sort of elvish hobbit faerie-child or something, for real. He hardly looks pure human. But I love it, it's sort of like Bjork - she looks elvish-faerie too, doesn't she? Some people make me stop & wonder, "Hmmmm... well, maybe... maybe..."


Yes, I agree with that. A little out of this world, like there is something inside them that we will never understand. Strange that you mention Bjork, I have thought that for the longest. These people are all over, I see them from time to time too, and I think even they will never know what lies within....

There is definately some truth in them
Truth of the unknown maybe.

[Peter_20]

Yes, Björk would actually fit kinda well as an Elf.
She has that Elvish, mysterious air about her, and she also has the characteristic Elven beauty.

I mean, take a look:

http://www.poster.net/bjoerk/bjoerk-photo-bjoerk-6200693.jpg

[caboose007]

hmmm... ok.... no I don't see it.

There are certain people who are amazingly beautiful about but I've never felt that there's something else about them. It's the genetic lottery and some people just happen to hit the jack pot. But Elves to me would have to have the mind and essence of an Elf. You know the whole "I'm really old and can do things you can't". Like old chinese martial artists who can still back flip at the age of 120 and not break a hip or run up a wall.

Anyway I think what was wrong with the films are that they didn't capture the essence of the books. It felt too try hard. The books were like an old story that plays out well as myth or legend of a certain culture (if only we had some more like it!) and the films seemed more like an attempt at making a big war of Greece against Troy but with some CG monsters in.

I mean what happened to the Wargs???? They were supposed to be quite smart and one runs of a cliff for crying out loud! They hunted the Hobbits and Co after rivendell and were supposed to be big wolves. I dunno what wolves Weta have seen but thats no wolf. A mutated bear more like but no wolf.

The trolls I thought were a good concept. Some great big lumbering half minded beast giants that were used for heavy duty war fare. But in the Hobbit the Trolls had names and could talk. Shouldn't this have carried on in the LoTR films? The cave troll in Moria for example... how could he talk? With the fact it was too stupid to even find Frodo immediately behind the pillar I'm guessing it barely remembers to breathe. The trolls should have been like an ent but corrupted. This is another reason for the atmosphere of the films failing miserably.

[Wayfarer]

Yes, Björk would actually fit kinda well as an Elf.
She has that Elvish, mysterious air about her, and she also has the characteristic Elven beauty.

I mean, take a look:

http://www.poster.net/bjoerk/bjoerk-photo-bjoerk-6200693.jpg

She looks... elvish I'll give you that.

But not Tolkien-elvish. Like the wicked fey in some old tale who'll steal you away and turn you into something for her amusement. Look at her - she's wearing a swan for a dress. How creepy is that?

But yes, caboose007 hits it right on the head. Lord of the Rings is mythic, and intentionally so. And Jackson falls prey to the spectacle of making a mythic movie and tries to embellish where no embellishment is necessary. Thus you have the ridiculous drawn-out fight scenes, the addition of a hackneyed 'romantic subplot' and the extensive use of slow-motion cheese takes. And so forth.

[Miss Cassandra]

She looks... elvish I'll give you that.

But not Tolkien-elvish. Like the wicked fey in some old tale who'll steal you away and turn you into something for her amusement. Look at her - she's wearing a swan for a dress. How creepy is that?


She does look a little wicked. People say to me all the time that I look like an evil elven witch,... maybe I am a little wicked too. Really, I do get that all the time, from just random people.

'You look, strangely familiar... do I know you from somewhere?'
'You look strangley exotic... where are you from?'
'Are you that one girl,... no, nevermind'
Or just the plain 'Youre weird'

Swan dresses are cool :cool:

[The Gaffer]

Swan dresses are cool :cool:
Maybe that is connected to the remarks you get...

Actually no, those sound like chat-up lines to me. :eek:

[Miss Cassandra]

Actually no, those sound like chat-up lines to me. :eek:


Maybe you should see how I look. Im a very interesting specimen. my whole town is convinced that I am a witch and I scare all the little children... :evil:

People say im creepy. And not of this world.
But I like it that way...

[Peter_20]

I saw a bunch of girls my age walking around in white linen the other day, and they could have been mistaken for elves if they actually were beautiful.
But they weren't.
They laughed a lot, but it didn't sound enchanting at all, and they weren't pretty or anything either.

I actually found it pretty frustrating: they DID resemble elves at first, but then their total lack of beauty really annoyed me.
They seemed somewhat cocky, as well.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

*cough* Slightly off topic. *cough* ;)

[Miss Cassandra]

I saw a bunch of girls my age walking around in white linen the other day, and they could have been mistaken for elves if they actually were beautiful.
But they weren't.
They laughed a lot, but it didn't sound enchanting at all, and they weren't pretty or anything either.

I actually found it pretty frustrating: they DID resemble elves at first, but then their total lack of beauty really annoyed me.
They seemed somewhat cocky, as well.

Damn those girls who only think they are beautiful.
Sounds like they are trying to enchant everyone who sees them, lame.

Sorry a little off topic

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i admit the fimls got a lot wrong, but they also got a lot right, but just imagine if pj et al had gone with their original idea of arwen at helms deep...aaarrrggghhh!!!

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

i admit the fimls got a lot wrong, but they also got a lot right, but just imagine if pj et al had gone with their original idea of arwen at helms deep...aaarrrggghhh!!!
They were considering that ?! :eek: *faints*

[tolkienfan]

Yeah, they even filmed some. There's this one part, where Legolas is pulling up Aragorn and Gimli from the bridge, when Legolas looks over his shoulder at no one. It's because originally Arwen was there! They kept the shot and just erased her out.

[Miss Cassandra]

* Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Many viewers reported that they spotted a car in the background of the theatrical version when Sam says that he is now the furthest he has ever been from home. In a 1 December 2003 Newsweek article, director Peter Jackson confirms the presence of a car, seen in the theatrical release of the movie. The DVD versions reveal no such car, because it was subsequently removed digitally. Jackson says: "We actually didn't know about the car until we were cutting the movie. The smoke and dust wasn't so bad because there was already lots of it around, but the bloody windshield was reflecting the sun back into the camera lens. So we erased it for the DVD. I think some people were upset because they tried to show it to their friends and it was gone."

* Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Gimli attempts to smash the ring with an axe which is completely destroyed, breaking into several pieces. In the next shot the pieces are missing and, when he pledges his axe to Frodo several minutes later, the axe is suddenly intact. In fact, he snatches the axe of the dwarf next to him to attack the ring.

* Revealing mistakes: As Frodo runs from the orcs, his cape is clearly supported by a string to make it look flowing.

* Continuity: As Boromir lies dying, Aragorn leans over him. In the shots over Aragorn's shoulder, looking at Boromir, Boromir's right hand rests on Aragorn's left shoulder. In shots looking at Aragorn, the hand is not there. This is because these shots looking at Aragorn while he is speaking to Boromir were actually shot without Sean Bean.

* Continuity: While the four hobbits (Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin) are at The Prancing Pony in Bree, Merry returns from the bar with a pint and Pippin takes off to get his own. When the angle changes to an over-head shot, Merry is no longer at the table and Pippin is suddenly back in place. This was obviously a shot that carried over from the previous scene (prior to Merry's return from the bar).

* Continuity: When Sam reveals to Gandalf what he overheard of Gandalf's and Frodo's conversation, a map disappears and reappears under his right shoulder. The fallen books on the floor also change position between shots.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Arwen and Aragorn are alone together on a bridge in Rivendell, her lips are moving while he is speaking.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: In the dwarf mine, when Gandalf sits outside the three doorways and talks to Frodo, Frodo's close-ups are taken from reaction shots to Gandalf's speech so that we see Gandalf's beard moving as if he was talking, even though no sound is heard.

* Revealing mistakes: As Aragorn leads the Hobbits through the woods after leaving Bree, the pack on his back bumps the camera.

* Continuity: When Aragorn's pack bumps the camera, it's on his right shoulder, but in the next shot you see it's on the left.

* Factual errors: In the Council of Elrond scene, there is a close-up of the One Ring while the members of the Council argue about who should take the ring to Mordor. The reflection of the council as seen in the ring is the same as shot of the council as seen by the camera. This is incorrect. The shot should be a mirror image.

* Crew or equipment visible: A cord of some kind is visible behind the boat after Sam is pulled into it by Frodo at the end of the film.

* Continuity: Throughout the movie, Frodo's fingernails are very bitten down and short, but a close-up when the Black Rider tries to sniff him out shows neatly manicured nails.

* Continuity: The positions of Gimli's axes as he stands in Balin's tomb.

* Revealing mistakes: The forced perspective trick becomes visible while Gandalf and Bilbo are having tea. As Bilbo is pottering about, Gandalf sits on a Hobbit-sized chair at a table that is too small for him. As he shuffles slightly to get comfortable, his knees move the table, but only his, smaller, half moves - the other half, where Bilbo is seated, is further away from the camera, and stays put. It can be seen that this gap between the two table "halves" is concealed behind cleverly placed, bottles, plates, etc. Then, when Bilbo is about to pour hot water in the teapot, Gandalf lifts the teapot lid for him. The lid is not on the teapot, but placed on a spike nearer to the camera to create the forced perspective. It is also clearly visible when Gandalf puts the lid back.

* Continuity: Gandalf's belt repeatedly switches between being tied and untied as he speaks to Bilbo.

* Continuity: The rope handle of Gandalf's staff jumps around his hand between cuts during his meeting with Saruman.

* Continuity: When Gandalf first appears riding on his cart, there is a long grey-green cloth hanging from the lantern on the right-hand side of the cart, with Gandalf's staff on the left. In the next shot, the lantern and cloth have switched sides with the staff (which itself moves back and forth between shots as Gandalf and Frodo travel into the village). It would seem that the first shot has been flipped so that the "road" bends round to the left to match the curve of the road as Gandalf approaches Frodo in the next shot.

* Continuity: When Saruman first attacks Gandalf he uses his staff in his right hand. In the next shot from behind Saruman he is holding his staff with his left hand above his right hand, but in the next shot from the front it is back with his right hand above his left.

* Continuity: At the council of Lord Elrond, once the fellowship has been formed, in the close-ups of the hobbits you can see that they measure up above Gandalf's beard and Legolas's hair, almost up to their necks, but in the wide shots of the whole fellowship they are clearly smaller - only about waist height.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: As Saruman reveals the Palantir to Gandalf, he lifts the cloth while speaking the line "Why should we fear to use it?" As he finishes the line, his mouth is still moving.

* Revealing mistakes: After the huge orc battle, one of the "dead" orcs sits up and has a good look round before lying back down. This has been explained away in all manner of different ways, but it strikes a sufficient number of viewers as incongruous that it seems more likely to be a genuine error than not.

* Revealing mistakes: When the Black Rider comes into shot while the hobbits are hiding under the tree-roots, he appears on the left-hand side of the tree without first being visible on the right-hand side (though it has been claimed that this is intentional).

* Continuity: Boromir's shield continually disappears and reappears during the battle at Balin's tomb.

* Continuity: During the Mirror of Galadriel scene, Galadriel is still holding the vase that held the water for the mirror, there are several shots of her as Frodo looks into the mirror and she never moves. When Frodo falls backwards there is a full body shot of her and she is no longer holding the vase.

* Revealing mistakes: In the theatrical version, Saruman's lower legs disappear for a frame or two as the camera swoops toward him when he is standing on the summit of Orthanc, bringing the lightning down on the mountain. This has been corrected in the extended edition of the film.

* Revealing mistakes: When Boromir cuts his finger on the broken sword, the blood is visible on his finger behind the sword before he gets cut, and as the sword is pulled away, his undamaged fingertip is visible through the blood.

* Revealing mistakes: When Bilbo takes Gandalf's hat and staff at Bag End. The staff has been erased behind Bilbo, preventing it from getting a false perspective in the composited scene

* Continuity: In the Extended Edition, Sam and Frodo change places between shots when they see the Wood Elves leaving.

* Continuity: Before the water creature attacks, Frodo is facing the lake/facing the mine entrance between shots.

* Continuity: When Frodo crouches back from the Ringwraiths on Weathertop, the Ringwraith closest to him has a sword in his right and a knife in his left hand. After Frodo puts on the Ring, the Ringwraith's left Hand can be seen - but the knife is gone.

* Continuity: The main Ringwraith on Weathertop draws its sword twice as it approaches Frodo.

* Revealing mistakes: When the dragon-firework Merry and Pippin have stolen goes off, the fuse is still burning. Several inches of fuse clearly remain, yet it launches.

* Revealing mistakes: During filming 'Christopher Lee' broke his finger. As Saruman is summoning the lightning when the fellowship are climbing the snowy mountain, as the camera swoops past Saruman you can see Lee's heavily bandaged finger.

* Continuity: During the introduction, Isildur's father is smashed against a rocky hill, the same place where the one ring is cut from Sauron's hand. The overhead shot that follows, shows no such hill.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When the troll grabs Frodo by the leg, Frodo calls for Aragon but his lips don't match what he's saying.

* Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Gandalf loses his staff when he is imprisoned by Saruman, but later he has it again. Or so it seems. Actually, it's a visibly different staff. He also seems to lose his hat, but he leaves it on his horse, whose fate is never established. It doesn't seem implausible that it could have made its way back to Rivendell, just as Bill the pony is expected to do later in the movie, so that Gandalf could have retrieved his hat when he made his way there himself.

* Revealing mistakes: When first in the mines of Moria, Gandalf is walking along a ledge right before he explains what the dwarves' mine for, you can see him kick the wire that lights up his staff.

* Continuity: When the four Hobbits enter the Prancing Pony, there's a book on the counter with nothing on it. In the following shot, there is a feather lying on the book and a little bottle of ink next to it.

* Continuity: When King Elendil is hit by Sauron and falls to the ground, his helmet is on his head, when Isildur runs to him, it is lying beside him.

* Continuity: In the final fight between Aragorn and the chief Uruk Hai, Aragorn is thrown against a tree and we see his sword fall from his hand. The next shot shows the Uruk Hai throw his shield pinning Aragorn to the tree and again we see his sword fall from his hand.

* Continuity: After Gandalf pounds his magical staff into the stone on the bridge of Khaza-Dûm, a wideshot is shown in which the head of the staff is on the left side of his face (our left), but in the following close-up, it is on his right

* Continuity: When the Balrog snares Gandalf at the bridge of Khazad-Dum with its whip and pulls Gandalf to the edge of the broken bridge, the bridge surface is smooth and no ridges are visible all the way to the edge of the broken bridge. The tracks left by Gandalf's hands in the dirt on the bridge further indicate that. However, in the next shot when Gandalf is clinging to the bridge, just before he says, "Fly, you fools," there is a ridge that Gandalf uses to grab on that is not present in the previous shot.

* Revealing mistakes: As Elrond is explaining the quest, the close-ups of the Ring reflect the top of the set on which it was filmed.

* Continuity: When Gandalf arrives at the hobbit village, he lauches some fireworks and the children cheer and jump with their hands in the air. In next shot, at least one of them (to the right of the screen) has both arms pressed to her body.

* Continuity: Immediately after the Riders are overthrown in the river, a shot of Arwen shows her right arm (holding the sword) lowered. In the next shot, her arm is raised high over her head, as though she were still challenging the riders.

* Continuity: As Frodo catches a ride on Gandalf's cart through the Shire, in close-ups, sunlight is brightly shining on Frodo's face from the right, but in close-ups of Gandalf sitting beside him, the sunlight is coming from above and left.

* Revealing mistakes: At the end of the film, there is a wide shot showing Merry being carried off by the Uruk-hai. It is clear that the full-sized, 5' 7" Monaghan is in the shot rather than the scale double - his feet hang way down below the Uruk-hai's hips.

* Continuity: When Boromir is running to save Merry and Pippin from the Uruks, he is clearly shown with sword in hand. However, when he reaches them, he has no sword - both hands are free to stop the swing of an Uruk's axe.

* Revealing mistakes: When Aragorn is leading the hobbits through the Midge-water Marshes and Pippin falls flat on his face you can see the prosthetics on his foot falling off.

* Continuity: When Gandalf knocks on the door at Bag End, there is a small leather pouch attached to his satchel. When he is walking through the door, it has disappeared.

* Revealing mistakes: In Hobbiton, Gandalf's cart pulls away from the Hobbit children who are begging for fireworks. When the camera angle is looking back at the children from the viewpoint of the cart, there are treaded tire tracks in the dirt of the road.

* Continuity: In Moria when Frodo is stabbed be the cave troll he is stabbed in the stomach, when he falls the spear is clearly through his left armpit and when he sits back up, the hole in his shirt is near his right shoulder.

* Continuity: When Arwen is challenging the Ring Wraiths at the ford, her hair alternates between hanging down in front of her and hanging down her back.

* Continuity: When Galdalf and Saruman are fighting in the tower, the bloody cut on Gandalf's forehead disappears and reappears between shots.

* Continuity: After Bilbo's birthday party, Bilbo enters his house and takes off the ring. He then steps over to a walking stick, picks it up with his left hand and transfers it to his right hand. In the very next shot the stick is back in left hand, and what appear to be a couple of small maps are now in his right hand.

* Continuity: When the Ring Wraiths are at the river, they draw their swords left handed. In the very next shot, all nine swords are in Right hands.

* Continuity: The distance at which Gimli is kneeling from Balin's tomb changes between shots. In one shot he is close enough to lean his head/helmet on the tomb, in the other shots he is much further away.

* Revealing mistakes: As Legolas, Aragon, and one of the hobbits enter the woods of Lothlorien, you can make out tire treads in the grass starting at the lower right hand side of the screen.

* Continuity: During the fight between Gandalf and Saruman, Saruman closes all the doors in the tower. During the fight Gandalf is thrown around a lot and you can see one of the doors open, but in the next shot Saruman is thrown at this door which then breaks open (again).

* Continuity: After Boromir is shot with two arrows and is still trying to fight the Uruk-hai, the arrows disapear completely, then one can be seen (the one in his shoulder), then finally two again. When only the one arrow is seen, you can still see the blood stain from the second arrow, but the arrow is not there. When he is hit by the third arrow, all three arrows are visible. When Aragorn is kneeling over Boromir, after Boromir dies, and starts to stand up, there only appears to be two arrows in his body at that time.

* Continuity: When Aragorn defeated the Uruk-Hai who shot arrows at Boromir he had blood in his mouth but when he ran and talked to Boromir there was no blood.

* Continuity: When the company set out, they have a pony with them. In a later long shot, the pony is nowhere to be seen. In a shot after this, the pony is back with them.

* Continuity: On the DVD cover of 'The Fellowship of The Ring', the cut on Arwen's face is on her left cheek. Throughout the movie the cut is on her right cheek.

* Continuity: When the hobbits first see Aragorn his beard is shaved down but when Aragorn saw Frodo disappear and took him into a private room his beard is fully grown.

* Revealing mistakes: As the hobbits scramble to get up after their fall over the cliff near Farmer Maggot's field, the 'poop' that Pippin has just narrowly missed is bumped, revealing it to be rubber.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and Frodo are first discussing the history of the ring in Bag End, Frodo is pouring the drink. In the next shot, he's already sitting down with a drink in his hand.

* Continuity: When Everard Proudfoot sees Gandalf coming into Hobbiton on his cart, his wife walks beside him and gives him a dirty look. Then a few fireworks go off to impress the kids behind him, and the shot goes back to Everard Proudfoot, who's wife walks beside him again and gives him the same look.

* Crew or equipment visible: Reflectors can be seen in the Lothlorien scene, in the mirrorbowl as well as the watercan.

* Continuity: When Bilbo opens the door of his house to greet Gandalf, the wizard raises his hand from his side when he says, "Bilbo Baggins!" However, in the next shot, his hand is back at his side as if he hadn't moved.

* Continuity: When Frodo saves Sam from drowning, they clasp each other in the "acrobat-grip", they both clasp the other one's wrist, a very tight grip. However, when Sam's hand is pulled above water, his arm has turned 180 degrees.

* Continuity: The ring on Argorn's forefinger moves from the left to the right forefinger several times during the movie.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: As Gandalf and Bilbo smoke "the finest weed of the Southfarthing" Bilbo blows out a ring of smoke that Gandalf watches, after that we see Bilbo's mouth saying something, but there's no audio.

* Continuity: In the palantir scene between Gandalf and Saruman, Saruman says that the eye of Sauron sees past all, including flesh. In that shot a ring can be seen on Gandalf's finger (one of the three elvish rings). Then Saruman says, "You know of what I speak Gandalf," and in the very next shot, the ring is gone.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Frodo meets Bilbo in Rivendell and hugs him, you can hear Bilbo say "Ohh!" in delight of seeing Frodo again; however his mouth doesn't move.

* Revealing mistakes: When Frodo falls and rolls down the snowy slope of the mountain (when they approach the pass), the line where his prosthetic hobbit feet ends on his lower legs, is clearly visible.

* Miscellaneous: When Frodo leaves the fellowship to continue on his own to Mordor, there's a tear running down his right cheek. When we next see him, the tear is on his left cheek and there is no evidence of it being on the right side.

* Revealing mistakes: When the fellowship is running into Moria escaping from the Watcher, the prosthetic masks of the hobbits' size doubles are easily seen.

* Revealing mistakes: Near the end of the movie when Sam has sunk below the water when he's chasing Frodo, there is a supposed shot of Sam under water, but if you look closely, you can see that the bubbles are placed later, there is no distortion of light from the waves, and his hair and cape are being moved as though by wind, showing that he was on strings above a fan on a green screen.

* Revealing mistakes: During the battle with the Uruk-Hai, at least three of them can be heard to deflate as they collapse, something that should have been edited out but was left.

* Revealing mistakes: When Arwen first meets Strider she mentions that only 5 of the wraiths are behind them. When Arwen is being chased by them at an hour and 10 minutes and 55 seconds into the DVD there is a clear shot of the riders chasing them set in a v formation. There are clearly eight wraiths chasing them. Even if the other four showed up there should be nine.

* Continuity: When Boromir is fighting the Uruk Hai the first arrow is shown as piercing his left shoulder. A second arrow is then shot at him and shown to strike in exactly the same position. The camera then shows a wider angle shot where he has one in his shoulder and one in his gut. This is on the Australian DVD version.

* Revealing mistakes: When Legolas spots the crebain birds from Dunland and warns the fellowship to take cover, his eyes are brown. Yet as an elf and the rest of the movie his eyes are blue.

* Continuity: At the end of the movie, when Aragorn decides that he, Legolas and Gimli will go to save Merry and Pippin, Legolas's arrows are first yellow, then green, then yellow again.

* Continuity: In the Extended Edition, when Gandalf begins to speak in the language of Mordor, a long shot of Elrond is seen, at which point he puts his hand on his forehead. In the close-up immediately afterwards, his hand is down and he again puts it to his head.

* Revealing mistakes: After the Ring Wraiths break down the entrance to the village (the scene after Aragorn talks to Frodo and the others at the prancing pony), one ring-wraith turns toward a light and you can see the mask which hides their face but allows them to see out (like the Halloween masks). A ring-wraith is supposed to have no physical form other than when they are being looked at with the ring.

* Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): In a scene after the fight with the Uruk Hai, corpses are laid on the floor. A Uruk Hai quickly lies down into the "play dead" position just as Boromir enters the scene, and he is clearly seen sitting up just as the scene comes onto screen.

* Revealing mistakes: In Lothlorien, when Boromir and Aragorn are sitting and talking about Minas Tirith, the wind is blowing their hair, yet the leaves in the background remain still.

* Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): When Frodo is looking out at Rivendell from the balcony, we see his hands on the rail. The rail only comes up to his waist, and he can comfortably rest his hands on it. However, Rivendell is an Elven city, so the rail should be above his head.

* Continuity: When the first Uruk is "born" and he kills the Orc standing next to him, he is muddy and his arms are not on his chest. In the next shot of him standing up, the mud is gone and replaced with slime and his arms are crossed on his chest.

* Crew or equipment visible: When the fellowship is departing from Lothlorien, Galadriel is seen riding in the swan boat across the river. If you look into the background to the left of the screen, a crew member can be seen crouching down and looking about.

* Miscellaneous: When Aragorn and Legolas are talking, after the Fellowship has stopped before the Falls of Rauros on the River Anduin, the river can be seen flowing from right to left in the back ground. They are on the West bank of a river flowing from North to South and dropping over a large waterfall: the water should flow from left to right.

[Miss Cassandra]

* Continuity: Several shots after Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn encounter Eomer and his men have been reversed (leaf-brooches are upside down, and Legolas' chest straps and quiver are on the wrong side).

* Continuity: When King Theoden is having his armor strapped on, his aide fastens the left shoulder strap, then we see the leg greaves being strapped on, and gloves being tied. In the next shot, the aide goes to fasten the left shoulder strap again, and there are no greaves on his legs or gloves on his hands.

* Continuity: At times the character Gimli is as tall as Aragorn's shoulders. At other times, he is much shorter. The same error can be seen in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) when Gandalf and Bilbo embrace.

* Continuity: The length of the chain in which Frodo carries the ring changes throughout the film

* Continuity: Near the end of the film, when Frodo and Sam are in Osgiliath, the chain around Frodo's neck with the ring on repeatedly switches between being caught around one of his buttons and hanging freely between shots.

* Continuity: When Gandalf the White first enters Theoden's hall, the position of his staff changes from being held perpendicular to the ground to being held parallel between shots. Director Peter Jackson noticed this error for the first time while recording the Director's Commentary for the Extended Edition of the DVD.

* Continuity: (flipped shot) When Legolas says in Elvish, "There's something out there," the Elvish Broaches (leaf broaches holding their cloaks together) are facing the opposite direction. Peter Jackson first noticed this error while recording the Extended DVD Director commentary.

* Continuity: When Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are entering Theoden's throne room for the first time, Gandalf turns quickly around when the doors close but in the next shot his head is centered.

* Continuity: Aragorn's sword disappears from his hand shortly before he falls off his horse, but reappears in its scabbard later.

* Continuity: When Treebeard is talking to Merry and Pippin at the Entmoot, the stars that can be seen behind him change.

* Continuity: The gash on Merry's face changes sides throughout the movie. Sometimes it is on his left brow, sometimes on the right.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Saruman is talking to the Uruk-Hai, they are obviously screaming and yelling, but there is no noise coming from them.

* Continuity: Gandalf's horse "Shadowfax" is obviously played by at least two different horses in the movie, as different markings can be seen on the horses.

* Continuity: Aragorn's beard repeatedly changes length between shots in King Theoden's hall.

* Continuity: Merry and Pippin switch position between shots when Merry is making his speech to Treebeard at the Entmoot.

* Continuity: When Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are in the Dead Marsh and the Nazgul flies over, Frodo goes after the ring with his left hand, which Sam grabs and holds. Frodo is then shown putting his right hand to his chest, but in the wide shot, his right hand is still lying at his side.

* Continuity: In the storeroom where Sam is suggesting that Frodo use the Ring to escape, Frodo is initially sitting in front of a barrel. When Faramir arrives, Frodo and Sam are sitting on a cloak and there are no barrels in sight.

* Continuity: When Gimli enters Helm's Deep for the first time, he speaks to Eowyn about Aragorn's fate. Before she speaks, Gimli's helmet is on and his axe is covered in blood. After she speaks, his helmet is off and his axe is clean.

* Continuity: In the battle at Helms Deep, when Aragorn unsheathes his sword, the shot is reversed (he draws it left-handed when he is right-handed).

* Continuity: When Legolas is pulling Gimli and Aragorn to safety using the rope during the battle of Helm's Deep, Gimli is on Aragorn's right side for every shot except the first close-up of Aragorn in Gimli, where he is clearly on Aragorn's left.

* Continuity: When Legolas shoots the rope of one of the big ladders, the previous shot has already shown the ladder to be past straight vertical position. The ladder should continue it's arc towards the wall, but instead it falls back.

* Continuity: When the main characters are standing on the cliff looking out towards Mordor, you can see Helm's Deep over their shoulders. The hole in the wall from the gunpowder is conspicuous by its absence.

* Crew or equipment visible: A small gas pipe, leading to one of the large torches outside the Golden Hall, is briefly visible in some scenes in Edoras.

* Revealing mistakes: When Shadowfax first appears, there are tracks across the paddock behind and to the right of him. Some say these are tire tracks, others argue that they could just as easily be the wheel ruts of a farm cart. In response, the first group say that the ruts are too far apart to be from a farm cart, and the space in between is too narrow, meaning that they are definitely those of a car or truck. You decide.

* Continuity: Legolas' eyes are brown for the majority of the battle of Helm's Deep, instead of their customary blue. However, it is reported that this particular color change came about when Orlando Bloom's blue contact lenses were forgotten during some of the shooting for this sequence.

* Revealing mistakes: In the beginning of the movie, when Frodo and Sam are walking on the rocky mountain their rubber artificial feet can be clearly seen flapping around.

* Continuity: When Faramir is holding Sam and Frodo in Osgiliath, and is about to let them go, the shot of the Hobbits is reversed (leaf brooches face the wrong way).

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: In the initial shot when Theoden is talking to Gamling on the wall outside Helm's Deep, Gamling's mouth is moving like he's replying to Theoden's orders but no sound is heard.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When the Rohirrim surround Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli at the beginning, you can see Éomer's lips moving in one of the wider shots and he obviously talks to the three but there is no sound coming out of his mouth.

* Continuity: When the Rohirrim surround Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and Éomer starts talking to them, the sunlight changes direction and intensity.

* Continuity: The Uruk-Hai camp right on the edge of Fangorn Forest when they are slaughtered by the Rohirrim. The next morning, when the Rohirrim surround Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and they talk about having "left none alive" and they look to where they stacked and burned the dead bodies, there is no forest in sight around the burning bodies.

* Continuity: When the Roherrim attack the Uruk Hai outside of Fangorn Forest, Merry and Pippin are bound at the wrists. Pippin is almost trampled by a horse and, when he turns, you can see his hands are clearly free. They later cut the cords with a knife.

* Continuity: When Merry and Pippin are dropped to the ground by the Uruk-Hai, Merry is lying very close to Pippin. In the next shot Pippin is obviously a few feet away for he has to crawl closer to Merry to be able to talk to him

* Continuity: When the Merry and Pippin are first seen being carried by the Uruk Hai, they are behind each other. In the next shot they are being carried beside each other.

* Continuity: After the Rohirrim surrounding Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are about to leave, you can just make out Eomer's sword falling out of its sheath. It can be seen in the next shot.

* Continuity: The position of Legolas' quiver changes from one side to the other and then back again in Fangorn forest.

* Continuity: When Aragorn is tracking the hobbits beside Fangorn forest, his ring is on his right hand. Later, when the "White Wizard" is approaching the ring has switched to his left hand.

* Continuity: Pippin's hands are tied, but when he falls under the horse, his hands are untied and apart. When Aragorn is working out what happened we see, in the flashbacks, that Pippin did not cut his bonds until after the horse incident.

* Miscellaneous: When Éomer mounts his horse after talking with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli his sword fall out of its scabbard (look over Aragorn's right shoulder).

* Incorrectly regarded as goofs: During Arwen's vision of Aragorn's (eventual) death, Aragorn's fingers do not move on his sword as many, many people have suggested - they are Arwen's fingers.

* Continuity: When Sam is telling Frodo to use the ring to escape Faramir, the light changes directions (from the left in the wide shot, from the right in the close-up).

* Continuity: In the "dream sequence" where Aragorn remembers his time with Arwen prior to embarking on the quest to destroy the ring they embrace and kiss. As they do so, Aragorn's left hand is alternately on her face/around her waist between shots.

* Continuity: (flipped shot) When Aragorn is tracking Merry and Pippin from the orc pyre to Fangorn Forest, his ring (usually on his left hand) is on his right forefinger and his glove (usually on his right) is on his left hand.

* Revealing mistakes: As Théoden, Aragorn and the others ride out of Hornborg at the end of the battle, when they ride down the "bridge", one of the computer generated Orcs, on the side of the bridge that is closest to the camera, goes straight through one of the horses before he is thrown from the bridge. Also (and conversely), horsemen in the back of the column slash with their swords at invisible targets.

* Continuity: In Helms Deep, as Legolas throws the shield onto the stairs, he has his bow in his left hand. As he runs to jump onto the shield, the bow is gone. As he is sliding down the stairs, he is using the bow again.

* Continuity: When Frodo and Sam are hidden under the elvish cloak at the Black Gate, we can see from under the cape the feet of the enemy soldier through a gap in between the cloth and the floor. But in the next shoot when Frodo unfold the cape (that looks like a rock) we can see it was well buried in the dust and there is no possible gap.

* Continuity: When Legolas has to hand over his weapons, he takes the knives from his back. When Aragorn hands over his own sword, we see Legolas taking off his knives again in the background.

* Continuity: When Legolas is waiting on the wall for the Urak Hai battle to begin at Helms Deep his hands repeatedly change position on his bow between shots.

* Continuity: When Aragorn is lying on the river's shore, he forces himself onto an unsaddled horse. But, when he sees the Orc Army and starts to gallop towards Helms Deep, he is riding with a saddle.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and Theoden are talking outside town, near the burial mounds covered in white flowers, all the shots of Gandalf show the wind whipping his hair around, but in all the shots of Theoden there is not even a hint of a breeze in his hair.

* Continuity: When Frodo is sliding down the hill outside the Black Gate he has a pack on his back but when he covers Sam with his cloak the pack is gone

* Continuity: When Pippin climbs Treebeard, he has several smudges of blood on his face. These have disappeared seconds later, when Treebeard is holding both Pippin and Merry.

* Continuity: Just after Sam says "How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?" we cut to a shot of Aragorn which is a reversed shot - the scar on his lip is on the wrong side.

* Continuity: When Theoden the king grasps his sword, Gandalf's grey coat is not on the floor at the wide shot.

* Revealing mistakes: As women and children enter Helm's Deep's caves, a rock stalactite swings back and forth after an extra touches it.

* Continuity: When the three ladders are raised on the Keep in the Helms Deep sequence, the wide and close-in shots alternate between the outer two ladders being about 30 feet apart and less than 5 feet apart, respectively (the third is in between them and never makes it up).

* Revealing mistakes: Very near the beginning of the Extended version, some of the real fog in a valley visible at a distance behind Frodo and Sam abruptly disappears. While some close-ups were filmed in studio, it is also possible that there was a delay in filming these "on location" shots.

* Continuity: After Legolas shoots two arrows into the shoulder region of the Uruk-Hai running with the torch, the arrows are nowhere to be seen in the shot that shows the runner diving into drain on the side of the wall of Helms Deep.

* Continuity: When Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf enter Edoras, they surrender their weapons. When Gimli pins Wormtongue to the floor, his axe blade can be seen next to his head.

* Continuity: When Theodred is buried, Gandalf's hair is grey and sticking out to the side, in the next shot it is Gandalf's usual color of long flowing white.

* Factual errors: In the cast list for the Extended Edition, 'John Noble' 's name is misspelled, "Nogle".

* Revealing mistakes: At Helm's deep, several elves draw and shoot their bows (complete with sound effects) but no arrows are seen.

* Revealing mistakes: In the shot where Aragorn orders the men of Rohan to fire their arrows (just after the elves do from the wall at Helms Deep) his sword's blade disappears as it comes toward the camera.

* Continuity: When everyone is traveling to Helm's Deep, Gimli is riding on a horse. The head of his axe changes positions (blade down, blade up) several times when his is talking to people.

* Continuity: The orcs use axes to chop the trees into smaller logs, but, when the logs are thrown on the fire, the ends are smooth, as if cut with a saw.

* Continuity: Gamling's cloak is alternately over his shoulder and behind his back between shots as he is being instructed by Aragorn.

* Continuity: When Saruman tells the Orc to send out the Warg riders, his staff is in his right hand. In the next shot it's in his left hand.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Saruman tells the Orc to send out the Warg riders, a couple of seconds later the Orc's lips are moving in a reply, but no sound is heard.

* Crew or equipment visible: Immediately after Legolas slides down the steps on the shield, a rain-sprinkler can be seen at the top of the frame during his close-up.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and crew march into Theoden's house, Legolas is gripping Gandalf's arm when seen from the front, but not when seen from behind (and it looks as though Gandalf was expecting him to be gripping it, with his arm cocked).

* Continuity: When Aragorn first comes to Helm's Deep, the cut on his shoulder disappears during the sequence when Theoden tells Gimli that he can defend his own keep.

* Continuity: When the orcs are carrying Merry and Pippin on their backs the wide shots show the orc carrying Pippin to be closer to the camera with the orc carrying Merry to his left. But in the close-ups they have swapped places with Pippin having to turn to his right to speak to Merry.

* Continuity: At Osgiliath. Frodo is seen walking toward the wall and clearly has no sword. When he stands on the wall and is about to be snatched by the Ring Wraith, Sam grabs him and they tumble down the stairs. Frodo pulls a sword and puts it to Sam's throat despite the fact that he had no sword and had been in Faramir's custody and would not have been left armed anyway.

* Factual errors: When Frodo and Faramir are watching Gollum in the pool from Henneth Annun, they see the full moon setting. However, a full moon sets at dawn, whereas the scene is set in the middle of the night.

* Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): Just as Ugluk and the troop of Uruk-Hai stop and Uruk asks, "What is it? What do you smell?" one of the Uruk-Hai fails to notice a bump in the terrain and goes sprawling to the floor.

* Revealing mistakes: At the end of the film when Gollum is crawling through the woods talking to himself, his hands and feet disappear into the ground.

* Continuity: Sam is using his stew pot to cook rabbit stew in Ithilien when the Gondorian rangers find the hobbits, at which time they place them under capture, seemingly leaving the stew pot behind, but Sam has it attached to his pack later when he, Frodo and Gollum are leaving Osgiliath.

* Continuity: When Gamling and Hama ride ahead of the Rohan civilians to scout, and Hama's horse starts to get nervous and Gamling asks what's wrong, Hama is on the right and Gamling is on the left. Then in the next shot they switch places. And when the warg jumps at Hama they switch places again.

* Continuity: When Pippin crawls toward Merry to talk to him, Merry is laying on his back. In the next shot, only one second later, he is laying on his side.

* Revealing mistakes: At the very end of the movie, when Gandalf, Theoden, and rest of the main characters who survived the battle of Helm's Deep ride over the hill together, and Gandalf says "The battle for Helm's Deep is over. The battle for Middle-Earth is about to begin.", the actor portraying Eomer is clearly not Karl Urban. This shot was done during pickups when Karl Urban was not available, but WETA was supposed to cover up the actor's face with Karl Urban's.

* Revealing mistakes: This was changed on the DVD, but on the original version of the movie, during the battle of Helms Deep the orks launched ropes with hooks on them at the top of the wall. They started to hoist the big ladders with the ropes. Two scenes later they pushed the ladders the rest of the way to the wall but the ropes were not there.

* Anachronisms: During several close-ups of Gandalf, like the scene in Théodan's hall, you can clearly see he's wearing contact lenses.

* Revealing mistakes: During the second close-up of Legolas's eyes in Fangorn Forest, you can see that he is wearing contact lenses.

* Revealing mistakes: When the Uruks are first introduced in the movie, we see all of them standing in one place for a split second and then they begin to run.

* Revealing mistakes: When the Ents are destroying Isengard, there is a shot of Saruman that runs in reverse as he looks down from the top of the tower. One can tell from the motion of his hair and beard.

* Continuity: When the Uruk-hai are carrying Merry and Pippin on their backs, you can clearly see them, then, on the high shot of the Uruk-hai running, there is no Merry or Pippin on their backs.

* Revealing mistakes: When Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Theoden ride out in the helms deep battle, the back row of Rohirrim soldiers are swinging their swords at nothing.

* Continuity: When Pippin is trying to escape from the attack of Eomer to the Urukais, he is crawling with both hands tied, but when he crashes with the horse and has almost been squashed, both hands are released. When Aragorn is figuring out how the Hobbits escape from the attack, the scene is replayed again with Pippin without a rope. After he avoids the horse, we see again Pippin crawling with both hands tied.

* Continuity: While everyone was amazed by Legolas' skill in firing three arrows in quick succession whilst sliding down the stairs on an Uruk-shield, you can clearly see that each shot is cut when he is about half way down the stairs, i.e. he only had time to fire one arrow.

* Continuity: When Legolos is about to slide on the shield, his bow disappears when it shows the shot of his legs, yet in the next shot his bow is in his hand

* Continuity: When Eowyn is traveling to Helm's Deep, her hair hangs loose around her face. About the time she arrives at Helm's Deep, it is suddenly pulled back on each side.

* Continuity: When Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf first enter Theodens hall, Legolas is supporting Gandalf with his arm. When the door is shut behind them he lets go and in the next shot their arms are together again.

* Revealing mistakes: During the scene where Arwen is looking upon Aragorn's dead body as it lies on the marble slab, you can see a finger on his left hand (holding the sword) move back and forth.

* Factual errors: When the gate to Mordor is opened, it is clearly seen to be as thick as the wall, and each corner is seen to be a right angle. There is no space at all in between the gate and the wall when it is closed, later on in the same scene. However, the gate opens on a curve, and so would get stuck every time it opened or closed, unless the wall was somehow retracted. We do not see the wall retracted at all, thus it is physically impossible for such a gate to exist.

* Crew or equipment visible: When the Rohirrim are searching for the body of Théodred at the fords of Isen, Éomer rolls over the body of a Rohan soldier. Next to him you can clearly see a piece of yellow and black striped tape (in the bottom left corner), possibly a marker.

* Continuity: During the battle of Helms Deep, when Legolas starts fighting with his knives you can clearly see there are no arrows left in his quiver. Later in the battle he's shooting arrows from his bow again.

* Revealing mistakes: When the son of King Theoden is carried to his forefathers graves his heavy scale mail armor is caught in the wind; a heavy looking item supposedly made from steel plates with tough leather on the backside, but none the less it flaps in the wind.

* Continuity: During the scenes of the capture of Gollum there is a breeze blowing Sam and Frodo's curly hair and surrounding grass clumps. Gollum's long stringy hair hangs straight and unmoving.

* Factual errors: During the battle with the Warg riders, a Warg and Orc fall across Gimli. Visibly struggling to lift them off, there is no change in effort or position when a second Warg puts it's weight on Gimli. This should be an addition of several hundred pounds.

[Miss Cassandra]

* Continuity: In the scene of Theoden's death, a black line appears and disappears between shots on the right side of Eowyn's forehead, over her eyebrow.

* Revealing mistakes: Near the beginning of the film as the camera flies towards Rohan you can see the smoke pouring back into the chimneys rather than out of them.

* Continuity: When Sam and Frodo are climbing Mt. Doom, Sam's sword switches from his left side to his right. Later when Sam draws his sword, it is back on his left side.

* Plot holes: At the Black Gates, although we see all the main characters on horseback to start with, when the battle actually starts *all* the horses have disappeared.

* Continuity: When Sam is holding Frodo on his lap during the climb up Mt. Doom, the wound on Frodo's face has moved from his right cheek to his left. The footage for the entire scene has been flipped.

* Continuity: The position of Smeagol's hands around Deagol's throat changes noticeably between cuts.

* Continuity: Orlando Bloom's eyes are brown, but as Legolas, his eyes are changed to blue using CGI. In close-up outside the Black Gates, his eyes are CGI blue, but in a shot immediately following with Gandalf in the foreground and Legolas in the near background, his eyes are clearly brown.

* Continuity: When Frodo and Sam are bewildered as the orc army marches out from the fortress by the bottom of the secret stair, they are lit from the bridge's direction by red and orange fiery colors. In the reverse shots of the bridge and the fortress, there is no orange light in the shot at all, only the ghostly green lighting.

* Continuity: When the orc and the Uruk-Hai fight over the mithril shirt in the tower, there is a short shot where the normally long-haired orc is bald.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and Pippin are in Minas Tirith, and Gandalf is outside he starts coughing on his pipe smoke. On this wide shot, Pippin is tucked into bed. Then, in the next shot, he is up standing by his bed looking at his new Gondorian armor. He then gets Gandalf some water from the pitcher.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: Prior to Faramir's ride to re-capture Osgiliath, Gandalf challenges him. There is one shot where Faramir comments on the "Men of Gondor" there are a number of words before this phrase but his lips do not appear to moving.

* Continuity: In the "Voice of Saruman Scene", Treebeard starts and ends the scene in front of Orthanc's door. Throughout the scene, Treebeard is nowhere to be seen.

* Continuity: Elrond's hair changes from being neatly tucked behind his ears to free flowing and back behind his ears again between shots as Arwen convinces him to re-forge the shards of Narsil.

* Continuity: The amount of mud along with the ring in Deagol's hand lessens considerably with each shot of him looking at the ring, until the mud is completely gone by the time he is attacked by Smeagol.

* Continuity: The two doors of the Black Gate continue to open as Aragorn and the others ride away from the approaching Orc army. When Aragorn rides as he shouts, "Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers... when the age of men comes crashing down," at the top of the screen the "closed gate" is visible.

* Continuity: After Frodo wakes up in Minas Tirith, Merry and Pippin stand in the doorway. Their height reaches the middle of the ornate door carving in the close-up, but in their next wide shot running in, they are considerably lower. When Legolas and Aragorn walk in, also in a close-up, their height is just a bit higher on the carving than the two Hobbits' heights were. Then when Sam stands in the doorway his height also reaches the center of the carving.

* Continuity: Sam rolls down Shelob's back, then he grabs Sting and takes a stance against Shelob. In the next wide shot, Sam stands ready and Shelob positions herself at the stairway. Frodo's wrapped body is not lying anywhere to be seen.

* Continuity: At the end, when the four Hobbits are entering Grey Havens, Sam is wearing a yellow vest with brown buttons over a white shirt. When Frodo makes his way onto the ship and turns back to smile at his friends, Sam is no longer wearing the yellow vest. The vest is still not there when the three Hobbits turn to leave the Grey Havens. When Sam is holding his daughter, he is once again wearing the yellow vest. On the Extended Edition DVD they explain this mistake.

* Continuity: When at the Black Gate, the army of men are surrounded by Orcs, then after Aragorn's "For Frodo" line, they charge across the screen from left to right. When they are running, in a shot where Gandalf is seen on the very right of the screen, you can see through some gaps and there are no Orcs, just an open field.

* Continuity: After Gorbag says, "You touch it, and I'll stick this blade in your gut", Shagrat and Gorbag start to fight. A few shots later there's a close-up of Gorbag being bald - he's not wearing his hairpiece/wig in this shot-as he's being pushed towards the right of the screen by Shagrat, just before falling into the hole! (On the Extended Edition DVD Director/Writer commentary, writer Philippa Boyens actually admits that his wig falls off!)

* Continuity: When Aragorn first meets the Army of the Dead, he is holding a torch in his left hand and a sword in his right hand. When he turns around to look at the rest of the undead, his torch and sword have switched hands. He then turns around again and the torch and sword are back where they originally were.

* Crew or equipment visible: After Pippin draws his sword, the next shot is of Orcs running to the right of the screen. As that shot opens, click five or six frames in and two crewmembers are seen between the Orcs on the right of the screen, click a few more times and more crew members are visible in the middle, between the Orcs.

* Continuity: When Gollum drops the lembas from the bridge, you see the leaves it was wrapped in falling away, and the wafers fall generally straight down. However, when Sam finds it later, the lembas is still mostly wrapped in the leaves, with only a few morsels broken off and laying around unwrapped.

* Continuity: After Gollum says, "Clever Hobbits, to climb so high!", he jumps onto Frodo and Sam. Gollum then attacks Frodo and when he turns Frodo onto his back, Frodo's shirt is wide open at his neck/chest and the chain and Ring are gone. In the next close-up as Gollum chokes Frodo, and the following shots, the chain with the Ring is back.

* Continuity: Before the charge of the Rohirrim, we see that Merry and Eowyn are near the middle of the group, but when we see Merry during the charge, look behind him. There are about five horsemen, behind whom are just empty fields.

* Continuity: When Theoden "reforms the line" as the Mumakil approach, there are empty fields behind the horses. In the overhead shot of them charging, it is seen that there are still orcs in the background who should have been there in the previous shot.

* Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Elrond comes to give the newly re-forged Narsil to Aragorn, a gust of wind suddenly blows up, knocking over a suit of armor in the background. The armor makes no noise as it crashes however.

* Continuity: When Aragorn meets the army of the dead, the elf leaf that hold his cape together changes. First its pointing left, then right again etc.

* Continuity: When Sam believes Frodo to be dead after his battle with Shelob, Frodo's eyes are open/closed/open between shots.

* Revealing mistakes: In Shelob's Lair, when Samwise pulls the web from "dead" Frodo's face, Frodo blinks. However, Frodo is paralyzed with his eyes open.

* Continuity: Nearing the end of the film where we see Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry having a drink at the Green Dragon, Frodo places four mugs on the table. The first sequence has two green mugs on the right and two brown mugs on the left. The second shot shows the mugs with a brown and green mug on each side of the table. Frodo puts the other brown mug in front of Merry, but in the next shot the other brown mug is in front of Pippin.

* Continuity: When Sam and Frodo are climbing Mt. Doom, Sam's sword switches from his left side to his right.

* Continuity: When Sam cuts Shelob's silk from around Frodo's face, it is completely cleared of silk in the close-up shots but remains covered with silk from the nose down in the long shots.

* Continuity: When Frodo and Sam are on the rock at the foot of the exploding Mount Doom, there is a shot of Frodo's left hand where the hand is completely clean and the finger is still there.

* Revealing mistakes: In a quick shot of Gandalf holding Pippin while riding Shadowfax in front of the Black Gate you can see Billy Boyd's double's face.

* Continuity: When Aragorn is running back to join his fellow men, when the black gate is open, we can see the CGI flag of the rider that goes with him is going from left to right, but in the next shot, the wind is in the opposite direction.

* Continuity: During the fight with Shelob, Sam is holding Frodo's sword which switches between Sam's right and left hand in between shots at least once.

* Continuity: When Arwen is reading the book after she sees the vision, there is a picture on the right-hand page. When she drops the book there is no picture there.

* Continuity: When Aragorn's party rides to the Black Gate, Eomer is shown as riding with them (he can be identified by the white plume on his helmet). When they reach the gate, Eomer is missing from most of the wide shots, although he's shown in at least one close-up.

* Continuity: When Frodo finishes writing the book, he reaches for the stab wound on his shoulder with the writing quill in hand. Then Sam walks in and in the next shot, Frodo's hand is still by his shoulder, but the quill is gone.

* Continuity: While Denethor is eating in the citadel hall and is asking Pippin if he knows how to sing, he has a smear of red wine/sauce/blood on his chin. In a subsequent shot, Denethor turns to the camera and the smear is gone. It then reappears as he looks back to Pippin.

* Continuity: When Gandalf is speaking with "the steward" the end of his cloak alternates between clean and mud soaked.

* Continuity: After the battle at Minas Tirith the clasp holding Pippin's cape together changes direction between shots.

* Continuity: When Pippin finds Merry after the battle his leaf-brooch is pointing to the left, in the following shot is pointing to the right.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and Pippin are talking during the battle at Minias Tirith, Gandalf's sword has orc blood on it. Then the camera switches to Pippin and when it returns to Gandalf, his sword has no blood.

* Continuity: The elf standing behind Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn at the Grey Havens changes position several times between shots.

* Continuity: When the Army of the Dead enters Minas Tirith, one of the battlements on the city's outer wall (near the bottom of the frame) changes its shape and position, losing a portion of its tower.

* Continuity: Gollum sprinkles crumbs of the Lembas bread on Sam to incriminate him. When Sam gets up, the crumbs are gone. Then, they reappear when Gollum points them out.

* Continuity: When Pippin takes the seeing stone from Gandalf's sleeping arms, he replaces it with a pitcher. This pitcher is absent when Gandalf wakes up.

* Revealing mistakes: The aerial shot of Edoras (between the scene where Merry and Pippin are reunited with Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf, and the scene where they do their drinking song on the table) is being shown backwards, as can be seen by watching the flow of the flag cloth in the wind.

* Continuity: When Frodo flips Gollum/Smeagol over the cliff his back and shoulders are free of spider webs. But when he falls and has the vision, the spider webs are back.

* Continuity: When Merry and Pippin are dancing on the table at Rohan you can see Gandalf from behind bouncing up and down on his feet but when you see the front of him he is nodding his head and clapping.

* Continuity: When Eowyn is fighting the Witch King, the strap holding her helmet is buckled, however, when she pulls off her helmet, there is no strap on it at all.

* Continuity: When Eowyn pulls off her helmet to kill the Witch King her hair is fairly neat. In the next shot as she is crawling away and calling for Merry, her hair is very messy. Then when she is leaning over Theoden, her hair is neat again.

* Revealing mistakes: After Frodo tells him to go home and he starts crying, the next close-up of Sam shows where his real and fake ear meet-right above the curl of hair.

* Revealing mistakes: When Frodo is running through the stone gate at the Mount of Doom, you can see the surface beneath his feet is sliding away, so it looks like he is "floating" just above the ground.

* Continuity: When Pippin saves Gandalf from being stabbed during the Minas Tirith battle Gandalfs hands change position when he is talking to Pippin.

* Continuity: One shot where the army of the dead reveal themselves in the cavern is flipped: As he turns to regard them appearing, Aragorn's leaf clasp is backwards and the torch and sword have changed hands.

* Revealing mistakes: When Aragorn speaks to Legolas and Gimli before they enter the Path of the Death, you can see a green shimmer in the back showing the King of the Death, exactly in this moment a knight of rohan crosses between Aragorn and the entrance, but the shimmer which is supposed to be several yards behind him appears "over" him.

* Continuity: In the Voice of Saruman, after Saruman has fallen onto the spiked wheel it begins to turn, causing the Palantir to fall from his robe. When it is shown splashing into the water, the wheel is not turning, but continues to turn after the Pelantir has landed on the ground.

* Continuity: In the Voice of Saruman, when Pippin jumps from the horse and picks up the Palantir, the debris in the water changes position every time the scene changes.

* Factual errors: When Legolas jumps on the back of the elephant, he goes to cut the rope to release the people. However, there are about three thick rows of ropes going through the back of the elephant. Legolas only cuts one. The other ones were already cut.

* Continuity: When Pippin is recovering from looking into the Palantir, the shots alternate between Gandalf and Pippin. In the shots of Pippin, you can see Gandalf's hand holding the side of Pippin's face. In the shots of Gandalf, the hand is no longer there.

* Continuity: In the Extended Edition, the Evenstar falls and shatters as Aragorn challenges the Palantir. In the battle at the Morannon, the top of the jewel can be seen tucked under his leather shirt.

* Continuity: At the end of the movie when the four hobbits are at the Green Dragon and Sam works up the nerve to approach Rosie, Frodo has all 10 of his fingers. Gollum had bitten off the finger Frodo placed the One Ring on at Mount Doom.

* Continuity: During the scene in the Paths of the Dead (and on the Extended DVD, The Corsairs of Umbar), Legolas is not wearing his blue contacts. His eyes are brown throughout.

* Continuity: When Gandalf and Pippin conclude their meeting with Denethor and leave, the bottom of Gandalf's robe clearly has been soaked in dirty water. Then the next shot of his robe from behind shows it to be clean.

* Continuity: Through the course of the movie, Frodo's face is very dirty. When unconscious in the spider web, it has become totally clean. But once he is freed of the spider web, it is dirty again.

* Continuity: The sword that killed Sauron was broken into four distinct pieces - two big, two small. Yet the blacksmith who repairs the sword only takes the two larger pieces, and forges them together - and the sword is complete. Since the blacksmith didn't use all four pieces, the sword should not appear completed.

* Continuity: In the extended edition when the Mouth of Sauron is decapitated, his body and his horse have both disappeared when the gates open and Sauron's army comes forth.

* Continuity: When Frodo is writing in the book, and stops because of the pain from his wound, he has only had enough time to write a couple of words. However, when Sam looks at it, the whole title is there.

* Continuity: In the Coronation scene, when Aragorn bows to the four hobbits, in the close shot they are closely surrounded by a crowd of people. In the wide shot the hobbits are all along on a dais.

* Continuity: In the extended edition of ROTK, during Boromir's victory speech at Osgiliath, his horn is clearly seen being carried over his clothing from the back view. However from the front, the horn is seen under his cloak.

* Continuity: Toward the very end of the film, as Frodo finishes writing, he presses his hand to his chest. His quill is clearly visible between his fingers, and yet when the scene is cut to a slightly different angle, the quill disappears.


# Continuity: SPOILER: After Eowyn decapitates the Witch King's fellbeast, the severed head disappears.

# Revealing mistakes: SPOILER: While Eowyn delivers the decapitating blow to the Witch King's Fell Beast, the path of her sword swing does not come close to matching the location of the eventual sword strike on the beast's neck.

# Continuity: SPOILER: When Eowyn kills the Witch King, her arm is hurt and she keeps holding it close to her body. But when she stands up after Merry stabs him she uses her hurt arm to push herself up.

# Continuity: SPOILER: When Sam stabs Shelob in the eye with Sting, the blade is covered with blood, but when it is knocked out of his hand in the next shot, it's perfectly clean.

# Continuity: SPOILER: After defeating Shelob, Sam runs to Frodo. He lays Sting down next to him, on an area of dirt with a couple rocks sticking up. But later, when we see Sting glow blue, it's on perfectly level dirt ground.

# Continuity: SPOILER: When Sam deals the killing blow to Shelob, he is shown pulling Sting from her belly two times, first at the end of one view, then again about a second into a different view.

# Factual errors: SPOILER: Frodo's wearing the mithril shirt when Shelob stings him in the right upper chest, an area that the shirt covers. The sting should not have been able to go through.

# Plot holes: SPOILER: Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are captured by Faramir and are to be taken to Gondor. When the Nazgul attack them in Osgilith and Sam tackles Frodo to prevent him from putting on the Ring, Frodo draw his sword and almost kills Sam. As prisoners, Frodo and Sam's weapons would have been taken from them.

# Continuity: SPOILER: When Pippin realizes that Denethor intends to burn Faramir alive, he leaves Denethor, who is preparing the pyre, and runs to find Gandalf in a scene that is apparently set in the pitch darkness of night. When he finds Gandalf, however, it is very clearly daylight (a long of shot of Minas Tirith shows the slant of early-afternoon or late-morning sunlight). Logically this would mean that it took Pippin about nine hours to find Gandalf, yet when they race back to the tombs Denethor hasn't even lit the pyre yet!

# Factual errors: SPOILER: When Denethor catches fire, he is in the Hallows of Minas Tirith, on the sixth of seven levels of the city (according to the books). However, he dies not by immolation but by plummeting off the prow of the city, meaning that he ran, fully engulfed in flames, "...about a mile..." (as Peter Jackson later revealed in the audio commentary). Now THAT'S determination!

[Snowdog]

You mean there were movies?
Oh yeah... back in '03. I forgot about them.

*Reads books*

[paul]

The movies if they had held to the text would have been way too long and way to complex to be good film. What was done really in style & spirit in tune with the books. I really liked both the books and thhe filmd

[Thehoundsofdeath]

The movies if they had held to the text would have been way too long and way to complex to be good film. What was done really in style & spirit in tune with the books. I really liked both the books and thhe filmd

This is the eternal defence of the film apologists, that the book is too long to be turned into a good film.

This conveniently blurs two basic issues.

LOTR is too long to be rendered into film form without substantial summarizing and editing, and no one has ever pretended otherwise.

However, this is NOT the problem with the films, and the criticism of the films has not focused on that point. The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.

There is an entire films worth of non-Tolkien material added to the movie triology. This time could have been used to much better effect showing parts of the original story which Jackson did not have time for. Who would you rather read, Tolkien or some film hack? Tolkien? Yeah, so why would you want to watch what the film hack writes? It is like watching some retarded 14-year old write Middle-earth fanfiction.

As for "style & spirit", sorry you just haven't read the books properly if you think the vulgar diminishing of character of Merry & Pippin, Gimli, Elrond and so on (and on, and on...) into base stereotypes, have anything to do with the books.

[Gordis]

What can I say - short and to the point :) Great first post.

Welcome to Entmoot, Thehoundsofdeath!

[barrelrider110]

The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.


Yes, like the Orc-spawning. :rolleyes:

Ditto Gordis, welcome to entmoot, THOD.

[Jon S.]

barrelrider, dig your sig line.

If it were mine, though, I'd have it say:

"I am the friend of Bears and the guest of Eagles. I am NOT the Washington Redskins." :o :D

[barrelrider110]

LOL Jon.

But I AM the New York Giants!:)

[Nautipus]

However, this is NOT the problem with the films, and the criticism of the films has not focused on that point. The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.


Totally agree with you on every point you made, especially this one. I beleive the author should be respected enough for the film-maker not to assert his own ideas, unless time or cost is an issue, or story comprehension.

Welcome to the 'Moot, THOD.:D

[Snowdog]

Now we get to see what he is going to do with The Hobbit....

[Gordis]

Okay but seriously, in making the movie he didn't actually ruin the book in any way. Tolkien's works are completely unharmed, so where's the harm right?


He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.

And I have to pity even those who have read the books after the movies - because they would always see twisted Denethor's face, twisted Elrond's face, stupid Frodo's bulging blue eyes - instead of images Tolkien wished to convey. That is the power of ready images - unfortunately.

Oh, for goodness sake! Give him a credit. Without his brave undertaking of this heavy load, you, people, probably would be living until your gray hair on futile hopes that someday someone will make the book alive.
Brave? - the guy simply wished to make money and gain fame! How many knew about PJ before the LOTR movies? And tell me, please, HOW MANY of you would go watch the movies if they were NOT presented as an adaptation of Tolkien? I wouldn't go for sure - as I will never go watch other movies made by PJ. The movies were a success because of Tolkien's name , not Peter Jackson's.

Owing everything to Tolkien, PJ should have had some decency in treating his work - but he has ruined everything! There is hardly a character that was not twisted: Denethor, Elrond, Arwen, Gimli, Faramir being the most glaring examples. How did you like the noble King Aragorn killing the Mouth during a parley? - It is wrong on SO many levels, just don't get me started.:o

PJ claimed he had to omit a lot of original material (Tom, Crickhollow, the Scouring etc. ) because there was not enough time. OK with me - sound explanation. But then why in Ungoliant did he use the precious remaining time to show his own stupid additions: Arwen being bound to the ring (:confused:), then going to Havens, then returning, Aragorn musing : to be or not to be ... King, Aragorn falling from the cliff and kissing a horse, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgoliath, Frodo sending Sam away etc. PJ did find time for his own stuff - and had the gall to say he had IMPROVED the story!:mad:

[Ingwe]

No doubt, I went into theatres expecting something at least similar to the books. Those examples are definitely the glaring ones Gordis. Another thing I noticed was in Return of the King - when Frodo (himself) was going to Cirith Ungol and behind him you could see Minas Tirith as if it were only 15 miles away at the most. And Barad-Dur just a few miles behind the Black Gate...I don't think so.

But I still want to see how they will make the Hobbit come to life in theatres. I'll also enjoy hearing everyone say "wow, I loved the special effects" and "when did this take place, in the middle ages" and all kinds of other funny anecdotes that are likely to follow after the movie comes out. All I can say is, please don't replace characters with CGI. :p

[Curubethion]

He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.
Then again...none of those people knew Tolkien before the movies, anyway. Unless you're suggesting that it's worse for them to have a flawed image than it is for them to have no image at all.
And I have to pity even those who have read the books after the movies - because they would always see twisted Denethor's face, twisted Elrond's face, stupid Frodo's bulging blue eyes - instead of images Tolkien wished to convey. That is the power of ready images - unfortunately.
*shrug*

Those adjectives are rather strong...I didn't see anything twisted about Elrond's face. That's mainly personal opinion.
Brave? - the guy simply wished to make money and gain fame! How many knew about PJ before the LOTR movies? And tell me, please, HOW MANY of you would go watch the movies if they were NOT presented as an adaptation of Tolkien? I wouldn't go for sure - as I will never go watch other movies made by PJ. The movies were a success because of Tolkien's name , not Peter Jackson's.
Can you back up your claims about PJ's motives? Just because he gained fame and money doesn't mean that it was his prime motivation.

And he was still brave to take on this film, especially seeing all of the flaming that goes on about his name. He'll be even braver to produce The Hobbit, knowing for sure that there's going to be negative backlash from purists.
Owing everything to Tolkien, PJ should have had some decency in treating his work - but he has ruined everything! There is hardly a character that was not twisted: Denethor, Elrond, Arwen, Gimli, Faramir being the most glaring examples. How did you like the noble King Aragorn killing the Mouth during a parley? - It is wrong on SO many levels, just don't get me started.:o
To be honest, I liked some of the character adaptations. He had to condense some characterizations and tweak others to make it fit the format of a movie, don't fault him for that. Some characters would have just not worked on the big screen as they were written.

And the Aragorn scene was rather an anomaly, I didn't like it, although to be fair, that was only in the Extended Edition.
PJ claimed he had to omit a lot of original material (Tom, Crickhollow, the Scouring etc. ) because there was not enough time. OK with me - sound explanation. But then why in Ungoliant did he use the precious remaining time to show his own stupid additions: Arwen being bound to the ring (:confused:), then going to Havens, then returning, Aragorn musing : to be or not to be ... King, Aragorn falling from the cliff and kissing a horse, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgoliath, Frodo sending Sam away etc. PJ did find time for his own stuff - and had the gall to say he had IMPROVED the story!:mad:
The thing is, going with the idea that certain parts can be "left out" for time constraints is actually an incorrect way of looking at moviemaking. In reality, that leads to piecemeal movies, which are just bad to being with. Movies must have fluidity.

So it's not a matter of taking scenes from the books and translating them to the movies, it's a matter of retelling the story of the books on the big screen.

Think of PJ's movies as an alternate history of the War of the Ring.

[Gordis]

Unless you're suggesting that it's worse for them to have a flawed image than it is for them to have no image at all.
Tolkien seemed to think so himself - he didn't want a flawed image, much less a twisted one. Just look at what he wrote about Zimmerman's script in his letters.

Those adjectives are rather strong...I didn't see anything twisted about Elrond's face. That's mainly personal opinion.
My strictly personal opinion is that Hugo Weaving would have been much more convincing in a role of a neurotic drug-addict. Is it the way the fair and wise and "kind as summer" son of Earendil should look and behave?

Can you back up your claims about PJ's motives? Just because he gained fame and money doesn't mean that it was his prime motivation.
Are you suggesting he took the job because of respectful love for the works of the late Professor?:D

And he was still brave to take on this film, especially seeing all of the flaming that goes on about his name. He'll be even braver to produce The Hobbit, knowing for sure that there's going to be negative backlash from purists.
I think you overestimate the importance of Tolkien forums in the overall response to the movies. PJ doesn't care a strawbit about the purists opinion.

Some characters would have just not worked on the big screen as they were written.
Yea - and now it works perfectly: first we have Arwen the Warrior-babe, then Arwen a withering flower, and at the end this disgusting public kiss. Great characterization - and how consistent!:p

And how the constantly whimpering tearful Frodo is better than the original brave hobbit?:confused:

Movies must have fluidity. Where is this fluidity? It is now 50 percent fighting, intermingled with some cheesy talk.

So it's not a matter of taking scenes from the books and translating them to the movies, it's a matter of retelling the story of the books on the big screen.
Think of PJ's movies as an alternate history of the War of the Ring.
That is called "fanfic", not adaptation. And many fanfics written by Tolkien fans are WAY better. PJ's was a bad one.

[Nurvingiel]

He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.I just meant that he didn't track down every copy of LotR in the world and light them on fire. The books really are untouched. :)

Maybe it isn't like this for a lot of people but when I read the books, it's my own images of the Nine Companions that are in my head. Aragorn does look vaguely like Viggo Mortensen with long hair and a three day's growth beard, but I always thought Viggo Mortensen did look vaguely like Aragorn.

Frodo has curly brown hair, but I actually can't picture his eyes (must re-read the book I guess). He looks like he's in his mid-thirties even though he's fifty.

Gandalf has a grey-blue hat and Legolas has black hair.

My mental images have faded a bit, but I haven't read the books in quite a while. While I find the LotR movies mediocre, they also don't have a lot of sticking power because of this. They bugged me a lot more when they first came out.

My biggest problem with them now is they don't stand alone as good movies. Without the audience's knowledge of the book the plot is incoherent, yet the movie needlessly mangles aspects of the book. If you're going to mangle, you have least have to have a functioning plot at the end. That's what I say about book>movie adaptations.

[brownjenkins]

My mental images have faded a bit, but I haven't read the books in quite a while. While I find the LotR movies mediocre, they also don't have a lot of sticking power because of this. They bugged me a lot more when they first came out.

My biggest problem with them now is they don't stand alone as good movies. Without the audience's knowledge of the book the plot is incoherent, yet the movie needlessly mangles aspects of the book. If you're going to mangle, you have least have to have a functioning plot at the end. That's what I say about book>movie adaptations.

I respectfully disagree. My kids loved them and could follow them quite well, getting what I would say are all the major themes from purely watching the movies.

But I think this is mostly because they approached it with a clean slate.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.A PLAGUE? Kinda harsh, isn't it? A lot of people think they know economics because they read the paper, and they vote on public policy, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them a plague. If you think people posting with limited knowledge are a plague you might consider decaf. ;)


Brave? - the guy simply wished to make money and gain fame! How many knew about PJ before the LOTR movies? And tell me, please, HOW MANY of you would go watch the movies if they were NOT presented as an adaptation of Tolkien? I wouldn't go for sure - as I will never go watch other movies made by PJ. The movies were a success because of Tolkien's name , not Peter Jackson's.

Owing everything to Tolkien, PJ should have had some decency in treating his work - but he has ruined everything! Actually, PJ was a fairly well-known director. And you can't have it both ways. Either people had never read Tolkien before the movies (the plague folks) or they only went because it was Tolkien. Can't be both. People went to see an epic with swordfighting and special effects, and they got it. Tolkien fans need to remember the intrinsic limitations of film. You can't complain the film has lasting images. That's its job. It's a visual medium.

Look at other movies, Dune, for example. Even people familier with the books couldn't make head nor tails of it. Spielberg got kicked off HP because his distinctive directors vision was competitive with JKR. Even though I was not thrilled with those movies, I thought they were better off without him. Every wand burst would have had chimes. :D
Tolkien seemed to think so himself - he didn't want a flawed image, much less a twisted one. Just look at what he wrote about Zimmerman's script in his letters. I couldn't be less interested in Tolkien's intent...in which I know I differ from many here. Ultimately, I think an artist is judged on the content of the work,and its impact on the audience, only, and intent is irrelevent. Art is a collaboration between the artist and the audience. Artists complaining about being misconstrued are being lazy.

I think you overestimate the importance of Tolkien forums in the overall response to the movies. PJ doesn't care a strawbit about the purists opinion. Probably not. And good on him. He has a responsibility, and it's not as a documentarian.
Yea - and now it works perfectly: first we have Arwen the Warrior-babe, then Arwen a withering flower, and at the end this disgusting public kiss. Great characterization - and how consistent!:p Are you suggesting that women are basically one-dimensional? ;)


I just meant that he didn't track down every copy of LotR in the world and light them on fire. The books really are untouched. :)

Maybe it isn't like this for a lot of people but when I read the books, it's my own images of the Nine Companions that are in my head. Aragorn does look vaguely like Viggo Mortensen with long hair and a three day's growth beard, but I always thought Viggo Mortensen did look vaguely like Aragorn.

Frodo has curly brown hair, but I actually can't picture his eyes (must re-read the book I guess). He looks like he's in his mid-thirties even though he's fifty.He can't be more than 20 at the Long Expected Party. It's the end of his tweens. MAAAAybe 30 by his departure. He's a baby.

[Gordis]

He can't be more than 20 at the Long Expected Party. It's the end of his tweens. MAAAAybe 30 by his departure. He's a baby.

Have YOU read the books, darling? :confused:

[The Gaffer]

Siscuza is right (except about Frodo's age... :D) about art, but IMO I think you can convey the spirit of a story in a film much more effectively than was achieved on LOTR. And that's even with the hack & slash factor.

In fact, if they had been less concerned about the purists ("oh, we'll get our arses kicked if we don't include Treebeard", for example) they might have produced a better film. On the other hand, the stuff they did add was pretty gash on the whole and did not bode well for a major reworking.

Great to see Black Breathalyzer back!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Have YOU read the books, darling? :confused:I first read The Hobbit long before your parents met, Gordis, I'll betcha. :D If 33 is the coming of age, it corresponds to 18-21. That's the age Frodo is when Bilbo leaves. He has the Ring (which extends life) and hobbits age slower than today's men, so he continues to have the appearance of a very young man. You couldn't cast it older than 30. I can understand why they didn't cast someone actually 18-20, because people are still growing at that point, and the years filming would show. But not everyone is Micky Rooney, to play juveniles, forever. ;)

Siscuza is right (except about Frodo's age... :D) about art, but IMO I think you can convey the spirit of a story in a film much more effectively than was achieved on LOTR. And that's even with the hack & slash factor.

In fact, if they had been less concerned about the purists ("oh, we'll get our arses kicked if we don't include Treebeard", for example) they might have produced a better film. On the other hand, the stuff they did add was pretty gash on the whole and did not bode well for a major reworking.Possibly. It's an enormous undertaking. I went to the movies with people who knew the material inside and out, and with people who had no clue. Both could follow the action, which was a point in its favor, I think. PJ made different choices than I would, but I'm sure my choices would be equally unpopular :D

[Gordis]

I first read The Hobbit long before your parents met, Gordis, I'll betcha. :D Ah sooo...I thought your reaction to "the plague" sounded a bit ... personal.:D

Anyway, the problem with PJ's Frodo is not that he LOOKS a baby, but that he ACTS like a baby. Witless piece of luggage to be hauled around - no more.

[The Gaffer]

Hehehe, good answer siscuz.

The Old Took was, what, 120 or something; 102 was "ripe but disappointing"; I reckon a factor of 2/3 to 3/4 is in order. IIRC Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, which would correspond to 30-35+ or so. Which is probably why we've got that clash between our mind's eye and what's on the screen.

Anyway, it was the portrayal, rather than the casting that was the problem.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Naw. Struck me as humorous. ;)

I think Tolkien's Frodo is kind of a straw man. That's not unusual for a writer of JRR's academic background. A classical "protagonist" should undergo a character change as a result of the circumstances of the book, and Frodo really doesn't, because he has more in common with medieval static heroes. By this standard, Sam is the evolving protagonist, although these literary quibbles are, imo, quibbles. At any rate, there isn't much for an actor (or screenwriter) to work with, and, given the length of the piece, that's a real problem. Frodo in the books doesn't make many real choices...hard to create that. "I will take it, although I do not know the way." controls the entire rest of the story, unless you consider his relationship with Gollum as his second choice.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

IIRC Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, which would correspond to 30-35+ or so. Which is probably why we've got that clash between our mind's eye and what's on the screen.
You forget the ring. I don't think he got older in appearance between the party and the departure...or at least not much.

[Gordis]

You forget the ring. I don't think he got older in appearance between the party and the departure...or at least not much.

Not older but fatter.:D
Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked out at him thoughtfully.-Many Meetings

But ...Frodo - static? Here is one guy who has changed from a cheerful careless hobbit into something in-between Gollum, a Ringwraith and a saint... One guy who has become so out-of-tune in the old Shire that he had to go heal in the Undying lands...Are you serious?:eek:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Not older but fatter.:D


But ...Frodo - static? Here is one guy who has changed from a cheerful careless hobbit into something in-between Gollum, a Ringwraith and a saint... One guy who has become so out-of-tune in the old Shire that he had to go heal in the Undying lands...Are you serious?:eek:

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

[Gordis]

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to back it up with something from the book.

In the movie - yes, Frodo is a sissy and a dull sissy throughout.

In the book Saruman (a good judge of characters I think) comments:
Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. "You have grown, Halfling," he said. "Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell."

[brownjenkins]

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

I'd have to agree. While Tolkien tries to paint him as changed, he's really different from your average hobbit from day one. Maybe a result of having lost his parents at such a young age, which would seem to be extremely uncommon among hobbits.

He's always been more the responsible type than the carefree. I suppose he has a few carefree moments, like in Bree but, in general, his personality is pretty set to begin with.

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to back it up with something from the book.

In the movie - yes, Frodo is a sissy and a dull sissy throughout.

In the book Saruman (a good judge of characters I think) comments:
If Saruman was a good judge of character, he would have won.:rolleyes:

Frodo: As master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say goodbye to the guests. Rumours of strange events had by now spread all over the field, but Frodo would only say no doubt everything will be cleared up in the morning.Fellowship pg 63.

Name one fun thing Frodo ever did. Even the "hey diddle diddle" business starts with "Frodo was annoyed." Fellowship pg 215

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?

And, as far as that goes, was Frodo actually motivated by malice, as Saruman says? I don't think so.

[Gordis]

He's always been more the responsible type than the carefree. I suppose he has a few carefree moments, like in Bree but, in general, his personality is pretty set to begin with.
He was not much different from other respectable hobbits – only a bit more given to reflection and wandering alone. But - while he was young, he used to steal Maggot’s mushrooms. Not Pippin and Merry (as in the films), but Frodo. In the books Merry, for instance, was no less responsible than Frodo, and Sam was doubly and triply so.

And was it being responsible behaving like this?
‘You ought to go quietly, and you ought to go soon,’ said Gandalf. Two or three weeks had passed, and still Frodo made no sign of getting ready to go. […]To tell the truth, he was very reluctant to start, now that it had come to the point. Bag End seemed a more desirable residence than it had for years, and he wanted to savour as much as he could of his last summer in the Shire. When autumn came, he knew that part at least of his heart would think more kindly of journeying, as it always did at that season.
And that was already after he learned that he and his ring were wanted by Sauron!

And that’s what they were doing on the eve of the departure:
”‘Whatever happens to the rest of my stuff, when the Sackville--Bbagginses get their claws on it, at any rate I have found a good home for this!” said Frodo, as he drained his glass. It was the last drop of Old Winyards.
When they had sung many songs, and talked of many things they had done together, they toasted Bilbo’s birthday, and they drank his health and Frodo’s together according to Frodo’s custom. Then they went out for a sniff of air, and glimpse of the stars, and then they went to bed. Frodo’s party was over, and Gandalf had not come.”

Not to mention FRODO’s song in the Pony and HIS table-dancing.

(By the way that’s why I blame the films – after seeing PJ’s stuff, people tend to forget the facts from the books.)

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?
He may not have known Frodo, but he knew other hobbits:
Seeing then that Gandalf thought the Shire worth visiting, Saruman himself visited it, but disguised and in the utmost secrecy, until he had explored and noted all its ways and lands, and thought then he had learned all that there was to know of it. And even when it seemed to him no longer wise nor profitable to go thither, he still had spies and servants that went in or kept an eye upon its borders. – UT, Hunt for the Ring

[Gordis]

IFrodo: As master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say goodbye to the guests. Rumours of strange events had by now spread all over the field, but Frodo would only say no doubt everything will be cleared up in the morning.Fellowship pg 63.

Even the "hey diddle diddle" business starts with "Frodo was annoyed." Fellowship pg 215
and ends with "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself. He capered about on the table; and when he came a second time to the cow jumped over the Moon, he leaped in the air."

And do you think that Pippin wouldn't be compelled to say goodbye to the guests if HE became the Master of Bag-End? One has obligations, after all.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

He was not much different from other respectable hobbits – only a bit more given to reflection and wandering alone. But - while he was young, he used to steal Maggot’s mushrooms. Not Pippin and Merry (as in the films), but Frodo. In the books Merry, for instance, was no less responsible than Frodo, and Sam was doubly and triply so.

And was it being responsible behaving like this?

And that was already after he learned that he and his ring were wanted by Sauron!

And that’s what they were doing on the eve of the departure:


Not to mention FRODO’s song in the Pony and HIS table-dancing.

(By the way that’s why I blame the films – after seeing PJ’s stuff, people tend to forget the facts from the books.)


He may not have known Frodo, but he knew other hobbits:Are you saying, "as a young man, he stole produce, and as an adult, he raised a glass with friends"? That doesn't even rate "Tookish." He's glum. And no fun.

Saruman was a very poor judge of character, starting with misjudging the White Council.

and ends with "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself. He capered about on the table; and when he came a second time to the cow jumped over the Moon, he leaped in the air."

And do you think that Pippin wouldn't be compelled to say goodbye to the guests if HE became the Master of Bag-End? One has obligations, after all.Frodo has nothing but obligations. He's a drudge. And that's not PJ's fault, it's Tolkien's. You probably don't know much about how actors work, but the key is making bold choices. Tolkien's version of Frodo has darn few of those available.

[Gordis]

Are you saying, "as a young man, he stole produce, and as an adult, he raised a glass with friends"? That doesn't even rate "Tookish." He's glum. And no fun.
Then who of the hobbits is fun - according to you? Ted? Lotho? Sam? Merry? Pippin? And what fun things did any of them ever made?

Saruman was a very poor judge of character, starting with misjudging the White Council.
He has judged them and fooled them ALL well enough, including the oh-so-wise Gandy.:p

Frodo has nothing but obligations. He's a drudge. And that's not PJ's fault, it's Tolkien's. You probably don't know much about how actors work, but the key is making bold choices. Tolkien's version of Frodo has darn few of those available. And PJ's versoin of Frodo has none available whatsoever - a perpetual close-up on Frodo's frightened tearful eyes. All his moments of glory he had in the books were denied him.

By the way, Earniel - I think this discussion - starting with this post:I think Tolkien's Frodo is kind of a straw man. That's not unusual for a writer of JRR's academic background.... etc
would fare much better in LOTR Books forum. After all, we are discussing Tolkien's Frodo -whether he was a flat and dull character. As for PJ's Frodo he doesn't even deserve a discussion, IMO.:rolleyes:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Then who of the hobbits is fun - according to you? Ted? Lotho? Sam? Merry? Pippin? And what fun things did any of them ever made?Pippin. "Come and have your breakfast. The bread tastes almost as good as it did last night. I did not want to leave you any, but Sam insisted." Frodo sat down between Sam and began to eat....discussion, riders, sniffing..."In that case, I'm sure Gildor would have refused to discuss it!" said Frodo sharply."And now leave me in peace, for a bit! I don't want to answer a string of questions while I am eating. I want to think!"

"Good heavens" said Pippin. "At breakfast?"

Frodo is cranky. He's always cranky.:p

By the way, Earniel - I think this discussion - starting with this post:
would fare much better in LOTR Books forum. After all, we are discussing Tolkien's Frodo -whether he was a flat and dull character. As for PJ's Frodo he doesn't even deserve a discussion, IMO.:rolleyes: Agreed. ;) We'll call the thread, "Frodo is a bore", and I'm thread starter. :D

[Gordis]

Pippin. "Come and have your breakfast. The bread tastes almost as good as it did last night. I did not want to leave you any, but Sam insisted." Frodo sat down between Sam and began to eat....discussion, riders, sniffing..."In that case, I'm sure Gildor would have refused to discuss it!" said Frodo sharply."And now leave me in peace, for a bit! I don't want to answer a string of questions while I am eating. I want to think!"

"Good heavens" said Pippin. "At breakfast?"


Pippin is the only one of them under-age: twenty-eight or twenty-nine.
There is a reason for him to act more childishly. Frodo, on the other hand, is 50 - the oldest. He may not look 50, but he surely feels like it. He is no child anymore and no moron.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Pippin is the only one of them under-age: twenty-eight or twenty-nine.
There is a reason for him to act more childishly. Frodo, on the other hand, is 50 - the oldest. He may not look 50, but he surely feels like it. He is no child anymore and no moron.

You can be young. You can be old. You can be a bore.

Frodo is two of those things. They aren't necessarily related. ;)

Bilbo was the same age, and he wasn't a drag.

[Gordis]

You can be young. You can be old. You can be a bore.

Frodo is two of those things. They aren't necessarily related. ;)

Bilbo was the same age, and he wasn't a drag.

Bilbo was in a kid's book. The Elves there were also quite different:eek:.

Hobbits in general are not much fun. Pippin seems livelier because he is young. Frodo, Merry, Ted, Lotho, Lobelia etc. etc are equally entertaining - or equally boring - Frodo didn't differ from the average initially.

[brownjenkins]

He may not have known Frodo, but he knew other hobbits:

That's kind of a stretch!

My point was that Saruman did not know Frodo, who was not a typical hobbit to begin with.

I'm not saying that Frodo didn't change a bit, but compared to many other charaters, his change was quite small. Many others "lost their innocence", so to speak. I think Frodo did long before the books when he lost his parents.

[Gordis]

By the way, you have deviated from your original statement, sisterandcousinandaunt. The question is not whether Frodo is a bore (all hobbits are dull, IMO, and he is little different), but whether he is a static character:

I think Tolkien's Frodo is kind of a straw man. That's not unusual for a writer of JRR's academic background. A classical "protagonist" should undergo a character change as a result of the circumstances of the book, and Frodo really doesn't, because he has more in common with medieval static heroes. By this standard, Sam is the evolving protagonist, although these literary quibbles are, imo, quibbles.
I would like to see in what way Sam was evolving. IMO he is the most static character of all - starts as a perfect bodyguard and ends as such. Not even the One ring was able to change him.

[Gordis]

My point was that Saruman did not know Frodo, who was not a typical hobbit to begin with.

I'm not saying that Frodo didn't change a bit, but compared to many other charaters, his change was quite small. Many others "lost their innocence", so to speak. I think Frodo did long before the books when he lost his parents.

He was typical enough to start with. After being adopted by Bilbo he has changed a bit, became more educated and clever than an average hobbit, read Bilbo's books, learned Elvish, that's why Gandalf has liked him so much.

But real character changes started with the Quest and the terrible responsbility it has entailed. He was innocent enough at the beginning, but by the time of Weathertop he was another hobbit entirely. And after his Morgul wound, he got features of a wraith on one hand and a saint on the other. And then he was slowly acquiring features of a wannabe Ringlord ...and Gollum. At the Cracks he was hardly human at all. And after the quest he was broken, unable to cope without the Ring, unable to adapt to the Shire again.

[brownjenkins]

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

By the way, you have deviated from your original statement, sisterandcousinandaunt. The question is not whether Frodo is a bore (all hobbits are dull, IMO, and he is little different), but whether he is a static character:


I would like to see in what way Sam was evolving. IMO he is the most static character of all - starts as a perfect bodyguard and ends as such. Not even the One ring was able to change him.Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man.

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.This would be true, if the story had any real motivation or characterizations. Fortunately, we're largely free of those. :D Everyone's a chess piece. Hard to work up a decent characterization from that (which is where this discussion started.)

Sam, who starts as an innocent "Everyman" with a naive dream of seeing the elves, and actually encounters, and responds to, evil, has the most space for growth. Frodo is a task embodied, Sam makes choices.

[Gordis]

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.

Of course it did effect him, how could it not? But his going to live with Bilbo - a most unusual hobbit - did even more. He got more knowledge of the outside world and taste for adventures -dormant yet.

"Sobering" surprises me. All grown-up hobbits were sober enough, dull even. Look at the talk in the Dragon.

But they had incredible mental stability: look at this nice dialogue of two hobbits who have just escaped a mortal danger. Pippin and Merry in Fangorn.

As they walked they compared notes, talking lightly in hobbit-fashion of the things that had happened since their capture. No listener would have guessed from their words that they had suffered cruelly, and been in dire peril, going without hope towards torment and death; or that even now, as they knew well, they had little chance of ever finding friend or safety again.
'You seem to have been doing well, Master Took,' said Merry. 'You will get almost a chapter in old Bilbo's book, if ever I get a chance to report to him. Good work: especially guessing that hairy villain's little game, and playing up to him. But I wonder if anyone will ever pick up your trail and find that brooch. I should hate to lose mine, but I am afraid yours is gone for good.
'I shall have to brush up my toes, if I am to get level with you. Indeed Cousin Brandybuck is going in front now. This is where he comes in.

Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man. The fact that he was able to put all this ring-business behind him proves the contrary: that it has touched him very little. Surprisingly little. He is always the same, Sam the steadfast - dull and reliable.

And marrying? What does in have to do with "growing up" or "losing innocence" - unless you take innocence literally.:D Sam would have married Rosie anyway, if only her parents agreed to it.

This would be true, if the story had any real motivation or characterizations. Fortunately, we're largely free of those. Everyone's a chess piece. Hard to work up a decent characterization from that (which is where this discussion started.)
Now you seem to generalize even more. No real characterization throughout?:eek:
Then I have a question - why are you loosing your time discussing such a bad book?

[Belwen_of_nargothrond]

The only thing I really liked about the movies is the casting. They did a great job with that. I saw the movies before I read the books and when I read the books, I was very disappointed. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place when Frodo was injured? Most of all I didn't like the fact that Haldir was killed off when he wasn't even suppose to be at Helm's Deep.

[Jon S.]

Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man.
I strongly agree! It's for this reason that I so much dig the scene in the bar at the end when Sam finally summons up the courage to approach Rosie. True courage is conquering your deepest fears and Sam, corny as it sounds, greatly feared laying it on the line with his true love. But he did it!

[EowynRocks]

I think that really it would be SOOO hard to get the movie just right but they still could have done a lot better!!!:eek:
Ranting points:
- Nazgul pathetic. Unable to catch running hobbit even when on horse
- Faramir = NASTY :evil:. What happened to the nicer version of boromir from the books?? He was ousted to be replaced by this EVIL person. Grrr.
- Aragorn is crying out for a self-esteem course:(
- Merry, Pippin and Gimli turned into idiots for comic relief. :mad:
AND THAT'S JUST A START.
PJ may have tried his hardest, it was necessary that they should cut things, etc, etc, etc, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Phew. Rant over.
PS This is my first post - how was it? ;)

[The Gaffer]

Hello Eowynrocks. I can see you'll fit right in.

What really nipped my head is that they did all the hard bits really well (rendering these different species and cultures, and making it all look real) and messed up the easy bits (tell a decent story that made some sort of sense with believable characters).

It was worth itthough, eh? The Shire, Ride of the Rohirrim, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, er, .. um... that's it...

[EowynRocks]

Yeah, you're right, Gaffer. They paid so much attention to the fiddly special effects like the orcs and the balrog.etc,etc,etc and they seemed to forget that lotr is a really cool book series, not some sleazy hollywood affair!:mad: Also Frodo was turned into a really nasty chap :evil: and poor old Sam got a really rough deal looking after such a grumpy old codger. Aragorn was just a sword swinging idiot, Legolas was cool but with really odd mega straight hair, Gimli was comic relief, Gandalf had several nasty moments (like asking frodo to choose caradhras or moria, etc.) Need I go on?
Sorry, it's a bit long. But once I get ranting I can't stop :o

[Nurvingiel]

I agree. A good script and a good plot will go a long way for me. The thing is, those are actually the difficult bits in movie-making. CGI technology is so advanced, that you can do a great job with it if you have the budget. You need actual talent to write a good script, and that's what was lacking for the LoTR movies.

I agree that the casting was excellent - that's not particularly easy either.

[Curufin]

Well, I liked the music...:rolleyes:

When I saw the first movie, I loved it. It blew me away. But then I went out and read the books, and now the movies rather disgust me in their entirety. They're just so...not Tolkien. And all the stupid bits - like the Elves at Helm's Deep...the stupid warg attack...the horse-snogging scene...Gimli as comic relief...the fact that all Elves looked perpetually stoned...:rolleyes:

Nope, sorry. Not Tolkien to me.

[Jon S.]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien...
No, it's not. Not at all, because they're supposed to be Tolkien's story. These movies were not just an adaptation, they were a desecration.

The biggest crime to me is the destruction of many of the main characters. Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Gimli, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, and Denethor were particularly heinous.

Sam, Eomer, and Gollum were ok.

Legolas and Arwen...wha??? :eek:

I can't even begin to address all the made-up scenes that took away from what the story was really about.

[BeardofPants]

Cos the movies still suck despite being tolkien-derived? I dislike the movies because they're crap movies, not because they're crap tolkien-derivatives.

[Jon S.]

they're supposed to be Tolkien's story.
That is simply not accurate. The movies are, as noted expressly in the credits, "based on" Tolkien. That is quite different from saying they are Tolkien.

I have posted here before how even Tolkien's version of the books is, in the author's words, also "based on" an earlier version - the Red Book of Westmarch - and why that is significant in terms of the idealization, by the Hobbits, of characters such as Aragorn and Faramir.

Re: Faramir: if you haven't already read this excellent analysis, you may find it interesting if for no other reason than as a mind-opener as to how to understand and reconcile artistic differences in character development (though this page is for Faramir, the same basic type of approach is possible when comparing any of characters in the movie versus the book): http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

But in the end, we are each as comfortable and flexible with change and interpretation as we choose to be. I long ago gave up judging others on this score. Viva la differance (so to speak).

[minor spelling edits]

[Curufin]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

I agree with both DPR and BeardofPants - the movies are supposed to be Tolkien's story. Now if it said "loosely based" or "inspired by" I might be able to move on a bit, but they don't. It's "JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings." And it really isn't. And you'd be suprised how many people find out I'm a Tolkien nut and tell me they haven't read the books but they've seen the movies, so it's the same thing. :rolleyes:

And BoP's right too - the second and the third movies don't even work as movies, independently of Tolkien's work...

[Jon S.]

I have little to add other than, as someone who does check this forum usually every day and often sees days to weeks go by without even a single new post anywhere in the entire Tolkien section, at least this discussion is prompting a new post or two in this thread.

It's something I find continually amusing on internet forums, the predictable arguments over whether something is truly inspired or not inspired by something else. For example, I came here from a guitar forum where the arguments over whether the Fender Custom Shop Stratocaster Reissues are truly worthy of that title or not make our discussions here look tame.

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon. The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.

All counterpoints welcome and invited - let's keep the action going on Entmoot! :dude:

[The Gaffer]

OK :cool:

Clearly, some people enjoyed the movies. However, the vast majority of people I know thought they were "meh" at best. My wife falls invariably falls asleep within 10 minutes.

And these aren't people who are particularly averse to the fantasy genre. They might well appreciate the Harry Potter movies, or the likes of Pan's Labyrinth.

[Jon S.]

Look, they certainly weren't Academy Award winners but they didn't totally suck either. I personally saw all three at least twice apiece in theatres on "the big screen" and if the crowds for every single show were faking their enjoyment, all I can say is they were doing a damn good job of it.

Repeat views, home on a small screen, after you've already seen them in theatres, for these types of movies, what can I say, we need to be real.

[Curufin]

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

Well, I would agree with you on this and also say that I think this should be obvious. For those who don't care about Tolkien's works, or Tolkien's intentions, or the themes and ideals that his legendarium was created to express, a Hollywood-ized, cardboard, over-CGI'd, low-brow action movie that retains nothing of the original magic and beauty of Tolkien's world would be just fine. For those of us who respect Tolkien and the 50+ years that he put into the creation of his world, seeing it so ruthlessly exploited by PJ and company is a bit vomit-inducing.

The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.


For Fellowship, I would agree with this. I disagree that the last two films, especially The Two Towers, which I thought was a terrible movie on its own terms. What did that warg attack add to the film? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was corny, cheesy, ridiculous, and a waste of ten minutes that would have been better spent portraying Faramir as he was supposed to be. Why the Elves at Helm's Deep, in direct contradiction to Tolkien's theme? Helm's Deep was the first battle in which men triumphed. The first indication that the power of men was finally overcoming the power of the elves, and further indication of Elven fading. The Last Alliance was called the Last Alliance for a reason. :rolleyes:

And why should Lord of the Rings be taken on its own terms? It's an adaptation - which by definition is based on another work. A comparison with that original work should be an integral part of its definition.

[tolkienfan]

I agree with Jon S. I was a big fan of the books before the movies. I'm still a big fan.
While there are parts of the movies that make me cringe, they are actually my favorite movies. The first time I watched them, all I could focus on was the bad and annoying parts. But with repeat viewings, I've found that I can just ignore those parts and enjoy those that I do like (about nine hours worth). I feel that certain parts very well capture the spirit Tolkien intended.:) I understand that many disagree, and that's fine with me. It gives us more discussion.:) I just feel unhappy that a few people I know think that I'm not a "real" fan and I'm selling out, just because I like the movies. Some of these same people think the Silmarillion is boring.

A great thing that has come of the movies is an interest in Tolkien from people who may not have otherwise read the books at all. Sure, there are those who think they know Tolkien because they watched the movies, but isn't that annoyance a small price to pay for new friends who have read the books because of the movies?

Plus, the movies give us more material to discuss here.;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I would agree with you on this and also say that I think this should be obvious. For those who don't care about Tolkien's works, or Tolkien's intentions, or the themes and ideals that his legendarium was created to express, a Hollywood-ized, cardboard, over-CGI'd, low-brow action movie that retains nothing of the original magic and beauty of Tolkien's world would be just fine. For those of us who respect Tolkien and the 50+ years that he put into the creation of his world, seeing it so ruthlessly exploited by PJ and company is a bit vomit-inducing.


Not that she has an opinion, nor nuthin'. Don't be shy, Curu, tell us how you really feel. :D :D :D :D :D

[Curufin]

First of all, let me say that no matter how adamantly I hate the movies (and sometimes my speech gets rather strong) - I would never tell someone or imply that they're not a fan because they like the movies. I hope you don't get that feeling from my post. :)

:)A great thing that has come of the movies is an interest in Tolkien from people who may not have otherwise read the books at all. Sure, there are those who think they know Tolkien because they watched the movies, but isn't that annoyance a small price to pay for new friends who have read the books because of the movies?

Yes, and I must admit that I am one of these. Fellowship inspired me to read the books in the first place.

Sis - Do I seem the type to withold my opinion? :P

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

First of all, let me say that no matter how adamantly I hate the movies (and sometimes my speech gets rather strong) - I would never tell someone or imply that they're not a fan because they like the movies. I hope you don't get that feeling from my post. :)



Yes, and I must admit that I am one of these. Fellowship inspired me to read the books in the first place.

Sis - Do I seem the type to withold my opinion? :PNaw, but pot-stirring is my life.

*Double, double, toil and trouble...*

[Curufin]

Glad to know I'm not the only one. Together, we can keep this place continuously stirred. :evil::D

[Jon S.]

I prefer my threads shaken, not stirred. ;)

Look, I don't usually quote myself :o :o :o

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

but my emphasis is on "emotionally." In my case, for example, I love the LOTR. I have re-read the book(s) at least twice from beginning to end at least twice a year for over 30 years. The next day after I first learned that the films would be made, I sat down with my daughter, then 5 years old, and literally read the Hobbit through the end of the Return of the King + selected Appendices, out loud in the evenings, over an 18 month period, just so she would have the wonderful experience of having read (or in this case, heard) the books before seeing the films.

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

But then again, I'm optimistic by nature (one of my colleagues is always saying that if someone left a load of horse **** on my front stoop, I'd open the door and say, "How nice! Someone gave me a pony but it ran away."). :D

[More spelling edits - I'm atrocious that way. :o ]

[Curufin]

I love the books but I am not emotionally so caught up with them that I make myself unable to enjoy another talented person riffing on Tolkien's themes.

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course. ;)

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

[EowynRocks]

Another quick rant:
You wonder what happened in the production studios -
x: Hey, PJ, how about adding a bit about Faramir kidnapping Frodo and Sam and taking them to Osgiliath?
PJ: Even though it will totally alter the point of the story?
x: Yep
PJ: Even though it will completely change Faramir's character and make him look EVIL :evil:
x: Yep
PJ: Even though there was never anything about it in the book?
x: Yep
PJ: Even thought it is totally against the point of the meeting with Faramir, which was symbolic that Boromir succumbed to the temptation of the ring but Faramir didn't?
x: Yep
PJ: Wow! I love it! I always liked the name Osgiliath, anyway...

And then there's the elves at Helms Deep (the perfect opportunity for Aragorn to do his old sob and clutch dying chap's hand thing again...)
Aragorn falling off a cliff (when did that happen? *flicks through book* It doesn't happen! It doesn't happen!) :confused:

Need I go on? It makes you wonder what the human race is coming to, really... (ok, that's just slightly extreme, but I am a lunatic! :p)

[BeardofPants]

See, I don't think PJ is talented at all, but that's an opinion, of course. ;)

And it's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...

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).

[BeardofPants]

Look, they certainly weren't Academy Award winners but they didn't totally suck either. I personally saw all three at least twice apiece in theatres on "the big screen" and if the crowds for every single show were faking their enjoyment, all I can say is they were doing a damn good job of it.

Repeat views, home on a small screen, after you've already seen them in theatres, for these types of movies, what can I say, we need to be real.

One word: TITANIC

:p

[shesabrandybuck]

I personally love the movies. Having read the books and everything. It may not be "exactly Tolkien", but I think that PJ did a fantastic job. I do have to say that Frodo's character isnt exactly my favorite, and Legolas's lines arent the best, but overall I think that it was wonderful, and I enjoy watching them very much:D

[Jon S.]

Another quick rant:
You wonder what happened in the production studios -
x: Hey, PJ, how about adding a bit about Faramir kidnapping Frodo and Sam and taking them to Osgiliath?
PJ: Even though it will totally alter the point of the story?
x: Yep
PJ: Even though it will completely change Faramir's character and make him look EVIL :evil:
x: Yep
PJ: Even though there was never anything about it in the book?
x: Yep
PJ: Even thought it is totally against the point of the meeting with Faramir, which was symbolic that Boromir succumbed to the temptation of the ring but Faramir didn't?
x: Yep
PJ: Wow! I love it! I always liked the name Osgiliath, anyway...
Just curious - did you read the article I linked to earlier and disagree with the analysis or simply ignore it entirely?

What the hey, let's see if the whole darn thing will fit here ...

Faramir is one of the noblest, finest, and bravest characters in Tolkien, and for many people, the Faramir of Jackson's TTT is the biggest mistake of the films. He seems cold, cruel, greedy, and far less noble than Boromir in FOTR.

I was one of many longtime Tolkien-fans who had trouble understanding how Jackson could possibly do this to one of my heroes. However, after taking into consideration the different way events unfold in the movie, and what the movie-Faramir learns when, I have some answers, and have found he is still (mostly) Faramir. Whether or not those changes are justified is fodder for a very heated discussion, but let me give you my take on...

What Happened To Gallant Captain Faramir?
The character of Faramir in Peter Jackson's TTT

In short, movie-Faramir does not get enough information, early on, to have any reason to trust the hobbits, and in fact gets a lot of hints that he should not. Let's follow this from his perspective.

I. The Hobbits Discovered

Book: Frodo and Sam are found cooking rabbit, camping out, and apparently oblivious to the activities of Faramir's company.

Movie: Frodo and Sam are found spying on Faramir's company in the middle of the battle.

II. Introductions

Book: Frodo immediately tells Faramir who he is, where he came from, and quotes two lines from the "sword that was broken" prophecy as part of his introduction, which Faramir accepts, saying, "it is some token of your truth that you know them." Frodo admits Isildur's bane is part of his errand, reveals that the sword that was broken is coming to serve Gondor, says he would like to serve Gondor himself "if my errand permitted it," and wishes Faramir good luck on their ambush, impressing Faramir with his courteous speech.

Movie: First we get a Middle Earth Geography 101 lesson, in which Faramir learns that Rohan's under attack and can't aid Gondor, Mordor's gathering yet more armies, and, as he says, "The fight will come to men on both fronts. Gondor is weak. Sauron will strike us soon. And he will strike hard. He knows now we do not have the strength to repel him." After this grim realization, he turns to ask the "spies" about themselves. Frodo and Sam refuse to tell Faramir anything, until prodded, and then they are evasive and tightlipped.

III. Where's your third companion?

Book: Frodo says he's a "chance companion" they found on the road, makes it clear he's got misgivings, but begs Faramir to "bring him to us" rather than slay him, saying he's a "wretched gangrel creature... under my care for a while."

Movie: Frodo lies to Faramir almost the moment Faramir meets him, claiming there's no third member of their party. Sam's expression shows Frodo is lying. So Faramir's first information about Frodo in Sam in the movie is that they are hiding something.

IV. Boromir

Book: Frodo tells about Boromir before they get to Henneth Annun, and in fact answers all of Faramir's questions as much as he possibly can, stating there's some things he can't answer because he's under oath by the Council of Elrond (at which Boromir was present). When Faramir describes seeing Boromir in the boat, Frodo is shocked, recognizing the belt Boromir picked up in Lórien: again another sign of truthfulness. Frodo is crushed, saying he fears his kinsman and friends are dead, with which Faramir can sympathize (since he has already been given enough to believe Frodo is being honest with him).

Movie: Frodo mentions Boromir was in their party, but when Faramir reveals his brother's death, Frodo stammers: "Dead? How?" Someone with something to hide might well feign ignorance in exactly that manner. Perhaps in the EE we'll see more, but as it stands, Frodo shows no sadness for Boromir's death, and if anything he and Sam recoil from Faramir when they learn he's Boromir's brother. The revelation sows more mistrust, rather than mutual sympathy.

The movie's Faramir is clearly mourning his brother's loss intensely; he seems almost shellshocked. The scene ends with a close-up of his face, and he looks numb. That is not the Faramir of the books, but a somewhat younger one, stricken with sorrow and beginning to lose hope much earlier than in the novels (much like Frodo succombing to the Ring earlier).

V. Catching Gollum

Book: Frodo had told Faramir about Gollum earlier, and begged him to be spared, so Faramir breaks his own rules (he should kill Gollum) and asks Frodo to fetch him. At this point, Faramir and Frodo have had a long full day of talking together about everything from their friendship with Gandalf to elves, and Faramir already has promised to help Frodo with his errand: he's just trying to reconcile his marching orders with Frodo's. They have come to like and respect one another. "The praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards," Faramir says, when complimented.

So when Gollum shows up, Faramir does Frodo's bidding and captures the creature, interviews it mainly to test whether it's really serving Frodo or planning to hurt him.

Movie: All Faramir knows is that Frodo's hiding something and in particular trying to conceal Gollum's identity. Faramir has orders to kill anything that comes near the pool, but instead of doing that, he sees Gollum as his only opportunity to get concrete information. So he tests Frodo. He's still trying to understand Frodo, and seeing how Frodo treats this wretched creature is as much of a lab experiment as anything, trying to work out Frodo's motives and character.

VI. Learning About the Ring

Book: Frodo had as much as told Faramir he had Isildur's Bane the moment they met, and that he couldn't explain everything because he was under oath— an oath he had given to Boromir as much as anyone else at the counsel. After they had become friends, Sam accidentally blurted out that it was the Ring which Boromir wanted.

Movie: Frodo and Sam have concealed their errand. Faramir learns about the Ring first from Gollum. We don't know everything he heard or learned by reading Gollum's mind, but this is NOT the best way for Faramir to learn about what Frodo is carrying.

V. Deciding What to Do About It

Book: Faramir realizes immediately from Sam's words that his brother tried to kill Frodo over it, and even so for a moment the Ring has him in its power before he comes to his senses, grieving, and offers to help the hobbits. He already knows the Ring has destroyed his brother, so needs no proof to see its peril. And he had sworn a vow not to take it.

Movie: Faramir confronts Frodo with his discovery, and the Ring attempts to control Faramir. Faramir snaps out of it, but instead of giving any coherent answer, Frodo goes insane and starts trying to crawl through the walls. Sam begs for Faramir to have a little pity, and finally reveals their errand, to destroy the Ring.

But the movie's Faramir has come by a very different route to that vital bit of information. So far, the hobbits have only admitted truths when pressed very hard, when they're trying to wheedle their way to freedom; they've also lied to him. And Frodo is not in control of himself, clearly.

Just a little while before this, Faramir had concluded during the Geography Lesson that Gondor, the world of Men, and probably all of Middle Earth are doomed. The Ring tips the scales. Does he trust Frodo to succeed in his errand? Or does he see the Ring falling into his hands as a last chance, the only weapon that might possibly save his people, since they have no other hope at this point?

So far, Frodo has not done much to inspire confidence in him.

On the other side of the equation, Faramir is a Captain of Gondor, under orders to apprehend tresspassers and spies. He is presently sending his men into no-win situations, fighting a war they simply can't win. How can he expect them to obey the chain of command when he defies standing orders whenever it suits him?

His decision is logical. And it's actually fair for Frodo's sake too, since as far as Faramir knows, if Gondor falls (which it certainly will), "poor Mr. Frodo" will be one of countless victims once Gondor's defense of Middle Earth is eliminated.

VI. To Osgiliath

Book: They part ways, then Faramir goes back to Osgiliath.

Movie: Faramir hasn't gotten reason enough to trust Frodo, so he takes him to Osgiliath.

VII. The Turning Point

Now the movie charts its own course. Frodo hysterically begs Faramir to let him go, claiming the Ring will destroy Gondor, but he simply hasn't got much clout based on his actions so far. What happens to change Faramir's mind?

Sam finally blurts out a bit more information: that the Ring drove Boromir mad and Boromir tried to kill Frodo. Again, not the best way for Faramir to learn the news. Sam was foolish but more tactful in the book. However, before Faramir can even react to this shocking revelation, the Nazgûl arrives. Faramir quickly orders Frodo to stay out of sight for his own protection and rushes to deal with the problem.

Frodo, unfortunately, disobeys, and nearly betrays them all by giving in to the Ringwraith's summons. Only Sam prevents him (and Faramir saves him too, by shooting the Ringwraith's steed; if Faramir had run away with the other men the story would've been over). After this, Frodo nearly kills Sam, but Sam manages to snap him back to reality. Frodo starts weeping, horrified at what the Ring nearly made him do, and he says, "I can't do this." Sam has to give him a pep talk, at the end of which Frodo shakily agrees they've got to keep trying for the sake of others.

Now Faramir has seen evidence that Frodo and Sam are good-natured and truthful at heart, but that the Ring is affecting Frodo's mind, so he can believe the shocking news he's just received that such madness killed his brother. Faramir has finally discovered Frodo's true character and motives. He could have decided Frodo's actions with the Ringwraith are yet more evidence that the hobbit is incapable of finishing his task. Surprisingly, he does not. He says:

"At last we understand one another."

Frodo and Sam have been assuming he's just like Boromir, which he's not. He's more of a thinker and a philosopher. Currently, he's a very depressed young man, dealing with his brother's death and the weight of responsibility for Gondor's safety and by extension all that of Middle Earth. Faramir knows that the world is depending on him, but that he does not have the strength or resources to succeed. He, also, "cannot do this". Yet he is persisting in his mission anyway, knowing the odds to be hopeless. Frodo is evidently doing much the same thing, for the same reasons. And both of them are mourning the death of a loved one: Frodo in the movie is desperately shaken by the loss of his father figure, Gandalf, and Faramir has lost the brother he loved and admired so much.

So Faramir decides to sacrifice his own life on the slim chance that Frodo can succeed where he can't. "Then my life is forfeit." Noble and soft-spoken and brave: that's exactly what we'd expect of book-Faramir (who, incidentally, is not under a death sentence: he just said he would deserve to die if he made a decision that proved ill for Gondor). When the movie characters finally part ways, Frodo is going to Mount Doom with a duty he's been given by his superiors which — as Galadriel tells Elrond — he knows will claim his life. Faramir is going back to Minas Tirith with a death sentence stapled to his forehead.

They do understand one another. For they are the same.

And perhaps Faramir sees in Sam, who has more hope than they do, a little of the brother he misses so much.

Conclusion

If anything, lovers of Faramir should object more strongly to the changes in Frodo and Sam than in Faramir. Because of their deceptiveness, and the greatly enhanced power of the Ring to make Frodo lose his grip on reality, Faramir in the movie could not in good conscience let them go. But in the end he decides to risk far more than his book-counterpart for their sake, having reached that point where "hope and despair are akin."

[Jon S.]

Personally, I really, really appreciate and understand the PJ version of these events. I never found the Faramir of the book believable. Here's a ring that corrupts every man who comes anywhere near it and Faramir barely sniffs at it. If you want to point to a ridiculous plot, sorry, the book version is it.

As for Haldir and the Elves showing up at Helms Deep to fight alongside of men, I loved it. Even the Elves in the book were fighting Sauron at the same time as the men of Helms Deep, merely elsewhere. The movie didn't change what they were doing, they merely moved them a hundred miles or so south.

Our nation and our world is rife with racial hatred, misunderstanding, and strife, just as it was in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Kudos to you, PJ, to edit the plot to emphasize that the races can come together, put aside old emnities, remember what unites us rather than divides us, and fight evil together. It was wonderful how you put this in your movie, I respect your choice tremendously.

[Jon S.]

It's just not within my understanding (not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that I don't understand it) that someone can love something without having an emotional investment in it...
Better to put it this way: love is often mistaken with control. True love involves letting go as much as hanging onto. I love and trust the Professor's books enough to be able to let go of them for others to reinterpret.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'm afraid now there really is nothing more I can add on this subject so at this point I'll do the "NPR caller thang," hang up, and listen to your replies.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

f anything, lovers of Faramir should object more strongly to the changes in Frodo and Sam than in Faramir. Because of their deceptiveness, and the greatly enhanced power of the Ring to make Frodo lose his grip on reality, Faramir in the movie could not in good conscience let them go. But in the end he decides to risk far more than his book-counterpart for their sake, having reached that point where "hope and despair are akin."
This article is no defense of PJ. At all. It merely shows that PJ's Faramir is in line with the other multitude of corruptions of characters and plot he committed.

Personally, I really, really appreciate and understand the PJ version of these events. I never found the Faramir of the book believable. Here's a ring that corrupts every man who comes anywhere near it and Faramir barely sniffs at it. If you want to point to a ridiculous plot, sorry, the book version is it.
That isn't true about The One Ring so your conclusion is based on incorrect evidence. The book isn't ridiculous. Thinking an artifact like a ring would affect all people the exact same way is a bit, though.

[Curufin]

I agree with everything DPR said.

And if Tolkien had wanted the Elves at Helm's Deep, he would have had them there. And yes, the Elves were fighting - but not in the same way. They were in a 'supporting' role - they weren't fighting battles. The War of the Ring was the war in which men triumphed. The war in which the supremacy of men was established. The war in which Elves pretty much realized they weren't needed anymore.

The 'Last Alliance' was called the 'Last Alliance' for a reason.

Multiculturalism is all fine and good, but not when it comes at the price of one of Tolkien's major themes.

[Jon S.]

Whether any glass is half empty or half full always depends more on the drinker than the glass. ;)

Whatever you do, don't watch the film version of the Wizard of Oz - or since you almost certainly have, never read Baum's books as the film version of WoO compared to the books makes PJ's movies look like literal copies of LOTR. And certainly never watch the film version of The Ten Commandments, you'll be highly insulted by the transparent Christianization of the Hebrew hero. And ... [uh ... better stop here - if I continue with this I'll never make it to the office!]

[The Gaffer]

The Faramir incident is an interesting one. I think Jon S is right, in that the film makers thought through that encounter and thought it made more sense for Faramir to be tempted by the ring.

However, that presupposes their inability to convey his nobler spirit, as compared to his brother. His rejection of the ring makes sense only when we understand more about his character. I can see that the filmmakers doubted their ability to portray this subtlety, or chose not to bother, preferring more nazgul.

This is separate from the fact that what they then chose to do was crass and ridiculous. That he should suddenly "find" redemption at Osgiliath, presumably because he saw Frodo doing his "ring-waving" exercise to the levitating nazgul, beggars belief. Here is the bearer of this Great Weapon trying to give it away to the enemy, so his reaction is "Ah, I see... it is SO powerful that it makes EVEN YOU (a creature I've only just met) hand it over to the enemy. Clearly the best course of action is to... let you wander off towards the enemy."

No wonder his father was apolectic and took out his rage on a bunch of brambles.

It would have been far better, IMO, to stick with it, and have Faramir not gain his redemption. They could always have had Frodo escape at Osgiliath by, say, deploying his wits, sadly lacking elsewhere in the films. Faramir could then have been blamed unjustly for losing the Ring by Denethor. Bob's your uncle.

But it seems that they attempted to appease the purists by having him triumph and give up on the Ring willingly.

This is a good example of what I meant by "they should have changed it more".

[Jon S.]

You're right in many respects, Gaf, though - and this is a point that is consistent between the book and movies - the goal always was to have Sauron believe the ring was traveling to and ending up in Minas Tirith so as to deflect his attention from who truly had it.

If you think carefully about it in this context, the strange hobbit freakout in Osgiliath and Faramir's reaction to it are not at all inconsistent with this goal. Having sensed the ring on the bridge, the Nazgul there, if anything, would suspect that Faramir would take it with him back to papa. Just as was pointed out in Rivendell that the good folk would seek to destroy the ring rather than claim it as their own would not be something Sauron could even imagine in his power-crazed wickedness, so allowing that weak little hobbit and his sidekick to retain it in Osgilliath and head in the opposite direction from what was left of Faramir's army would not occur to the evil ones, either. BUT ...

It would significantly decrease Sauron's and his minions focus on the 2 small hobbits sneaking into Mordor through the back door. This certainly did occur to the movie Faramir who, by then, also finally understood - READ CAREFULLY NOW! - that the greater danger existed in Faramir attempting to return it to dad rather than to trust in what appeared externally like a fool's mission.

Factor in also that, by then, Faramir would have grasped that faith in this fool's mission was explicitly shared by none less than the ME power trio of Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf - who certainly could not be dismissed as foolish - and the scene begins to make sense.

The bottom line is that Faramir was indeed noble and his nobility was ultimately retained in the movies with the Osgiliath scene evidencing his true nobility in action. This is why, above, I cut and pasted the full text of, "What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir" into this thread. :)

P.S. Hey, I see my new, first-ever here sig line is now showing up. My thanks to the folks in this thread who provided the inspiration. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, without wetting my waders in the whole mire, here, I'll say that although I was, personally, outraged at the treatment of Faramir in the movie (and Eowyn, as well), I think that much of what one sees as important depends on where they sit.

I live in the Shire, and I've just never been too concerned with stuff those Gondorians do. I mean, thanks, and all that, but it's foreign to me. I never run into elves, at home, and all this business about wizards is just blah-blah. From that point of view, the whole story is just filler waiting for Sam to finally get off the stick with Rosie Cotton.

But PJ is from a place whose arses would have been on the line at Osgiliath. I would think, from an emotional place, that would be enough reason to picture that.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you misunderstand both Curufin and I, Jon. It isn't change that is bad about the movies, it is bad changes. The Wizard of Oz was a wonderful adaptation with changes and omissions to the story that did not fundamentally alter the main characters and their motivations.

No Bombadil? Fine.
Replace Radagast with a moth? No problem.
Make all the major characters say and do things they didn't do in the book? Big problem. Why? Because it alters who they are thereby changing the identity of the entire movie.

The Wizard of Oz did no such thing. Dorothy was still ostensibly Dorothy. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion were the same three guys. Yes, the story was shortened a great deal, but the main characters retained their identities and motivations.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I think you misunderstand both Curufin and I, Jon. It isn't change that is bad about the movies, it is bad changes. The Wizard of Oz was a wonderful adaptation with changes and omissions to the story that did not fundamentally alter the main characters and their motivations.

No Bombadil? Fine.
Replace Radagast with a moth? No problem.
Make all the major characters say and do things they didn't do in the book? Big problem. Why? Because it alters who they are thereby changing the identity of the entire movie.

The Wizard of Oz did no such thing. Dorothy was still ostensibly Dorothy. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion were the same three guys. Yes, the story was shortened a great deal, but the main characters retained their identities and motivations.I completely disagree, here. There's essentially, no chance in the world that you read the Wizard of Oz before seeing the movie. And the likelihood is that you've haven't read many of the other Oz books, either. But I can assure you, neither the incidents nor the characters in the movie bear ANY sincere resemblance to the books.

The same is true of the LOTR movies. You referred to them earlier as "desecration". There is no desecration without an acknowledgement of the sacred, and really, what might be sacred is up for debate.

I'm pretty neutral on Harry Potter, for example. You just can't desecrate it, for me. You can only adapt it, successfully, or less.

[EowynRocks]

I really think Faramir was just NASTY. Yeah, OK, Frodo and Sam were a bit more deceitful and dodgy, but it doesn't mean he was nice!

[Jon S.]

Well, I will certainly admit to many misunderstandings in my day. I do, though, appreciate the difference between objecting to changes per se and being troubled by changes perceived as being poor. The former is more a philosophical orientation, the latter personal taste (in which the individual is pretty much always right for him or herself!).

Frankly, there are changes in the movies from the books that I, too, dislike. There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, "There are two kinds of fools. One says, 'Old and therefore good.' The other says, 'New and therefore better.' " I believe essentially the same thing about film differences vis-a-vis the books.

P.S. At this very moment, I'm 2/3 of the way through Philip Jose Farmer's take on Oz, A Barnstormer in Oz. Different from both the Baum's books and the movie and very cool!
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/e5/0a/1f22024128a0b82a73a15010._AA240_.L.jpg

I also absolutely love Fred Saberhagen's take on the Arthurian legends in Merlin's Bones (would love to see a movie made out of that one!).
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5110FBHPVZL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

[Jon S.]

I really think Faramir was just NASTY.
The movie Eowyn certainly didn't share your take on F (even if we lacked the EE, just check 'em out together in the A-A scene towards the end ;) ). F was also shown as close to his brother and more respectful towards his father than anyone has a right to expect of him. I respectfully believe you're wrong to judge a man NASTY based only on him acting like a real man in a combat setting, few men could survive that level of judgment.

[Curufin]

Again, I agree with DPR. ;)

There were plenty of changes I was fine with:

1. Bombadil.
2. Cutting Gildor (I know this is minor, but I like the guy. ;)).
3. Arwen at the Ford (I know this is a big issue for some, and while I don't particularly like it, I understand why he replaced her with Glorfindel...)

I even understand why he felt he had to restage 'Window on the West' - it was all talking in the book and would have been dead boring on screen.

But none of these things changed essential themes. None of these things (with the possible exception of Arwen, which is debatable) changed any characters. They condensed, perhaps, but they didn't change Tolkien's ideas.

Faramir, on the other hand, and the inclusion of Elves at Helm's Deep, did.

There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Two things - First, I don't quite understand what you mean by 'over-idealized.' Faramir's just a noble guy, and Elrond is the son of Elwing and Eärendil, descendant of the House of Finwë and the race of the Maiar. He's not just Arwen's protective father, or some annoying elf. He's the culmination of all three races, and something of a special-case. I don't like how PJ portrayed him at all. Very badly done.

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

[Curubethion]

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.
That's not necessarily a fair analogy. It would be more akin to someone making a historical movie on the Civil War, and interpreting Robert E. Lee's personality and motivations for fighting for Virginia in a different way, say, because of a personal vendetta with someone, or something. Things like that happen all the time. Gladiator was hardly an extremely historically correct movie, from what I hear. But it was still a good movie.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I confess I haven't read Baum's complete series in a number of years and The Wizard of Oz was maybe a year ago. I never claimed to read these books before seeing the movie. I don't think it matters which was done first.

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.

[Jon S.]

if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.
This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

[Jon S.]

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.
If I may wax Olde English, niggardly art thou with thy assessment of this thread, Dread PR, to find only this positive aspect of our ongoing dialogue.

[Curufin]

This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

It was simply an example, and I'm afraid you've missed my point. Moving it back into fiction for easier analogy, let's say that someone made a movie of, oh, Les Misérables, and had Javert, instead of killing himself because his overly-simplistic notions of good and evil have been violated, kills himself because he was secretly in love with Cosette and was broken-hearted that she didn't return his love. People are going to be mad, because this is interfering with one of Hugo's major themes, therefore changing the story irrevocably. That is what those of us who complain about the changes to the characters (particularly Faramir, but there are others as well) are complaining about. A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

hummm. On what would one base "what Tolkien meant to express with that character?" I'm suspecting you'll reference some of those tedious books by Christopher. ;)

[Curufin]

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered. :p

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly :rolleyes:) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.

[Jon S.]

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Now back to the substance.

A bit part of our differing viewpoints concerning the book and films, it seems to me, is that you interpret many changes in the movies as "drastically altering what Tolkien meant to express" that, to me, do not at all affect a drastic alteration.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves.

That's fine, if you want to interpret it that way. If everyone bet on the same horse, there wouldn't be horse races. Nor Entmoot threads. And both racing and forums would be the poorer for it.

But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

That was a key theme of the decision at the council at Rivendell to establish the company of 9. It was a key theme in Tolkien describing elsewhere how dwarves, elves, and men all fought against Sauron and his forces in their own lands. This theme, to me, was buttressed, not undercut, when the elves arrived, in the movie, at Helms Deep.

It was also cool as s-! In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film. Be honest now - it was the same when you saw the film too, wasn't it? That's because, whatever else one may say about PJ, the man knows how to make a movie.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. I appreciate that, for you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Different strokes for different folks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered. :p

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly :rolleyes:) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions. See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone. :DNot only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.Here's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

[Curufin]

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious anyway that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Well, thank you. I hope I don't come across as some vicious movie-hating Nazgúl.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

And I have no problem with making the movie cinematic. I've directed both for the stage, and amateur film, and I understand that translating into another media necessitates changes. But I think that Faramir's essential nature did change. He was tempted by the ring, after all.

`What in truth this Thing is I cannot yet guess; but some heirloom of power and peril it must be. A fell weapon, perchance, devised by the Dark Lord. If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle. I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it. Alas that ever he went on that errand! I should have been chosen by my father and the elders but he put himself forward, as being the older and the hardier (both true), and he would not be stayed.
'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No. I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'

From 'The Window on the West.' That doesn't sound like the Faramir in the movie to me...

But whatever freaks your peaches. ;)

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves...But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep at all. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'? :p


It was also cool as s-. In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film and, if your going to be honest, it did when you saw the film too, didn't it? That's because you may like prefer PJ, given a choice, but the man flat out knows how to make a movie.

No, sorry, I didn't. ;) I was horrified by this the first time I saw the film, and continued to be. Likewise with Faramir. And I disagree with the last statement there as well. He may know how to manipulate emotion, but that's not necessarily the mark of a good movie-maker.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. For you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack. :rolleyes:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'? :p As "The War to End All Wars" was supposed to be that? :p
Encyclopedia Brown had a mystery once where the answer was revealed because someone supposedly contemporaneous said "the First Battle of Bull Run."

"The final part of the Silmarillion." *sigh*

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack. :rolleyes:
Swell costumes on those elven warriors, though. *ducks, giggling madly*
Maybe the purpose of Helm's Deep in PJ's universe, was to show Theoden's wounds were deep, and have Gandalf fly in so nicely. And the elves left in, because so much eleven stuff had been removed. where's my shrug smilie?... ;)

[Jon S.]

But whatever freaks your peaches. ;)
Excellent - thanks for the new expression! ;) :D

Bet you didn't know many view the biblical Song of Songs as the original source (though undoubtedly the psalmist, too, heard it from someone else) for the expression, "Really like your peaches want to shake your tree." :o

"Your stature is like a palm-tree .. I will climb up into the palm-tree and take hold of the branches." [redacted]

P.S. The quote you post of Faramir from the book, it sounds quite like the Faramir of the movie, only after the Osgilliath incident which, of course, is my point.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You're just difficult, Jon S. :D

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone. :DHere's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?In no particular order, lol :

I evaluate LOTR the movie in the context of LOTR the text.

I see LOTR in a formalist way. If it's not in the text, I don't add it in.

This is for evaluation. As a person, I'm more interested in the potential for interpretation, but I consider that a separate activity. You can say "Gandalf reminds me of my grandfather, he was awesome" in relating to the text. But to say "Gandalf is intended to be the greatest of the Maiar" is begging the question, imo. It's a resort to authority and extra-textual. :D

[Curufin]

"The final part of the Silmarillion."
*sigh*

Well, it is. :p

Jon,

But that wasn't supposed to be Faramir after he had some silly "change-of-heart" after seeing Frodo offer a ring to a Nazgul (or whatever he did, I've only seen that movie a couple of times). That was supposed to be how Faramir was, without prodding. :rolleyes:

[Gordis]

But that wasn't supposed to be Faramir after he had some silly "change-of-heart" after seeing Frodo offer a ring to a Nazgul (or whatever he did, I've only seen that movie a couple of times). That was supposed to be how Faramir was, without prodding. :rolleyes:

Right. And you don't really need to read Tolkien's letters to feel that Faramir was dear to Tolkien's heart. It is right there in the text. Faramir is probably the least flawed character of all, the least selfish - so why insert all this crap about him, why isert all these flaws?:(

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Because of PJ, Boyens, and Walsh's views of Men in general. It was stated several times in the movies from beginning to end. Opening narration: "The hearts of Men are easily corrupted." Elrond: "Men are weak." Aragorn about the Ring: "We can't wield it. No one can." None of these views of men were Tolkien's view, and this is just a small sampling of quotes, nevermind all the other "Elves and Ghosts bail out Men" scenes throughout the movies.

[Jon S.]

This is my take on the situation and it's based entirely on intra-"cannon" sources (I know I've posted on this before but bear with me one more time).

1. The LOTR is expressly based on The Red Book of Westmarch.

2. The Red Book of Westmarch was written by hobbits

3. The hobbits idealized Faramir.

4. The people who write the history control what's in it.

5. The hobbits were motivated, in their version of history, to present Faramir super-nobly and to white-wash any indecision and foibles.

6. The "reality" (such as it is) was different.

7. How different and in what ways is objectively unknown.

8. Just as who rights history gets to control what's in it, who interprets history also controls what's in his own interpretation.

9. PJ interpreted the "history" of Faramir's encounter with the Ring differently from the hobbits who wrote the Red Book of Westmarch and, hence, from the LOTR book.

10. PJ's interpretation is reasonable.

11. People who judge interpretations get to choose their own judgments.

12. You judge the LOTR version to be "better," I the film version (actually, I judge them both equally wonderful BUT I find the PJ version more believable and hence more real.)

Tolkien can say whatever he wants in his letters about Faramir. It's information to consider but not binding in terms of "cannon."

[Jon S.]

Where is Olmert when I need him? He'd probably say we're all wrong and that what really happened was Gandalf put a spell on Faramir to mellow him out about the ring so Elrond and he could continue their enjoyable, never-ending hobbit manipulation. :p

[Curufin]

You judge the LOTR version to be "better," I the film version (actually, I judge them both equally wonderful BUT I find the PJ version more believable and hence more real.)

:eek:

You're joking, right?

Because if not, I have to say I'm rather shocked and appalled.

And that I'm not sure what else to say in my state of extreme shock.

[Jon S.]

Well, I did have my OMG moment in earlier in response to you so you're entitled to your shock and may you enjoy it.

Look, seriously, this is not a shock situation. You prefer a more romantic/certain/idealized Faramir, I a more ambiguous/uncertain/imperfect one. Think carefully for a moment as to why you would choose to react with, of all things, shock to this simple, easily articulated difference taste in fiction!

P.S. The above being the case, let's make sure we never discuss something more serious like the Four Gospels (I take their authors about as literally about Jesus as I do Tolkien about Faramir). ;)

[Curufin]

Look, seriously, this is not a shock situation. You prefer a more romantic/certain/idealized Faramir, I a more ambiguous/uncertain/imperfect one.

No, I prefer Tolkien's Faramir. The character as he is supposed to be. The character as he was created.

Think carefully for a moment as to why you would choose to react with, of all things, shock to this simple, easily articulated difference taste in fiction!

I don't have to think - I know. I can't conceive of someone liking PJ's rape of a character better than Tolkien's general conception. But that's just me.

P.S. The above being the case, let's make sure we never discuss something more serious like the Four Gospels (I take their authors about as literally about Jesus as I do Tolkien about Faramir).

*shrugs* I'm Pagan, so I couldn't care less about the bible. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

hum.

*wonders if a person's selection of which Tolkien character was 'suitable' in idealized version corresponds to any other testing instrument for moral compass*

Another thesis paper, darnit. :D

[Jon S.]

I don't have to think - I know.
We are indeed different( myself, I have to think to know, I find the latter quite difficult sans the former).

I understand your POV. And I understand and enjoy both Faramir versions, Tolkien's and Jackson's. The latter simply falls within my box and outside yours. These things happen.

[Curufin]

As I said before, whatever freaks your peaches. ;)

We can agree to disagree. It's a healthy thing to be able to do, so let's give ourselves kudos for that. :)

I think one of my problems is that Faramir is my favorite non-Elven character (which puts him, of course, waaaaaaaaaaay down my list of favorite characters, but still), and I had a very certain way that I wanted to see him portrayed. And I blame PJ completely - I totally have faith that David Wenham could have pulled off Faramir the way he's supposed to be. Wenham's a fantastic actor.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Which reminds me of one positive about the movies: casting. I thought that the cast, in general, was well chosen. Had the direction and screenplay been better, this cast could have pulled off a set of movies I'd have liked more.

[Curufin]

I agree with you there, DPR. I did like the cast. Especially Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Karl Urban, David Wenham and Cate Blanchett.

I watched most of Wenham's movies when I heard he was going to be Faramir. I was most impressed. It's not his fault his character got gang-banged by PJ.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hated Cate in this, not that she had much to do.

[Curufin]

See, I liked her. I didn't think her Galadriel was all just wimpy and beautiful, as she could have been.

Artanis is a tough cookie, and I think Cate played her more that way than could have been done.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The glowing green part sucked but otherwise, she was wonderful. Moreso in the extended edition. I love the gift giving in both the book and film.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*giggles* for someone who's iffy about this movie, you sure know it backwards and forwards. *friendly poke* ;)

[The Gaffer]

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Do you think Gandalf needed that much edge?

I thought Lee's Saruman was marvelous, and would have enjoyed more of it, but I thought the avuncular Gandalf was well suited to LOTR.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it. :p

[Curubethion]

Jon S.: couldn't agree more, that's actually a view of PJ's movies that I hold as well.

[Curufin]

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

I agree with Sis that Lee had a bit too much edge for Saruman. Of course, maybe he could have tempered it, you never know.

[Jon S.]

I have a question regarding Elrond's character and Weaving playing him. I've heard it said that PJ casted a character more akin to Thingol than Elrond, is that a fair assessment? This, unlike the changes to Faramir, did rankle me. In any event, he certainly did seem to have made a point out of emphasizing it was Galadriel who was the "high elf who gave a damn as to the men who remained."

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I agree. "Men are weak," was one of Elrond's lines, as was, "the blood of Numenor is all but spent." Awful misanthropic stuff definitely reminiscent of Thingol.

[The Gaffer]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

Unfortunately, his subsequent actions didn't make sense; "oh wait, I was wrong, here have a sword". They should have gone the whole hog and had Arwen re-forge Narsil in secret, then sail the White Ship up the Anduin, with Tom Bombadil at the helm, or something ;)

[Curufin]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

I think Elrond was entirely the wrong character with which to do this.

Elrond and Elros were the culmination all three races - Maiar, Eldar and Edain. Not only does it seem wrong that Elrond would write off the glory of men (being the descendent of both Beren and Tuor), but it also seems wrong that he would so off-handedly condemn his twin brother as "weak."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Curu, lol.

Where are you going to get ordinary people, who buy tickets to see a movie, up to speed on the ancestry of Elrond?

Elrond loses his daughter. That IS an element in Tolkien's story, and a reasonably important one. It's also something people can relate to. They have families. Most of them do NOT have an historic ancestry that brings the focus of the End of an Age into their personal path.

Most of these purist quibbles would result in there being no movie, at all. Now, I've sat through literally dozens of productions of Midsummer Night's dream. And anytime a word of Bottom's conversation with Titania's sprites is omitted, I wince, and mutter under my breath. But when I walk into a theatre or film with a 2-3 hour playing time, I KNOW something has been left out.

There were an awful lot of pages in LOTR, guys. Too many to film. And trying to drag in any of those other pieces of posthumous work...well, it's flat out impossible.

Now, you may say, "Then don't make the movie." That's a point of view. Personally, my interest in the New Testament falls off sharply when Paul arrives...I liked the earlier characters, better. ;) And, of course, there are people who take no notice of the New Testament at all. But if you assume someone WILL be filming the movie, it comes with the assumption that they'll be cutting some. And if you were filming the New Testament, insisting on a flashback to Daniel in the Lion's Den would be... Well, stupid. Even if it DOES importantly presage the mercy of the appearence of Christ at all. :D

But I don't ever think you'd make a decent film out of the Sil. It's designed for a grand ballet.

[Curufin]

Curu, lol.

Where are you going to get ordinary people, who buy tickets to see a movie, up to speed on the ancestry of Elrond?

Hey, it isn't my fault that Joe Schmoe movie goer is an illiterate buffoon. :D

Elrond loses his daughter. That IS an element in Tolkien's story, and a reasonably important one. It's also something people can relate to. They have families. Most of them do NOT have an historic ancestry that brings the focus of the End of an Age into their personal path.

Quite so. But most people don't have to carry a magical ring that turns you invisible and is the embodiment of evil straight into the fires of hell, either, but they seemed to accept that alright. ;)

Most of these purist quibbles would result in there being no movie, at all.

*sigh* Wouldn't that have been a beautiful thing?

There were an awful lot of pages in LOTR, guys. Too many to film. And trying to drag in any of those other pieces of posthumous work...well, it's flat out impossible.

Granted. And I'm not that upset with "cutting" stuff. I'm fine that they cut Bombadil, Gildor (:( *sniff) and Glorfindel. I can understand that. It's the stuff they added in and the stuff they changed that annoyed me. Think what they could have done with the ten minutes that they wasted on the warg attack and the horse snogging. Instead they could have had Aragorn sing all or part of the Eärendil Was a Mariner song, and introduce Elrond's ancestry. :p

Now, you may say, "Then don't make the movie." That's a point of view. Personally, my interest in the New Testament falls off sharply when Paul arrives...I liked the earlier characters, better. And, of course, there are people who take no notice of the New Testament at all. But if you assume someone WILL be filming the movie, it comes with the assumption that they'll be cutting some. And if you were filming the New Testament, insisting on a flashback to Daniel in the Lion's Den would be... Well, stupid. Even if it DOES importantly presage the mercy of the appearence of Christ at all.

Sure. And as I said, cutting isn't a problem. Changing is.

But I don't ever think you'd make a decent film out of the Sil. It's designed for a grand ballet.

If they tried I think my head would spin around 360 degrees and I'd vomit all over them.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So, we have one vote for no movie. (and no treatment of the Sil, at all.)

[Curufin]

Yes, no movie. :D

As for the Silmarillion, if it had to be done, I agree that it would be best done as a ballet or possibly an opera. Les Misérables was also long and complicated, but the operetta did a good job with it, I thought. I still think it would be necessary to concentrate on just certain parts of it, though - like Beren and Lúthien, perhaps.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hey, it isn't my fault that Joe Schmoe movie goer is an illiterate buffoon. :D He votes, too. ;) And runs for office, heaven help us. Reality is what it is, chica. :D

Granted. And I'm not that upset with "cutting" stuff. I'm fine that they cut Bombadil, Gildor (:( *sniff) and Glorfindel. I can understand that. It's the stuff they added in and the stuff they changed that annoyed me. Think what they could have done with the ten minutes that they wasted on the warg attack and the horse snogging. Instead they could have had Aragorn sing all or part of the Eärendil Was a Mariner song, and introduce Elrond's ancestry. :p Elrond's ancestry isn't an important feature of LOTR.

Sure. And as I said, cutting isn't a problem. Changing is. All cuts change something. The Romeo and Juliet I saw the other day used cuts to emphasize the family conditions at the Capulets. It was an interesting choice, although wouldn't have been mine, particularly with some casting issues they'd saddled themselves with. You bring in Aragorn singing...why wasn't Aragorn bathing? Hard to imagine any elf, however severely dysfunctional and with father issues, gettin' cozy with THAT piece of long road. I felt he'd be lucky to GET the horse. :D But Viggo clearly WAS Aragorn, however hygiene-impaired.

It's a movie. It's added to the whole body of work, not instead of it.

[Curufin]

He votes, too. ;) And runs for office, heaven help us. Reality is what it is, chica. :D

I'd prefer not to be reminded of this so close to an election. Kthnxbai. :p

Elrond's ancestry isn't an important feature of LOTR.

That depends on whether you see LotR as a stand-alone story, or as the last chapter in a larger legend starting with The Silmarillion. In the first, no it isn't. In the second, it most certainly is.

All cuts change something.

Yes. But they don't have to change the essential themes. There were a good number of cuts/changes, for instance, in the operetta version of Les Misérables, but none of the themes were changed, and the basic feeling of Hugo's story was brought across. I don't feel that PJ succeeded in this. He made wrong choices.

You bring in Aragorn singing...why wasn't Aragorn bathing? Hard to imagine any elf, however severely dysfunctional and with father issues, gettin' cozy with THAT piece of long road. I felt he'd be lucky to GET the horse. :D But Viggo clearly WAS Aragorn, however hygiene-impaired.

Don't get it, either. Legolas stayed clean the entire time they were travelling. Aragorn could too. But I still would have liked him to sing Eärendil's song.

It's a movie. It's added to the whole body of work, not instead of it.

For us, yes. For many people, no. I don't know how many times I've asked people if they've read LotR and they answer "no, but I've seen the movie," as if it's somehow the same thing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Yes, no movie. :D

As for the Silmarillion, if it had to be done, I agree that it would be best done as a ballet or possibly an opera. Les Misérables was also long and complicated, but the operetta did a good job with it, I thought. I still think it would be necessary to concentrate on just certain parts of it, though - like Beren and Lúthien, perhaps.

First of all, Les Mis sucks warthogs. :p It's not opera, it's not operetta, it's not musical theatre. And it's dreadful.

I think the Sil could be a nice ballet...although Beren and Luthien would clearly be the major Pas de Deux. no dialog. You know how THAT would get. :D *Sings* Mandos, hear my lament! He who holds my heart is gone into the dark!

*shudders*

[Curufin]

Having seen Les Mis on stage 36 times, I tend to disagree. :p But to each their own.

I'm not terribly fond of ballet, really. I'd prefer to see it as an opera.

But we're getting a bit off topic. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I'd prefer not to be reminded of this so close to an election. Kthnxbai. :pOur delegate selection is today. Not me, though.:p

That depends on whether you see LotR as a stand-alone story, or as the last chapter in a larger legend starting with The Silmarillion. In the first, no it isn't. In the second, it most certainly is. The first. I take all that posthumous work with a giant grain of salt. Some of it's interesting, particularly as it casts light on Tolkien's sense of reality, but I'm pretty neutral on a lot of the material.

You have to remember, I had committed The Hobbit and LOTR to memory long before the Sil was published. ;)

For us, yes. For many people, no. I don't know how many times I've asked people if they've read LotR and they answer "no, but I've seen the movie," as if it's somehow the same thing.
People are that way about the Constitution, and the Bible, and the Scottish play, too. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Having seen Les Mis on stage 36 times, I tend to disagree. :p :eek: On PURPOSE? Great heavens, where?

[Curufin]

The first. I take all that posthumous work with a giant grain of salt. Some of it's interesting, particularly as it casts light on Tolkien's sense of reality, but I'm pretty neutral on a lot of the material.

You have to remember, I had committed The Hobbit and LOTR to memory long before the Sil was published. ;)

I disagree with you here. A person has to be discerning when looking at the unpublished material, but I think it is an important part of the legendarium, and that you miss a lot when you look at LotR as an independent story. I prefer the 'posthumous work' (as if he wrote it after he was dead :rolleyes::p) to LotR, and certainly to the Hobbit.

Of course, I didn't read the others before the Sil was published, either. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The legendarium. Oh, aye, it's an important part of that.:rolleyes:

[Curufin]

:eek:

What is the problem people have with this word!??

This is not the first time people have spazzed at me over using it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I disagree with you here. A person has to be discerning when looking at the unpublished material, but I think it is an important part of the legendarium, and that you miss a lot when you look at LotR as an independent story. I prefer the 'posthumous work' (as if he wrote it after he was dead :rolleyes::p) to LotR, and certainly to the Hobbit. Well, someone wrote some of it after JRR was dead. :D

Of course, I didn't read the others before the Sil was published, either. ;)
It does make a difference. In history, there are things that were said at the time, off the record. Some of it's venting, some of it's true...you have to sort that out. Then there are official versions,, written by eyewitnesses. Those reflect other kinds of bias. Then there are secondary accounts, by people who weren't there.

And outside of any of those versions, there is 'what happened'. That may have little or no overlap.

JP's movies are secondary accounts of the primary work, which is LOTR. As such, it's not much less canonical than books that were also published long after JRR was in a position to edit and approve.

[Curufin]

JP's movies are secondary accounts of the primary work, which is LOTR. As such, it's not much less canonical than books that were also published long after JRR was in a position to edit and approve.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Yes, CT made certain decisions and made some mistakes (such as on the parentage of Gil-Galad, which he has admitted). But while these texts are less than perfect and up for discussion and interpretation, they are certainly more canonical than PJ's travesty. For one thing, JRRT wrote them. They were ideas that the author had about his world, and in that case are far more important and far more canonical than PJ.

As my favorite Tolkien text is one of these essays (and written completely by Tolkien, btw - CT in the Histories tells us where he has added/taken something out, changed, etc.), I obviously think these are important!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

:eek:

What is the problem people have with this word!??

This is not the first time people have spazzed at me over using it.

Just call me Misomythos. :D I think a word that was invented to give a more scholarly air to one's own work is intrinsically funny. It's like me going around referring to my activity today as Sawanscientia. I am therefore a Sawanscientiest.

Bow before me. :D

[Curufin]

:p

Well, I didn't invent it, and it does serve a purpose!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Yes, CT made certain decisions and made some mistakes (such as on the parentage of Gil-Galad, which he has admitted). But while these texts are less than perfect and up for discussion and interpretation, they are certainly more canonical than PJ's travesty. For one thing, JRRT wrote them. They were ideas that the author had about his world, and in that case are far more important and far more canonical than PJ.

As my favorite Tolkien text is one of these essays (and written completely by Tolkien, btw - CT in the Histories tells us where he has added/taken something out, changed, etc.), I obviously think these are important!And, as a matter of opinion, I would never deny your right to it. :) That's one of the pleasures of such discussions. But taking anyone's word for the accuracy of his own work isn't my way, taking any author's word for the importance and consistancy of his own work (especially with considerable evidence of, um, a good self-concept) isn't my way, and I fail (emotionally) to appreciate the need to 'create a legendarium' when 'writing stories' is a perfectly respectable occupation.

I'm not really into authority, on the whole. It's a problem. :D Thanks for talking with me, though. :)

[Curufin]

I don't think it's a need to create order or authority that I like, but the idea that Tolkien's world is so much more complex and extensive than it appears in the pre-humously (:p) published works. That, and I love the Elves, which don't have a very good showing in LotR or the Hobbit.

In addition, the more philosophical texts, like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth for example, pique my curiosity and make me think, and I like that as well. :)

But we are sooooooo desperately off topic now that we're about to incur a smack-down from a mod, I bet. ;)

So, er, what was wrong with PJ's LOTR? Er, what wasn't? ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So, er, what was wrong with PJ's LOTR? Er, what wasn't? ;)
See! A perfectly defensible and consistent POV. :D And on topic, too. :p

[Curufin]

:D

And believe it or not, the first time I saw FotR, when I was still a Middle-earth-virgin, I loved it. Ah, how things change.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

:D

And believe it or not, the first time I saw FotR, when I was still a Middle-earth-virgin, I loved it. Ah, how things change.*staying on topic, staying on topic, staying on topic, resisting rude but witty remarks, staying on topic, staying on topic...*

[Curufin]

:D

Heh, I bet I can guess them anyway. ;)

[BeardofPants]

Yes, no movie. :D
I didn't like the movie either, but even I can recognise that it bought new fans to the world of tolkien. Including you, if I'm not mistaken. :rolleyes:

[Curufin]

Er, this is true, and there's no way out of it, is there? :o:o:o

I guess I could say something cheesy like 'I'd rather never have discovered Tolkien than had it desecrated in such a manner...' but that would just be silly. ;)

So I'll have to concede that yes, it probably did bring some more fans to Tolkien. Real fans, not just fangirls who ooh and ahh over Orlando Bloom. But it'll take a good amount of time before we'll know for sure whether its overall affect is good or bad. Will most people take the time to read the books, or will they just watch the movies and move on? Probably the latter, but perhaps some (like me) will join the world of Tolkien fandom when they wouldn't have otherwise.

But who knows whether that will be good or bad.

[BeardofPants]

It's just a movie. Not a war in Iraq. ;) There is no good or bad. More fans to Tolkien's 'legendarium' is all good though. We probably wouldn't be having this quibble if not for the movies.

*does her I-AM-SUPERIOR-COS-I-LIKED-TOLKIEN-BEFORE-THE-MOVIES-DANCE

;)

[BeardofPants]

FTR, how do you measure a 'real' fan? By what yard stick to we all have to measure up before we become 'true fans' in your eyes?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*breathy sigh, bats eyes*

Did someone mention Orlando Bloom? *Sigh* I have a giant poster of his adorable face gazing past a longbow, right now. *blows kisses*:D

Gee. People who are obsessed with the cutenes of movie actors are so entirely different from people who are obsessed with imaginary mythology.

added to say, great minds think alike, BoP. But let's try to be nice. This one's a good'un.
:D:p;):D:p;)

[Curufin]

does her I-AM-SUPERIOR-COS-I-LIKED-TOLKIEN-BEFORE-THE-MOVIES-DANCE

:mad:

*pouts*

Gee. People who are obsessed with the cutenes of movie actors are so entirely different from people who are obsessed with imaginary mythology.


*pouts again*

[Curufin]

FTR, how do you measure a 'real' fan? By what yard stick to we all have to measure up before we become 'true fans' in your eyes?

Just read this and realized that I sounded far snottier in my post than I meant to. There's what comes from talking on the phone and posting at the same time. I apologize to anyone I offended. :o:o:o

It's not my place to judge who is a 'true fan' and who isn't. The one place I would draw the line is that I wouldn't consider people who have just seen the movies and not read one word of Tolkien and have no intention of doing so as being Tolkien fans. Movie fans, perhaps. Lord of the Rings fans - might be stretching it, but I could be convinced.

As for people who have read the books - who am I to judge who is a true fan or not? Some decisions are better left to Eru and the fan themselves. ;)

[Curufin]

:eek: On PURPOSE? Great heavens, where?

Eru, I keep missing posts!

Let's see, where.

New York. Chicago. Cincinnati. Dayton. Philadelphia. Greenville, SC. Tampa. New Orleans. Louisville, KY. Bloomington, IN. Kalamazoo, MI. Milwaukee, WI. Peoria, IL, Evansville, IN.

And I generally saw it more than once (up to four times) in one place.

[Jon S.]

I know I'm only going to embarrass myself with this next post but Curufin, my good man, as someone who was a total Tolkien/LOTR freak by at least several years before you were born, it is my distinguished opinion, as "a venerable and true LOTR fan," that PJ's movies, while imperfect, are wonderful to have available to us. But what the heck do I know, anyway, I like Jimi's version of All Along the Watchtower, too. :o

:p

[Earniel]

*does her I-AM-SUPERIOR-COS-I-LIKED-TOLKIEN-BEFORE-THE-MOVIES-DANCE

*remembers when this actually still was an issue here on the 'moot*

There's enough to find as fault in the movies and -I think- enough to enjoy but if they hadn't been there, we'd have had a good couple of years without any movie to talk about! :p Real fans or no.

[Curufin]

:(

I never meant to accuse anyone here of not being a fan. Please don't think I did.

[Earniel]

If you're replying to my post, then have no worries. ;) If you're replying to Jon S. then I think you shouldn't worry too much either, if the smiley is anything to go by.

[Curufin]

Good. :)

I guess it's perhaps that us New-to-Tolkien purists feel the need to prove ourselves, and sometimes we can get a bit...over-enthusiastic about it. ;) Especially when we found Tolkien through the movies to start with.;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Trust me, Curu, everyone here (well, maybe one exception;) ) who has talked to you is just raggin' on you a little. A baptism of fire, it ain't. :D And I never before "met" anyone who did the Phish thing with Les Miz. :D

You should see some of MY scars from early posting here. :eek: :p

I might have to draw up a rocker next to me here for Jon S., though. Pleased ta meetcha. ;)

[Nautipus]

I'll second that sentiment. I practically limp.;) It's always good to get some new people in once in a while though.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Wow, what a busy day in this thread! Funny, I seem to agree with Curufin regarding the movies and with sis..etc. about HoME.

I feel like the great majority of Tolkien's work that was worth publishing got published in the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales (even parts of UT aren't great, IMO). HoME is interesting and a useful resource but I don't feel that it needs to supersede what was published in the instances where they disagree. For instance, I feel that the concept of Gil-Galad being the son of Fingon holds as much weight as him being the son of Orodreth.

I'm going to wax philosophical a bit here and say that once something is written, it exists; in some universe it IS. An alternative may be subsequently created but the first draft always is and in some sense must always be. This is especially so if the former is published, because the more read a story is (or version of a story) the more minds that reality inhabits, adding substance and validity to that particular world.

[Curufin]

Yes, from 1999-2001 I was a Les Mis groupie. :p

DPR - What about essays like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, which I think is the most beautiful thing Tolkien ever wrote?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Wow, what a busy day in this thread! Funny, I seem to agree with Curufin regarding the movies and with sis..etc. about HoME.

I feel like the great majority of Tolkien's work that was worth publishing got published in the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales (even parts of UT aren't great, IMO). HoME is interesting and a useful resource but I don't feel that it needs to supersede what was published in the instances where they disagree. For instance, I feel that the concept of Gil-Galad being the son of Fingon holds as much weight as him being the son of Orodreth.

I'm going to wax philosophical a bit here and say that once something is written, it exists; in some universe it IS. An alternative may be subsequently created but the first draft always is and in some sense must always be. This is especially so if the former is published, because the more read a story is (or version of a story) the more minds that reality inhabits, adding substance and validity to that particular world.Heinlein. Multiple person solipsism. ;)

I'll second that sentiment. I practically limp.;) It's always good to get some new people in once in a while though.I might have administered some of those. Sorry, my friend. (((HUGS))))

Yes, from 1999-2001 I was a Les Mis groupie. :p

DPR - What about essays like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, which I think is the most beautiful thing Tolkien ever wrote?lol. Yeah. We'd picked that up. :D

[BeardofPants]

Hey curu, no worries. You never lived through some of the older purist/non-purist debates back in the day when the movies first came out... Now those were scarring. :eek:

What was it back then, earn? "If you weren't on entmoot before the movies came out, you weren't really a real tolkien fan", lol. How times change. :p

[Curufin]

Not on Entmoot, but I did, actually, on another board. And then I was on the other side. ;) I know how nasty they get. And I got really tired of that argument myself. ;) But I guess as the years have passed and I've read more and more, the movies have lost their magic, and the books have gained magic, and I've switched sides. :)

[Nautipus]

I might have administered some of those. Sorry, my friend. (((HUGS))))

Is okay, my friend. It all worked (((HUG BACK))):)

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

What about essays like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth...?
That's why I was careful to say "the great majority." I first typed "all" then changed it to "almost everything" and finally decided on "the great majority." There is good stuff in HoME but clearly most of the best of it went into The Silmarillion first, and Unfinished Tales second.

[Note: I'm going to read Athrabeth this weekend. I'll be glad to speak to it further during the course of next week.]

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I really enjoyed those Purist Rage threads... those were the days. :evil:

[Curufin]

That's why I was careful to say "the great majority." I first typed "all" then changed it to "almost everything" and finally decided on "the great majority." There is good stuff in HoME but clearly most of the best of it went into The Silmarillion first, and Unfinished Tales second.

[Note: I'm going to read Athrabeth this weekend. I'll be glad to speak to it further during the course of next week.]

Start a thread here! I'd love to have one. :)

[Jon S.]

There are already two Athrabeth threads already ongoing in the ME section.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

They were dead threads Val just resurrected. Hail Valendil!

[Jon S.]

Proof that resurrection is real. ;)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Proof that resurrection is real. ;)

Only if you concede Val is God. Otherwise, it's just an analogy. ;)

[Nautipus]

Hmm, yes an analogy, you say?:p:D;)

[Valandil]

Only if you concede Val is God. Otherwise, it's just an analogy. ;)


I'll go all the way up to "High King"... but not beyond that. So yes, it must be an analogy. :p

Besides... they weren't really dead, just buried. Buried alive!? :eek: And actually, anyone who found them could have bumped them just the same. :)

[Jon S.]

Jeez (pardon the expression :eek: ) - can't a man post a joke in these parts anymore?! :p

Back to the movie. Remember, outside Moria, when Pippin throws the rock into the black pond? Is my recollection correct, this foggy (in more ways than one) Monday morning, that in the book it was Frodo who threw it?

[Curufin]

Nope, it's Boromir.

'Do not let him run away!' said Boromir. 'It seems that we shall need him still, if the wolves do not find us. How I hate this foul pool!' He stooped and picking up a large stone he cast it far into the dark water.' ~A Journey in the Dark

Stupid Men.

You don't see Legolas doing stuff like that, and he's even Sindar :p

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Jeez (pardon the expression :eek: ) - can't a man post a joke in these parts anymore?! :p

Spend more time in the general forum and you might be able to keep up with the jokes. :p

[Curufin]

Spend more time in the general forum and you might be able to keep up with the jokes. :p

:eek:

No, Jon S., stay in the lit forums.

Lit forums are better. :p

Lit forums rock. :p

;)

[Gordis]

Stupid Men.

You don't see Legolas doing stuff like that, and he's even Sindar :p
I like him for things like that - why can't a man vent his anger on something when the oh-so-wise leader Gandalf spends an eternity trying to open a stupid door. As for Legolas, he was a sissy anyway.:p

[Curufin]

I like him for things like that - why can't a man vent his anger on something when the oh-so-wise leader Gandalf spends an eternity trying to open a stupid door.

:p

As for Legolas, he was a sissy anyway.:p

No arguments from me on that. Stupid Sindar.

First Thingol, then Legolas. :rolleyes:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I like him for things like that - why can't a man vent his anger on something when the oh-so-wise leader Gandalf spends an eternity trying to open a stupid door. You have to figure, poor Boromir must have been so uncomfortable by then. The ring always calling, and not really understanding the plan, to start with, and being suddenly so subordinate to a shaggy old stranger who was going to be king, and Gandalf stuck... must have been so hard for him.
As for Legolas, he was a sissy anyway.:pNot in the book. He was youthful...before JRR decided that he'd rewrite all the elves as dull. ;)

[Curufin]

before JRR decided that he'd rewrite all the elves as dull.

:eek:

*decides to give Sis the benefit of the doubt, figuring she can't possibly be referring to Tolkien's post-Lord of the Rings writings adding dimension and scope and beauty to the history of the Eldar* :rolleyes:

*sigh*

Nope, I think she is doing that indeed.

In which case, she has earned a bit: :p:p:p:p

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

the history of the Eldar*
*whispers*see, this is why you don't need me up here. I am so suspicious of the creation of 'history' here. I can talk about the structure of the LoTR. I can talk about mythology that relates to it. I can talk about character motivations. But I'm not a believer. :(

I live in a place with a great devotion to its history. I know how easily that stuff gets re-written, even irl.

[Curufin]

But differing opinions are a good thing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

But differing opinions are a good thing.I agree. But I'm not in the business of hurting feelings for no reason, and that's where it would wind up.

I'm all about happy. :)

[Jon S.]

P.S. Even if it was to emphasize to Eomer (who we know was suspicious of Galadrial and her kin), "Here is an Elf but not to worry, he's not one of hers, Aragorn could still have said, 'Legolas, son of Thranduil of the Woodland Realm." So there must have been something else going on, e.g., were Legolas and Thranduil estranged?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Maybe it just got too much like the begats.:D

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Maybe Viggo couldn't pronounce Thranduil.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Maybe Eomer was a hick from the sticks who wasn't likely to know eleves apart.

Maybe dwarves (or Gimli personally) are fussy about their due.

Maybe eleves prefer not to have their names bandied about among random mortals.

Maybe Aragorn doesn't much like Thranduil, but does Legolas.

How many should I go? ;)

[Curufin]

Maybe PJ didn't want to explain who Thranduil was?

[Jon S.]

Maybe Eomer was a hick from the sticks who wasn't likely to know eleves apart.

Maybe dwarves (or Gimli personally) are fussy about their due.

Maybe eleves prefer not to have their names bandied about among random mortals.

Maybe Aragorn doesn't much like Thranduil, but does Legolas.

How many should I go? ;)
Interestingly, a quick Google of T & L reveals much fanfiction taking, as its point of departure, perceived conflict between poppa and sonny. So I may be a dreamer but I'm not the only one. ;)

How about this possible explanation? Perhaps Legolas related to Thranduil much as Spock related to his father, Sarek.

Perhaps Thranduil viewed Legolas as staying close to the Elves with a career in the Woodland Realm nobility ... but Legolas disdained being a prince, preferring fun and adventure with like-minded folks of all races.

I can very much see T calling in L to say: "OK, wise-guy: you want to Ramble On doing the Misty Mountain hop? YOU can be the one to go and tell Gandalf and Elrond we let their prize prisoner, Gollum, escape!" :eek:

[Jon S.]

If I may return to Faramir for just a moment, though one of our member's reamed me here, earlier, for daring to quote from Wikipedia, as I'm a glutton for punishment:

>> Tolkien says the original Red Book of Westmarch was not preserved. Several copies, with various notes and later additions, were made. The first copy was made by request of King Elessar of Gondor and Arnor, brought to Gondor by Frodo's companion Thain Peregrin I. This copy was known as the Thain's Book and "contained much that was later omitted or lost". In Gondor it underwent much annotation and correction, particularly regarding Elvish languages. Also added was an abbreviated version of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen by Prince Faramir's grandson Barahir. [Source: Wikipedia; bold added]

Holy schnikes! Can there be any wonder, now, why Aragorn and Faramir, in particular, are so white-washed wonderful in Tolkien's version?!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Interestingly, a quick Google of T & L reveals much fanfiction taking, as its point of departure, perceived conflict between poppa and sonny. So I may be a dreamer but I'm not the only one. ;)

How about this possible explanation? Perhaps Legolas related to Thranduil much as Spock related to his father, Sarek.

Perhaps Thranduil viewed Legolas as staying close to the Elves with a career in the Woodland Realm nobility ... but Legolas disdained being a prince, preferring fun and adventure with like-minded folks of all races.

I can very much see T calling in L to say: "OK, wise-guy: you want to Ramble On doing the Misty Mountain hop? YOU can be the one to go and tell Gandalf and Elrond we let their prize prisoner, Gollum, escape!" :eek:
And Aragorn, like Picard, has a stronger relationship with either!

Yeah, now we're cookin! I'm sure this was the conversation PJ and crew were having.They were saying "What Star Trek parallels can we develop, here?"

[Jon S.]

Yeah, now we're cookin! I'm sure this was the conversation PJ and crew were having.They were saying "What Star Trek parallels can we develop, here?"
Instead of PJ doing the films as he did, it should have been Mel Brooks doing the Space Balls ME equivalent! :p

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

If I may return to Faramir for just a moment, though one of our member's reamed me here, earlier, for daring to quote from Wikipedia, as I'm a glutton for punishment:

>> Tolkien says the original Red Book of Westmarch was not preserved. Several copies, with various notes and later additions, were made. The first copy was made by request of King Elessar of Gondor and Arnor, brought to Gondor by Frodo's companion Thain Peregrin I. This copy was known as the Thain's Book and "contained much that was later omitted or lost". In Gondor it underwent much annotation and correction, particularly regarding Elvish languages. Also added was an abbreviated version of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen by Prince Faramir's grandson Barahir. [Source: Wikipedia; bold added]

Holy schnikes! Can there be any wonder, now, why Aragorn and Faramir, in particular, are so white-washed wonderful in Tolkien's version?!That's all fairly directly from "note on the shire records" in the Fellowship. It was the "first folio", as it were, but written by a Gondorian scribe.

So, there was the original "red book" from Bilbo and frodo's notes. There was the Gondorain copy, completed SR 1592. And there were parallel copies made for samwise's family.

[Jon S.]

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."

Were we taking now about American politicians rather than Gondorian nobility it wouldn't even be a close call.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

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."

Were we taking now about American politicians rather than Gondorian nobility it wouldn't even be a close call.

True, but we would know for certain that the call probably came at 3am. :p