PDA

View Full Version : Would you have put the elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million?


NoCoolUserName
12-16-2003, 11:28 PM
I read where P. J. will take home some $150 Million for directing/writing/producing Lord of the Rings:The Three Films. He clearly made the right commercial decisions about "what to leave in and what to leave out" as well as what to add that was never there...whatever you may think of them as artistic decisions.

Would you make the same decisions (cut Bombadil, ramp up the "relationship" between Aragorn and Arwen, elves at Helm's Deep, etc. ad nauseum) if you knew, or believed, that you'd be taking home that sort of paycheck--not to mention roaring to the top of your profession?

neofishboy
12-17-2003, 12:27 AM
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.

myles
12-17-2003, 12:27 AM
You should remember that it was not a choice between having all three films released at the movie theater with 150 million dollars or else no money, it was a choice between making changes to the book and thus justifying the production of two more movies and release at the movie theater, or else changing nothing, having the movie bomb, and thus not being able to justify the cost of releasing the second two films at the movie theater (besides the fact that if the first film hadn't made as much money if it had, New Line would have completely gone bankrupt, and there would be noone left to put it out), at the very best they would be seen as videotapes at fan conventions without any special effects (like Gollum) or postproduction work done, they wouldn't be able to afford that, either.

When you understand that fact, yes I think I will accept the cost of having 150 million dollars, if the benefit is the fact that the two sequels get to be released.

Rainbowthief
12-17-2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by neofishboy
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.
Best post EVER!

kiwiboy
12-17-2003, 02:52 AM
IMHO the success of the movies has happened despite the changes to the story rather than because of them. How many people went to see them because of Liv Tyler? And I had no idea there'd be elves at Helm's Deep until I went and saw The Two Towers.

RikWriter
12-17-2003, 06:06 AM
I think the changes were justified and worked. I have no problems with them whatsoever.

Neurotik
12-17-2003, 06:33 AM
Frankly, I have hated the movies and am not sure if I will bother to see ROTK. However, I do think some of the changes were justified, such as leaving out Bombadil. Bombadil was interesting and fun, but he was really sort of a tangent that doesn't really play a crucial role in the major plotline.

The ramped up romance between Arwen and Aragorn is lame, IMO. And the Elves at Helm's Deep didn't bother me at all.

Dangerosa
12-17-2003, 08:43 AM
Given what we don't know.....

If funding three movies instead of one or two depended on getting a "name" like Liv Tyler and expanding her role, I'd have done it. (My gut is that no one - not even the actors, director and producers - think that role works - or we'd see more of it, but that it was contracted in. How else did Liv Tyler get such great billing and heavily featured in the promo materials for such a small role).

I can't figure out how you'd add Tom Bombadil without cutting a major plot point and end up with a movie that's less than four hours. A four hour movie wouldn't have been released, thus, no Tom. Fine with that. Movie without Tom better than no movie at all.

Elves at Helm's Deep....didn't bug me one bit. Don't understand why they needed to be added - didn't seem to count for much other than keeping the Elves from looking like they were willing to let men get wiped out by evil as long as they got to sail away. I'm guessing that Elves needed to look a lot more sympathetic to make the movies work.

Some of the questions are artistic - those changes I don't necessarily "get" - but its hard from the outside to know which those are. Some are practical and needed to be done to get the film funded and released. So the question becomes, would you have expanded the Arwen/Aragorn romance and cut Tom Bombadil if that was the only way you were going to be able to make the films?

Munch
12-17-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Dangerosa
If funding three movies instead of one or two depended on getting a "name" like Liv Tyler and expanding her role, I'd have done it. (My gut is that no one - not even the actors, director and producers - think that role works - or we'd see more of it, but that it was contracted in. How else did Liv Tyler get such great billing and heavily featured in the promo materials for such a small role).

Well, how else do you expect to get males to show up to a movie like LOTR without an attractive female lead? ;)

av8rmike
12-17-2003, 10:08 AM
Sheesh.... this is almost as dumb as the "I don't like the pronunciations they used in the movies" thread.

Directors make artistic decisions for the sake of their craft. In some, if not all, cases, there is little difference between artistic and commercial decisions. They go hand-in-hand.

Let it go, people..... :rolleyes:

Achernar
12-17-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Dangerosa
I can't figure out how you'd add Tom Bombadil without cutting a major plot point and end up with a movie that's less than four hours. A four hour movie wouldn't have been released, thus, no Tom. Fine with that. Movie without Tom better than no movie at all.Are that many people upset about this? The thing about it is, that part of the book didn't make much sense, and it wasn't that good. ;)

Polycarp
12-17-2003, 10:38 AM
Eru Iluvatar have mercy upon us!!

Look, the entire point of making a movie out of a book is to adapt the story as told in the book to a story-that-works-in-a-movie. That means that if there's an internal monologue, the protagonist thinking something, in the book, one must either do that as him sitting/standing with a voice-over of him thinking, or rewrite it so he has those thoughts in dialogue with another character. It means if there are references to repeated events "offstage" in the book, one must either bring them onstage, drop them, or consolidate them.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was used by Peter Jackson to consolidate the Battles of the Fords of Isen, half-a-dozen battles across half of Rohan, and numerous other events, including the Lorien Elves attacking Dol Guldur.

According to the book, the Elves have been a vital part of the warfare against Sauron and his forces since the Second Era, over 5000 years before. But all that happens "offstage" in the plotline of the books. So if we're going to have any Elves besides Legolas shown as fighting the Sauron/Saruman alliance, they have to be doing it onstage in the movie, and, since PJ decided not to have repetitive battles in The Two Towers (in which I think he was right), that means you're going to have to show them taking part in the one battle shown -- Helm's Deep. As an adaptation of the story to meet movie conventions, it was a bright move on his part. We see the Elves not just as mystical, place-out-of-time figures, but as active parts of the coalition of the good guys, actively combatting Sauron. And we know from the books that Lorien and Rohan were in fact allied, though there was some superstitious fear of elves among the Rohirrim-in-the-street and some sense of men-are-taking-over-and-we're-left-behind among the typical Elf-in-the-woods.

Likewise, the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is canonical, but placed in an appendix as not being integral to the Quest Story that forms the major plotline of LOTR. In order that there be some female presence in the story, PJ moved it into the main story line, and reworked Aragorn's motivation a bit -- a plotline that makes a bit more sense out of why he's waited until now to claim his inheritance. This was truly a departure from Tolkien in the way that the consolidation of battles into the Helm's Deep scene was not, but IMHO was a change for the better. Don't forget that Tolkien consistently fiddled with the story lines of his mythology over a sixty-year period to attempt to make it more in tune with human nature (and his conceptions of Elf, Dwarf, etc. nature).

What I'm saying is, in a movie adaptation, it makes more sense to consolidate the battle scenes, which take far longer to show than they do to be alluded to in the book, into one climactic battle -- and if you do that, you need to incorporate all the developments of the various battles into that single battle scene. Ergo, Elves combatting the Forces of Evil militarily, which is canonical, must be brought into the one battle you're going to film -- which means they come to the aid of the Rohirrim (as, if you read the history, they actually did in other times and places).

PJ could have filmed the story exactly as Tolkien wrote it -- and produced a 20-movie-long series that would never have been financed and would attract an audience of exclusively rabid Tolkien fans (who would then have found other things to bitch about). And he'd have never gotten it off the ground.

Personally I think he did an outstanding job of remaining more-or-less true to the canonical plot while adapting it for the big screen.

silenus
12-17-2003, 12:24 PM
Polycarp - You nailed it beautifully. I was never that big a fan of the books - I have read them several times, but just didn't find them all that good or special. But what Jackson has done with the original material is FANTASTIC!!! I plan on watching the EE DVDs every year for the rest of my life.

What every fanboy has to keep in mind is that what works on the page NEVER works on the screen. It always has to be tweaked, because the visual medium is so different than that of the written word.

Neurotik
12-17-2003, 12:44 PM
I understand why he had to make the changes. I just think the changes he ended up making suck and I ended up hating both movies. And probably won't bother watching the third. YMMV.

Malthus
12-17-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by neofishboy
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.

Damn funny, best laugh I have had all day! :D

jeevmon
12-17-2003, 01:07 PM
Hell, for $150 mil, I'd have given them organic webshooters too!

MaxTheVool
12-17-2003, 01:33 PM
And I think Liv Tyler is quite good in both FOTR and TTT. So there.

Cervaise
12-17-2003, 02:10 PM
What Polycarp said. These are Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Tolkien novels. Changes are Jackson's responsibility and his opinion about bringing over what he regards as Tolkien's themes into the cinematic medium. He isn't "ruining" the books; the books are still on the shelf where they've always been. (And don't try to argue that people will see the movies and then not read the books; those people wouldn't have read the books in the first place. In fact, I'd wager that more people will read the books due to the success of the film versions.)

Seriously, Jackson's adaptation is not only as faithful as it's reasonable to be, it's more faithful than I would have thought possible. He's maintained Tolkien's undercurrent about natural vs. technological cultures. He's keeping the bittersweet feeling of victory that was so important to Tolkien as a witness to the horrors of World War I.

Those who complain just don't understand how the movie industry works. That these movies got made at all is a miracle, let alone how much of the source material they've managed to cram in, either directly (Faramir's little speech about the dead bad guy being just another guy in the extended Two Towers) or obliquely (one of Tom Bombadil's lines appearing in Treebeard's mouth). Remember that Miramax wanted Jackson to make two movies of two hours apiece. What kind of travesty would that have been? And even after they moved to New Line and got expanded to three movies, one of the first notes from the studio was, "What do you need four hobbits four? Cut one."

Jackson and his filmmaking team knew they'd have to compromise; I read an interview with two of the writers (Walsh and Boyens) in which they referred to their changes, with tongues only partly in cheek, as "crimes." They didn't have a choice; the only way to get the movies to work was to treat them as movies. The key here is that they came to the material with love and respect, and that they wanted to do justice to Tolkien to the best of their abilities and given the limitations of the form. In that, I think they succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, except for the purists who don't understand how movies work and how they get made.

I've said this before: Imagine the disaster these movies would be if someone like Michael Bay or James Cameron or Jan de Bont or Richard Donner or Rob Cohen or McG or Renny Harlin or any other of the studio golden boys had been handed the reins. Imagine giant orange gasoline explosions at Helm's Deep. Imagine a big triumphant parade at the end that completely misses the point of Tolkien's difficult-victory-bloodily-earned message. Imagine that Elvish is never spoken by anybody. Imagine Sauron as an actual guy stomping around with whom Aragorn has to have a big kung fu swordfight. Those who are horrified that there are elves at Helm's Deep have no idea just how bad it could have been.

Jackson & Co have made certain decisions that concede the need for popular acceptance, but objectively speaking it's astonishing how few of these there are given how movies are normally made. I mean, I'm not a Michael Crichton fan, and Timeline is kind of a dumb book, but the movie version is even worse because it dispenses with even the rudimentary beginnings of good ideas in the novel. Take that as a lesson.

So yeah, I would have put elves at Helm's Deep, and I would have cut Tom Bombadil, and I would have ramped up the Arwen and Aragorn romance, and I would have given the elves pointy ears, and I would have given the Balrog wings, and I would have had Faramir tempted by the Ring, and I would have done it for free.

cichlidiot
12-17-2003, 04:08 PM
I liked the elves at Helm's Deep, thought it added to the story in a positive way. In the extended version, there is mention of a plan to also add Arwen among the elves at HD, that was scrapped. I'm glad that didn't happen.

I really liked the Two Towers extended version a lot better than FotR, I think the writers really tried hard to keep the fans in mind, while still making a movie that flowed. A nod to Bombadil, by giving Treebeard some of his lines, the elven rope scene, Merry and Pippin drinking Ent draught and meeting Old Man Willow, etc. I was really happy to see all of that.

[slight hijack]In part of the extended version, there is discussion about exactly which two towers Tolkien was referring to. I always thought it was Sauron's and Saruman's towers?[/sh]

Awgrimm
12-17-2003, 05:00 PM
Personally, the only change that I disliked was Faramir being tempted by the Ring. Ruined that character, which was my favorite in the books. I know that they may have been trying to play-up how great Aaragorn was by having him be the only human NOT so tempted, but I still say it sucks.

Also, I HATED the fact that Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul in Osgliliath. From what I remember, wouldn't the War have essentially been over at that point? If Sauron knew where the Ring was, he would have just focused all his efforts in that direction. I know that in the books, one of the reasons they start the war is to distract Sauron from the fact that Frodo was bringing the Ring into his back yard.

That said, I still can't believe how good the movies actually are. Whoever said it above is right, these could have easily been a complete f'n disaster!

Miller
12-17-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Awgrimm
Personally, the only change that I disliked was Faramir being tempted by the Ring. Ruined that character, which was my favorite in the books. I know that they may have been trying to play-up how great Aaragorn was by having him be the only human NOT so tempted, but I still say it sucks.

Who says Aragorn was never tempted? That's precisely why he agreed that Frodo had to continue to Mordor on his own: he could feel the Ring's pull, and knew that if he stayed with Frodo, he'd end up betraying him. I think that Faramir's temptation was one of the best changes in the movies, because it re-enforces how dangerous the Ring really is: no body, not Gandalf, not Aragorn, not Galadriel, is immune to its lure.

asterion
12-17-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Munch
Well, how else do you expect to get males to show up to a movie like LOTR without an attractive female lead? ;)

Hey, now, Eowyn is pretty good looking and gets more screen time in the last two movies than Arwen.

Though I actually think that the expanded role for Arwen helps some. It does help to flesh out Aragorn, and there's sort of, in my opinion, a feeling of "who is this Arwen person?" when they marry in whatever chapter it is in the book (8?).

Waenara
12-17-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Awgrimm
Personally, the only change that I disliked was Faramir being tempted by the Ring. Ruined that character, which was my favorite in the books. I know that they may have been trying to play-up how great Aaragorn was by having him be the only human NOT so tempted, but I still say it sucks.
This was already addressed by Miller, but I'll elaborate a little more. In the extended edition commentary, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens describe their reasoning very clearly. I also did not like this change - initially - but now I completely agree with them.

It would not have been good to keep it as written in the book. Picture it: you've just spent the last four and half hours (FOTR and first half of TTT) explaining how horrendous and manipulative the ring is. It is the source of tremendous evil, that no one can withstand without being corrupted by it (including Aragorn, and even more importantly Gandalf). It has turn Smeagol into a destroyed creature over the course of 500 years. It is slowly destroying Frodo's mind and spirit. Now here's Faramir - a new character who's seeing the ring for the first time. In the book he says something like he "wouldn't pick it up, even if it lay by the wayside." Now you've completely destroyed the power of the ring. All momentum is gone and the tension is incredibly diminished.

I think this was one of the best decisions the screenwriters made.


Also, I HATED the fact that Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul in Osgliliath. From what I remember, wouldn't the War have essentially been over at that point? If Sauron knew where the Ring was, he would have just focused all his efforts in that direction. I know that in the books, one of the reasons they start the war is to distract Sauron from the fact that Frodo was bringing the Ring into his back yard.
Actually, Nazgul can't see. They mostly rely on their steeds (horses or fell beast for sight. Remember in the FOTR with the scene by the side of the road in the Shire - the Nazgul is sniffing and smelling, not looking for the hobbits.

In the scene in the movie, the fell beast is drawn towards Frodo - but this needn't be because of the ring - it could just be because he's a solitary figure standing out in the open on top of a building. Also, in the commentary the writers talk about how this is basically the essence of a scene in the book set at Minas Morgul - when Frodo has the ring in sight of the Nazgul (IIRC).



Of all the changes in the movies so far, none particularly bother me. They are all either excellent (Faramir not immediately rejecting the ring, cutting Bombadil), good enough (Aragorn falling in the Warg battle, elves at Helms' Deep), or not really important one way or another (Aragorn saying farewell to Frodo at Amon Sul, instead of wondering where he went went the Fellowship split).

I think that expanding Arwen's role has worked well. The majority of the material is taken right from the Appendices, or taken from throwaway characters like Glorfindel. You can't really have too many big characters, or people get confused. But thank god they didn't stay with their original idea to have Arwen at Helm's Deep. Although that was apparently just a holdover from the Miramax-two-movie days when they hadn't to condense everything as much as possible.


I had to laugh when I heard some people speculate before FOTR came out that they increased Arwen's role to attract more female moviegoers. BWAHAHAHA! Like having so much hottie goodness isn't more than enough to do that. Let's see.... we have four cute hobbits, Aragorn, Boromir, Elrond, Gandalf, Legolas, Haldir, Eomer, Theoden, Faramir. My GOD. This is the best chick-flick ever. (At least, it's my kind of chick flick.


The only change that I've heard of in ROTK that i'm SURE will bother me (I haven't seen it yet, but I've read several spoiler articles) is: That they make Arwen's fate tied to the victory - she gives up her immortality, and unless Aragorn wins, she will die immediately. I think this is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. I can't think of any reason to merit this change. What, saving the world from absolute evil isn't enough motivation for Aragorn? I'll just have to stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes during that part - or run to the bathroom.

rocking chair
12-17-2003, 07:36 PM
elves are the best. they should be added any time and in any place.

Chimera
12-17-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by neofishboy
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.

Best damned thing I've read or heard in a month. Thanks for the laugh, neofishboy.

(with thoughts of evil cookies....)



And I'm giving Polycarp a standing O.

Delly
12-17-2003, 08:22 PM
the movie was BASED on a Book.

Ok now that said, yes I would put the Elves in Helms Deep, Why? Because Jackons cant possibly show the wars that Lothlorien & Rivendell fought at te time of the Ring being destroyed, so therefore what other was is there to put in that the Elves were involved also.

In fact, I would have done that for free...

Delly
12-17-2003, 08:23 PM
Waenara, hope I spelled that right, Arwens fate being tied to the ring, personally, as Ive said before, this is only my small humble opinion, I think the idea of her death should Sauron regain power is to portray the fact that all things pure & good & lovely will die out from middle Earth under his reign.

Left Hand of Dorkness
12-18-2003, 08:30 AM
I agree with Delly; note that this is a minor spoiler for the movie.
At first, Elrond's comment really confused me: why was her fate tied to the ring, and which way was it tied? Did he mean that as the ring went, so would she? If the ring were destroyed, she'd die? Only after the movie was over did I think about it again and realize that, by deciding not to leave Middle Earth, Arwen had thereby tied her fate to the fate of all mortals, and all mortal fates were now tied to the ring: if Sauron regained it, they'd all be in a world of teh suck.

Daniel

KGS
12-18-2003, 08:55 AM
I think the elves were added to Helm's Deep just for the sake of a heroic death (Haldir) -- whatever, I think the elves were damn cool. Tolkien purists need to lighten up.

And Faramir's motivations vis-à-vis the Ring are made much more clear in the extended edition of TTT -- basically, he's trying to impress his daddy.

Awgrimm
12-18-2003, 10:12 AM
Yeah, I get that Faramir is trying to impress his old man, he pretty much says so, but I still don't like the changes. Though with the discussion here, I think I understand them now. The explaination above by Waenara makes me see the reason that Jackson and Walsh, etc chose to make the changes to Faramir. However, in the books I think that is one of the things that makes him so cool. He is able to puzzle out what is going on and make a decision for the good of Man, even though he knows Dad won't be pleased.

Lemur866
12-18-2003, 11:47 AM
Giving Arwen everything done by other random evles in the books is a GREAT change. Tolkein himself should have done it. I remember the first time I read the books, and Aragorn ends up marrying some unknown elf princess at the end. I didn't even remember Arwen from her brief appearance in FOTR at Rivendell. Unless Arwen is a real character, the story of Aragorn and Arwen is meaningless. So stick every bit of the appendix that you can into the main story, give her Glorfindel's part, anything you can. It MAKES THE STORY BETTER. Really, it does.

And of course Bombadil has to go, he doesn't make sense unless you are putting out a 40 hour miniseries. When you count the EEs, the whole trilogy is already more than 12 hours long. And there are dozens of things I'd add back in first, given unlimited screen time, such as more of Bill the pony's story. Come on, admit it, you'd rather have more of Bill than Tom. And yes, the scouring of the shire is a big problem, since you have to end the movie within 20 minutes of the ring going into the Cracks of Doom. Yes, it is a great part of the book, mirroring the larger struggle, showing the particularity of evil (trees being destroyed vs. THAT tree, right over there being destroyed), reinforcing that all evil wasn't destroyed, constant vigilance, etc etc. But it is an anticlimax. Books can deal with that much more easily than movies. You can't go from hundreds of thousands of orcs marching and mountains exploding and dark towers crumbling to a couple of thugs getting shot by hobbits.

That said, I have a few objections to the movies. I don't like how they handle Gandalf and Galadriel and others "revealing their true power". I'd go much more subtle. Camera angles and Acting. And I'd make the Ring Tempting scenes more subtle too. Frodo shouldn't go into a trance, like he doesn't know what he's doing when he is tempted to use the ring. It weakens the idea of temptation. Frodo should be CONSCIOUSLY tempted to use the ring, not stoned out of his gourd. I didn't like the overt possession of Theoden by Saruman. What was up with putting old-guy makeup on him? Theoden is weakened because he thinks he is weakened, from listening to bad counsel and despairing, not because of some evil spell. Gandalf doesn't exoricise him, he kicks him in the ass and tells him to stop feeling sorry for himself and fight. And I wouldn't have had cavalry charging emplaced pikeorcs, no matter that the sun came up and demoralized them. And having Merry and Pippen trick the Ents into finding out about Isengard was lame.

But all in all, the movies are great. Really good. The best possible Tolkein movies of any concievable universe of Tolkein movies.

Jonathan Chance
12-18-2003, 11:56 AM
I agree that changing Faramir was wrong. I always viewed him as proving that there was something worthy about the remaining race of men. That they were worth all the pain of the war and sacrifice required to save them from Sauron. Without that we're just left with the realization that...you know...men suck. Sure, nice and uplifting. Let me go send $100 to the 'Sauron for President' campaign.

And Haldir's death at Helm's Deep I found really moving. I saw him getting it and the faraway look in his eyes and I thought I could hear him thinking, "5000 years...and it's come to this....5000 years of life...I don't want to die."

That tore me up.

Monstre
12-18-2003, 12:52 PM
Well, how else do you expect to get males to show up to a movie like LOTR without an attractive female lead?

Hello? Eowyn? Chopped liver?

I much preferred Eowyn in the movies over Miss Pouty Lips anyways...

RikWriter
12-18-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Monstre
Hello? Eowyn? Chopped liver?


Hello? Eowyn? Didn't show up till the SECOND movie...

Monstre
12-18-2003, 01:20 PM
Hello? Eowyn? Didn't show up till the SECOND movie...

Yes, but she was worth it... :)

Rodrigo
12-18-2003, 01:52 PM
It is impossible for almost any book to be put verbatim into film because writing and filmng are different forms of expressing.

What they put or cut out really doesn't bother me much (although the scene where Galadriel gives Gimli three strands of hair would've been nice if only to see Celeborn's jealous eyes).

Although Liv Tyler (who proounces S very sensously) is prettier than Miranda Otto, I have to say that Éowyn in armour was incredibly sexy and much sexier than anything Arwen can pull off.

I'm getting my wife some plate-armour and chain mail right now.

-------------------------

Will they ever do the Silmarillion?

middleman
12-18-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by neofishboy
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.


It was funny, but I can't say I laughed. I started to laugh hilariously, but a second laugh came up two quick and they both got caught in my windpipe at the same time.

Damn near killed me!

Master Wang-Ka
12-18-2003, 03:09 PM
Tom Bombadil: Hello, little friends!
Frodo: No time for you, weirdo.
Tom Bombadil: (disappears)

---------from the Extra Extended Extended Edition: Lord Of The Rings: The Fifteen DVD Set With Yet More Footage, due out for Christmas, 2005

Polycarp
12-18-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
Let me go send $100 to the 'Sauron for President' campaign.

Hey!! :mad: What am I, chopped liver?!?

Though I do plan, if elected, to get his advice and Aries28's on how to deal with the Sufferin' Baptists! ;)On a more serious note, though, I agree with what you say, both about Faramir and about Haldir.

lightingtool
12-18-2003, 05:11 PM
Master Wang-Ka, that was terrific.

Miller
12-18-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Waenara
That they make Arwen's fate tied to the victory - she gives up her immortality, and unless Aragorn wins, she will die immediately. I think this is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. I can't think of any reason to merit this change. What, saving the world from absolute evil isn't enough motivation for Aragorn? I'll just have to stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes during that part - or run to the bathroom.

The way I read that was that Arwen was willing herself to die, as elves are wont to do when they get majorly depressed. She couldn't stand to go to the Grey Havens and leave Aragorn, but her father was opposed to the marriage. Plus, Sauron's going to kill Aragorn anyway, and then kill everyone else, so she might as well end it now before the orcs get to Rivendell. Most of all, though, it wasn't supposed to get Aragorn to fight any harder, it was to force Elrond into action. He couldn't just leave Middle Earth and leave her anymore than she could leave Aragorn. So, he reforged Isildur's sword and pointed Aragorn at the Paths of the Dead.

tracer
12-18-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by NoCoolUserName
Would you make the same decisions (cut Bombadil, ramp up the "relationship" between Aragorn and Arwen, elves at Helm's Deep,
You left out "having the king, after Gandalf had lifted Wyrmtongue's scales from his eyes, wuss out and hide at Helm's Deep instead of riding ravenously into battle there in the first place."

Deptford
12-19-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Lemur866
Giving Arwen everything done by other random evles in the books is a GREAT change. Tolkein himself should have done it. I remember the first time I read the books, and Aragorn ends up marrying some unknown elf princess at the end. I didn't even remember Arwen from her brief appearance in FOTR at Rivendell. Unless Arwen is a real character, the story of Aragorn and Arwen is meaningless. So stick every bit of the appendix that you can into the main story, give her Glorfindel's part, anything you can. It MAKES THE STORY BETTER. Really, it does.



Absolutely, the first tume i read LOTR. When Arwen turns up again, after about 600 pages since you last saw her. I was baffled.

"Where the hell did she spring from?" was pretty mucjh my reaction. Had to spend 10 minutes flicking back through the book to remind myself who she was.

Chronos
12-19-2003, 11:20 AM
The thing with Arwen is, great writer that Tolkien is, he couldn't write romance worth a darn. Nothing against love at first sight, mind you, but it's a bit of a crutch. So I have no objections at all to Jackson developing her character a bit more and actually giving her some screen time. She really is a big part of the story, bigger than Tolkien made it clear in the main body of the story.

Malacandra
12-19-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Waenara

It would not have been good to keep it as written in the book. Picture it: you've just spent the last four and half hours (FOTR and first half of TTT) explaining how horrendous and manipulative the ring is. It is the source of tremendous evil, that no one can withstand without being corrupted by it (including Aragorn, and even more importantly Gandalf). It has turn Smeagol into a destroyed creature over the course of 500 years. It is slowly destroying Frodo's mind and spirit. Now here's Faramir - a new character who's seeing the ring for the first time. In the book he says something like he "wouldn't pick it up, even if it lay by the wayside." Now you've completely destroyed the power of the ring. All momentum is gone and the tension is incredibly diminished.

Valid point, with one minor drawback: In the book, Faramir says that about not picking it up before he even knows what Frodo's secret actually is. When he learns that Frodo has the One Ring, Faramir is wise enough to know that he just didn't oughtta go there - and he pointedly says he doesn't even want to see it or know where it is or hear any more about it. Even the Ring can't tempt someone who doesn't even see it.

Originally posted by Waenara

I think this was one of the best decisions the screenwriters made.


But for the "one minor drawback", I'd go along with you.

Originally posted by Waenara

The only change that I've heard of in ROTK that i'm SURE will bother me (I haven't seen it yet, but I've read several spoiler articles) is: That they make Arwen's fate tied to the victory - she gives up her immortality, and unless Aragorn wins, she will die immediately. I think this is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. I can't think of any reason to merit this change. What, saving the world from absolute evil isn't enough motivation for Aragorn? I'll just have to stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes during that part - or run to the bathroom.

Yep, that sucks. Way to waste time better spent on... (continues in this vein for bloody ages)

DrDeth
12-19-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by neofishboy
I would have put Keebler Elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million.

Oh, lordy, now I have diet Pepsi all over my screen & keyboard. This HAS to be the best one line reply in years.

Yes, Poly, your reply was a marvel of explanation and well worded. But- (snort, guffaw..) Keebler...(lapses into giggling) elves....:D

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.