Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy Thread

[Isis]

Cool. I didn't know that. The Nine Rings made them become kings and so forth? Excellent.

I did find it amusing that in the movies one of the Nazgul (or at least their original human incarnation) is Alan Lee.

I know. Kinda makes more sense that way too. POWER AND GLORY IS MINE! RAAAAAAAR!

Yeah, isn't John Howe one as well? Hmm... don't make me put the DVD back in and start all over again. Just checked. Both of them are.

[Guest Raidne]

I thought "overreaching" was more or less what makes a hero in LotR. Frodo overreaches. So does Sam. Merry. The Rohirrim on the Pelennor Fields.

Frodo, in fact, does not really become happy again after destroying the Ring. Does that mean he was flawed in Tolkien's eyes and should have kept to traditional hobbitty tasks? (gardening, I presume?)

I did not mean overreaching generally, but overreaching for a woman. I think the rest of what you say is really a separate discussion, but it seems to me that the rest were fulfilling the duties they had undertaken, not shirking the duties they were given. The changes to Frodo are completely dealt with by his eventual departure from Middle Earth, and are not marks of unhappiness that come from an unwarranted dissatisfaction with one's place in life. Mirando Otto and Peter Jackson made all of Eowyn's protestations about the role of women heroic, not J.R.R. Tolkein.

I no longer have the collection with me so I can't give you a page reference, but I believe you can find his thoughts on Eowyn in his collection of letters. They were interesting to read, but not entirely flattering, and so, as an Amazon reviewer put it, "if you have an idealized view of JRR Tolkien that you want to protect, you might want to avoid this book."

[Happy Ent]

Also, how can you have a crush on a Tolkien character? It's like having a crush on a block of wood.

... how is that strange?

[Rimmer]

... how is that strange?

What'd you think of the movie Ents, anyway?

[Mormegil]

I no longer have the collection with me so I can't give you a page reference, but I believe you can find his thoughts on Eowyn in his collection of letters. They were interesting to read, but not entirely flattering, and so, as an Amazon reviewer put it, "if you have an idealized view of JRR Tolkien that you want to protect, you might want to avoid this book."

I admit I haven't read the Letters. Very well, if you're basing your interpretation on Tolkien's own words, mine was clearly wrong. My apologies.

[Exa Inova]

.

No, you didn't like them. Opinions are subjective.

The Ringwraiths are not Numenoreans.

...

Werthead,

My point is that we all read and liked the books (me included). But I think if we look at the books objectively, we see that they are highly flawed. These flaws are made very obvious when one tries to make the books into a movie.

Eons of war and suffering while the good guys are morally, physically and mentally stronger than the bad guys. They even outnumber them (not including the Harad) and have help from 5 wizards at one point!

The points made about Faramir, the elves, dwarves, Bombadil and Numenoreans all diminish the treat of the ring. When you look at these factors you ask your self why the hell didnt they take care of business years ago.

The point about Gandalf 'laying down' to the WK is just one of these flaws. Of course Gandalf should kick ass. The WK is merely a mortal, a powerful one but a mortal still. Gandalf's a fucking Maia! But if the strongest bad guy (when Sauron lost the ring, he lost his crown) is no match for the strongest good guy whats the problem?

You can argue that Tolkien created a genre, but he is not its master

[Anthem]

Also, how can you have a crush on a Tolkien character? It's like having a crush on a block of wood.

Some blocks of wood are very sexy

In all seriousness, you're right Shryke. If I wanted to read a fantasy novel with great characterisation and development I read GRRM. The characters in LOTR are usually good or bad, and only a couple - Boromir and Gollum are the only ones I can think of atm - are really shades of grey. I get what Tolkien is going for: an epic with archetypes that's supposed to bring focus to the plot and the-all-important-quest of destroying the ring, not so much the characters. I found myself hoping desperately the ring would be thrown into Mt Doom but not giving a crap if Frodo died in the attempt.

I didn't have a 'crush' on Faramir; I looked up to him as an ideal and wished I could be a bit more like him (not a chance). That's why I was irritated with the movies' interpretation.

[EHK for Darwin]

ETA: What did people think of the change where the Fellowship were unable to cross Caradhras because of Saruman's interventions?

I could have sworn that it was never confirmed either way in the book. They were pretty sure it was the mountain, but they also suggested that it might be Saruman. Gandalf mentioned both possibilities, but the book doesn't settle it one way or another.

It is actually the way around. The film Theoden is a deeply disappointing whiner of a character, like many of the film's characters, whereas the Book Theoden is a far stronger character. Film Theoden is a character who has to be goaded and prodded; Book Theoden takes the initiative and does what needs to be done.

The film Theoden is the biggest baddass in the series, has all the best speeches, and is my favorite character...so STFU. Awesome on screen presence. Made Aragon look like a pipsqueak.

[mormont]

I like Wenham and I get the impression he wasn't playing to his strengths in LotR. In The 300 he is much better, mainly as he just gets to kick some serious ass.

Off-topic, but are you kidding me? In 300 he's much worse. One of the worst things in an appallingly bad film. I believe Wenham can act - as you say, he has some good scenes in ROTK especially - but some aspects of his performance as Faramir are just weak, though next to his execrable performance in 300 it's goddam Olivier.

[Guest Raidne]

I didn't have a 'crush' on Faramir; I looked up to him as an ideal and wished I could be a bit more like him (not a chance). That's why I was irritated with the movies' interpretation.

My bad. Is it possible English is not your first language and you used the word "horny" mistakenly, then? I was kind of wondering how you could be "horny" for a book character.

I'm surprised that you don't find Frodo to be a compelling character. I found all the hobbits to be compelling characters, and definitely cared what happened to them in the film and the book.

[Calibandar]

Exa Inova

The point about Gandalf 'laying down' to the WK is just one of these flaws. Of course Gandalf should kick ass. The WK is merely a mortal, a powerful one but a mortal still. Gandalf's a fucking Maia! But if the strongest bad guy (when Sauron lost the ring, he lost his crown) is no match for the strongest good guy whats the problem?

You know, you are allowed to have your opinion. But can I then also point out how inept your statements really are?

Tom Bombadil: WTF? Nations at war for ages, genocide, continues suffering over a ring a there is this being who could end this? Whats his point in the books anyway?

I can answer this question for you, in Tolkien's own words. JRRT:

Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that this it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

The elves: Superior beings in every way. They should taken care of Sauron ages ago. And oh, because the live forever they should have millions of kids. Logically there should be billions of elves, even if a female elf got just one child every 50 years.

Elves are certainly not superior being in every way and also quite vulnerable to death by war, as the figures of the various Battles against Morgoth in the Silmarillion illustrate. Your point is simply non-existent. Added to that is that Elves have far fewer children than mankind.

Numenorions(sp): Another super race. But when push comes to shove they fail miserably. All reference to superior Numenorion blood is utter crap since the wraths are numenorions themselves. The way Faramir shrugs of the ring in the book is a joke.

The Numenorians were a very strong race that Sauron greatly feared. Sauron submitted to them, and only through his deception and their own great pride were they defeated.

Theoden: in the books he is actually a spineless prick. Someone whispers something in his ear and he turn into a whimpering old loon. Gandalf shows up whispers something else and he lead thousands into battle.

How different from the film.......oh wait, that happens in the film as well. But at least you got your exorcism, it's all about constantly upping the ante anyway.

Aragorn in the books is an arrogant man. Waving around his sword, pointing at his kinship. But he doesnt go to Gondor to claim it.

In fact, he does. But don't ever let the facts or the book itself get in the way in ineptitude.

Movie Aragorn is much more real as he understands and fears his kinship

It is not more real to fear the kinship than to embrace it. It is just more the modern mindset. These books do not take place the nineties.

And oh yeah, book Aragorn is a superior healer, deus someone?

I disagree. It adds an extra quality to him, that he as some skills as a healer, it does not make him a convenient escape used by the author. If for instance Aragorn had been able to easily heal Frodo when Frodo was stabbed by the Witch King, then you might have a point. But Aragorn could not, amd Frodo nearly died because of it. As you would know if you read the book rather than read the cliff's notes version.

Werthead,

My point is that we all read and liked the books (me included). But I think if we look at the books objectively, we see that they are highly flawedMy point is that we all read and liked the books (me included). But I think if we look at the books objectively, we see that they are highly flawed.

Well, no, we don't. In particular I can refute pretty much all of your flaws. There are flaws for certain, but I don't see you putting your finger on them.

Eons of war and suffering while the good guys are morally, physically and mentally stronger than the bad guys. They even outnumber them (not including the Harad) and have help from 5 wizards at one point

I would say the heroes are stronger ( or at least different ) morally because there is a clear distinction between good and evil. But I do not see your other points. In the Second Age, Sauron and his armies laid complete waste to the lands of Elves and Men ( The lands of Eregion for instance, where the Rings of Power were made) and only small safehavens remained. Your point that men are superior is simply refuted by the stuff that is in the books. And of the 5 wizards, only one really come to aid of the free peoples of Middle Earth, so I don't see why you even bring that up. Allatar and Pallando were lost in the East at once. Saruman was consistently double dealing in the later years of his presence. Radagast was lost in the forest with his birds and beasts. There was only Gandalf.

The points made about Faramir, the elves, dwarves, Bombadil and Numenoreans all diminish the treat of the ring

I honestly don't see how Faramir in the books being more resistant to the Ring than for instance Boromir can be said to be a decreasing of the lure of the Ring. It is Boromir's nature to be much more jealous and greedy than Faramir, who himself is more like Aragorn and does not desire power. The Ring feeds on jealousy and a desire for power. Faramir has far less of that and in the books is a humble man, a leader of men who has a strong moral compass. This does not decrease the power of the Ring. Faramir never wears the Ring, so the effects on him are not strong. Frodo and Sam do wear it, and you can see how it broke them physically ( scars in the neck) and mentally.

It is not the same to be in the same vicinity of the Ring then to actually wear it. Gandalf wearing it would become " a benevolent Tyrant" . Gandalf not wearing it is capable of withstanding it's lure. There are no inconsistencies here whatsoever.

The point about Gandalf 'laying down' to the WK is just one of these flaws. Of course Gandalf should kick ass. The WK is merely a mortal, a powerful one but a mortal still. Gandalf's a fucking Maia!

The WK is no mere mortal. He will live as long as the One Ring does, and that can be for thousands of years. I would not say that is " mere mortality".

Furthermore, Tolkien says of the Witch King at the time of the battle for Minas Tirith:

The Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others [though note that he is nevertheless not excluded from the above explication that the Nazgul rely on fear rather than any true power. -obloquy]; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force

At the time of the confrontation at the Gates between Gandalf the White and the Witch King, Sauron himself invests the WK with much of his own demonic power.

[Isis]

The point about Gandalf 'laying down' to the WK is just one of these flaws. Of course Gandalf should kick ass. The WK is merely a mortal, a powerful one but a mortal still. Gandalf's a fucking Maia!

You're confusing book and film. You cannot blame Tolkien for something PJ did with one of his characters. I was talking about the film.

This is a thread about the films. I am not saying don't mention the books at all, but the direction you're trying to go in leads to a completely different discussion. By all means start another 'what's the big deal about LOTR?' thread in the Lit forum...

[EHK for Darwin]

*

I like Wenham and I get the impression he wasn't playing to his strengths in LotR. In The 300 he is much better, mainly as he just gets to kick some serious ass.

If Wenham was the narrator, than he was easily the most excruciating part of the entire film. A constant annoyance that detracted from nearly every scene it was a part of. Often the message or mood they were trying to convey could have been done much more effectively without the narration, and sometimes without dialog entirely. I really don't know if I should blame Wenham for it, since no 'voice' could have salvaged that part. The role was simply unnecessary. (at least 95% of the time it was. Maybe a brief intro and epilogue could have worked) Show, not tell. Especially when showing wouldn't have been too hard, not nearly as clunky, and much more powerful. Do you really need to tell me that a dad who sees his son decapitated gets really pissed off? Or that being a 7 year old in the wilderness attacked by a giant wolf really sucks?

The narration was guaranteed to take me out of whatever moment the film was crafting for me. Just an ugly eyesore.

[Shryke]

The film was guaranteed to take me out of whatever moment the film was crafting for me. Just an ugly eyesore.

Well, that's 300 for you.

[Exa Inova]

You know, you are allowed to have your opinion. But can I then also point out how inept your statements really are?

Sure you can but first

This is a thread about the films. I am not saying don't mention the books at all, but the direction you're trying to go in leads to a completely different discussion. By all means start another 'what's the big deal about LOTR?' thread in the Lit forum...

I know what this thread is about. Yet many criticise PJ by pointing at the book, without taking into account that the book has its flaws. These flaws are made very clear when you try to make a movie based on the books. If you consider PJ work just an adaptation, just point out that this is just his interpretation. By pointing out the movie is weak/bad/whatever because PJ did this and that and the books say that and this, you should look at the books too.

Some have done this by pointing to Faramirs 'dilemma' when dealing with the ring.

I can answer this question for you, in Tolkien's own words. JRRT:

I know Tolkien explanation. I look at it as an excuse for Tom who, in my opinion, Tolkien knew he made a mistake with. Even back in the days people asked Tolkien about Tom and his answers arent always the same. Tom is an 'odd' character in LotR and one of its weaknesses. Im sure you are familiar with this site so you probably know all the theories concerning Tom.

Elves are certainly not superior being in every way and also quite vulnerable to death by war, as the figures of the various Battles against Morgoth in the Silmarillion illustrate. Your point is simply non-existent. Added to that is that Elves have far fewer children than mankind.

Glad you admit that they are at least superior.

Elves dont get sick, they dont die if not killed, their knowledge spans eons, their weapons and armor are superior, they interact with nature in ways unmatched. What have I forgotten? Their eyes, balance, hearing, stealth walking?

Maybe I overlooked this, but what makes you say elves get fewer children? How many children do men, or dwarves get? If Im not mistaken its the kings of Gondor who at one point dont get kids.

because elves only die when killed they have a better rate of making it to adulthood.

Besides, arent orcs/goblin former elves? That alone means there most be millions and millions of elves.

The Numenorians were a very strong race that Sauron greatly feared. Sauron submitted to them, and only through his deception and their own great pride were they defeated.

So they're flawed supermen. Pride being their kryptonite. Whats your point. Even the remnants were superior to the best Sauron had to offer.

How different from the film.......oh wait, that happens in the film as well. But at least you got your exorcism, it's all about constantly upping the ante anyway.

Make an effort to visualize that part of the book to a movie screen. 'Im Theoden, my people are being slaughtered, my son is killed, my leadership is missed, misery everywhere. Wormtongue says everything is cool, so its cool. He here comes Gandalf. What!? my people are being slaughtered?, my son is killed?, my leadership is missed?, misery everywhere? To arms!!!'

(of course I exaggerate, but you get the point) No conflict, no struggle, totally unbelievable. The exorcism was needed no one could be so lethargic just because someone tells him to be, at least not the great leader Theoden was.

In fact, he does. But don't ever let the facts or the book itself get in the way in ineptitude.

Dont worry, it wont.

It is not more real to fear the kinship than to embrace it. It is just more the modern mindset. These books do not take place the nineties.

The conflict is timeless.

I disagree. It adds an extra quality to him

It adds a previously unknown, superior, kingnaming, life saving where all fails quality to him. Absolutely no need to emphasise his superiority. By doing so, you diminish the treat, struggle and hardship.

but I don't see you putting your finger on them.

Try rereading my posts

I would say the heroes are stronger

Look! You see my points already!

But I do not see your other points

Keep trying, youll get there.

In the Second Age, Sauron and his armies laid complete waste to the lands of Elves and Men ( The lands of Eregion for instance, where the Rings of Power were made) and only small safehavens remained. Your point that men are superior is simply refuted by the stuff that is in the books.

Yes, Sauron is a badass with his army made up of former elves but you forget that only after that the Numenoreans come in to play and sent his army packing. After dealing with our human supermen, he started flirting with the lands of the east.

The wizard came in to play after the war of the ring. Sauron was stripped of much of his power by then (ie the ring). At that time our heroes were waaay stronger than the bad guys. Its unknown why the other wizards went lollygagging but the fact remains that the good guys had maias on their side.

If you would transfer this to the big screen you get the good guys, even without 3 wizards are clear favourites, taking on a bad guy, who lost most of his power when he lost his ring, aided by ring wraths, former elves and men of the east, taking on elves, decedents of numenor, dwarves, huorms, Rohirrim and other free men, fighting over a ring they can just shrug of.

Yeah that a movie I like to see!~

No

The bad guys need to get stronger (WK) and the good guys made weaker (ie human) see Faramir, Aragorn.

I honestly don't see how Faramir in the books being more resistant to the Ring than for instance Boromir can be said to be a decreasing of the lure of the Ring.

You still dont see it?

Let me put it this way. Isuldur was a pure blood and couldnt resist its power. This is the object that the reason the fate of life itself is at stake. If faramir can resist it why cant they all?

Your point about desire and jealousy is hollow. Does Faramir have no ambitions? Not even to win over his father’s approval? Aragorn has no desire for power yet wants to be king? Gandalf knows the power of the ring and steers clear and Faramir just being humble says no? Where not talking cocaine here. This is the object made by the most powerful maia for him to wield only, reason for all this conflict and he just says no?

The Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others [though note that he is nevertheless not excluded from the above explication that the Nazgul rely on fear rather than any true power. -obloquy]; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force

At the time of the confrontation at the Gates between Gandalf the White and the Witch King, Sauron himself invests the WK with much of his own demonic power.

a couple of things about this one.

first: According to the book Sauron sent most of his power into the ring (when the ring is destroyed sauron doesnt die, he just has little power left).

second. If this is true, Sauron most have done this while still in control of the ring.

third. Most importantly, this is an explanation not given in the book, but by Tolkien himself (in other works) when you read the books you dont know this. There is no way to know. Furthermore its still a weak excuse because it means Sauron is weaker still.

fourth. Because Tolkien had to explain this it means this was object of debate.

This repley turned out to be fucking long. Sorry for this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

How is this any different from an army of Southern Gondorians showing up all of a sudden and saving the day? As far as the viewer unfamiliar with the books is concerned, these guys have no purpose in the story other than to do this, and so are every bit as much a deus ex machina as the army of the dead is. Except now, there are two of them, one bringing the other into existence.

IMO, as far as the adaptation goes there is no justification to have both the army of the dead and the Prince of Dol Amroth and his boys feature. One has to go. And let's face it, cool as the Prince is, there's only one choice.

If Jackson could have explained the Southern Fief's were holding back men to defend against the Corsairs their appearence after the defeat of the Corsairs wouldn't have been dues ex machina.

[Exa Inova]

Mormont,

If Jackson could have explained the Southern Fief's were holding back men to defend against the Corsairs their appearence after the defeat of the Corsairs wouldn't have been dues ex machina.

True, but then he also had to explain who defeated the Corsairs and if this was done by the Southeners why so many had to be held back.

No, ghosts are much cooler!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aemon,

There are so many things that I loved though - the Ringwraiths in FOTR, the flight to the fords, the Council of Elrond, our first glimpse of Moria (well, the entire sequence from the door to the Bridge of Khazad-dum)

I've got to disagree. I liked the opening of moria but I hated the well scene from the movie. In the book Pippin drops a rock down the well and a day or so later they are attacked. Here, the orcs swarm like roaches. Another nitpick, if orcs can climb walls so readily why do they mess with seige engines and scaling ladders later in the movies?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EI,

True, but then he also had to explain who defeated the Corsairs and if this was done by the Southeners why so many had to be held back.

No, ghosts are much cooler!

So, the men of Minas Tirith should have just hunkered down and waited for the glowing foam of death rather than risking their lives against Sauron's host?

[mormont]

If Jackson could have explained the Southern Fief's were holding back men to defend against the Corsairs their appearence after the defeat of the Corsairs wouldn't have been dues ex machina.

No, then it would have been a clunky contrivance.

As I say, cinematically there was only room for the Dead or another lot of Gondorians, not both: and cinematically, the choice is a no-brainer. However badly executed it was.