Saruman’s influence is shown indirectly in the way that Saruman and Wormtongue control Theoden.
By the time he speaks in the third movie, his power is considerably diminished (especially compared to Gandalf). Also Jackson was trying to compensate for the loss of ‘the Scouring of the Shire’ by making this Saruman’s end.
:eek: I don’t remember Radagast making an appearance in the books! Isn’t he just in the Appendices as one of the 5 Istari?
Oh yeah, I was too young to “get” them. But Tolkien really didn’t have his target market figured out too well. The books, with their talk of fairie frolics, are for kids–but then there are all the sophisticated linguistic things he throws in that will be totally over kids’ heads and bore them to tears.
Around 1979 or 1980 I also tried to read the Silmirilian. Now that really is a piece of work, in more ways than one.
I peaked at FotR in the bookstore around when the first or second movie was out. I was impressed with the poem about Mordor “where the shadows lie.” I would never say that Tolkien’s prose (and poetry, for that matter) is anything but excellent. But I really have no motivation to go back and reexplore those books. They just don’t have that “adultness” I mentioned.
It may be without equal, but that says more about movie than it does about these movies.
I didn’t see the epic sweep. I did see failure in that regard, however. There was never any sense (either via “show” or “tell”) that a truly vast war was sweeping a large landmass. Rather, it seemed like there was one large battle in each of the latter two movies, and that was that.
Speaking of adaptations from novels, I saw Ole V’s Starship Troopers the other day. Now, I don’t know if that’s a good adaptation of the novel or not but I can say that it certainly doesn’t feel like there’s anything missing. It’s a truly full and round movie. Satisfying. Good storytelling!
Had J had the feel for pacing and storytelling that V has, he might have come up with something I like. As it is, it’s battle-liv tyler mugs-battle-battle-battle-elijah wood mugs-blah.
Well said. But you said it, not me.
I’m not so much concerned about whether Jackson’s movies conveyed LotR accurately or not; I’m concerned whether they stand up as good movies in their own right. And I don’t think they do. Like the HP movies, they seem skippy, disjointed, effortful instead of effortless. Not good storytelling.
Except for the first 1/2 of FotR or so, which is fantastic, I totally disagree.
Again, is it good filmic storytelling or not? I saw Gandhi in the theater when it came out (only movie I’ve ever seen with an intermission btw) and thought it was good; don’t know what I would think now. But obviously there are differences between doing a person’s life (obviously too big for a movie’s running time no matter what) and doing a novel (some adaptations are successful, some not). Some books are probably too big, too complicated, too mental/verbal as opposed to visual. Too bad. Don’t adapt those. Or adapt them and make them bad adaptations but good movies.
All good questions. For one thing, Jackson goofed in making the movies so battle-heavy. Plain and simple. Action is good, but watching a battle that long is boring, especially when it’s unclear what the fighting is about.
So reduce the battles and you have more time for Saruman. Again, maybe the movie is unadaptable, but when I was watching the latter two movies I was racking my brain, trying to remember the books I’d read 20+ years ago for pertinent information on Saruman, because the necessary information certainly wasn’t in the movies. That’s poor filmmaking.
I think Pochacco, among others, probably nailed it…
I can understand not liking the outsize and often seemingly unrealistic heroics of Tolkien’s stuff. There actually is an awful lot of grey in Tolkien’s works ( noble but pride-doomed Noldor, noble but corrupted Denethor, noble but treasure-obsessed Thorin ), but it usually plays out as a fall from grace ( or elevation from vileness as with Gollum ), rather than the psychological complexity of real life character. The result is a world that seems very black and white, 'tis true. It works for me because of the richness of the epic he created ( complete with the wonderfully intricate history - it was the appendices that I read obsessively ), but if you’re the sort who likes a lot more of a modern moral ambiguity in their characters, LotR may not be for you. S’okay - different strokes and whatnot.
If you want a more modern, more morally ambiguous take on grand fantasy, try George R.R. Martin.
Here lies the crux of why I was ambivalent about LotR. I read LotR as a kid, as well as the Narnia books. Like especially Star Wars, LotR is unsophisticated escapism - a soap opera with swordplay. Its a flaw of most fantasy and science fiction. By way of comparison Dune (by Herbert the Elder, not ther drek by his son) for its part drew on Islam and Medici politics, and Dan Simmons’ book Hyperion was a sci-fi Canterbury Tales. Simmons’ fantasy horror * Song of Kali* is similarly impressive. There is craft in these stories which I can’t see in LotR, as a film or otherwise.
Did we read the same book???
I think so. Its the archetypal quest. It might have been packaged in a particular way, but the essential plot is not brilliant literature.
Most fans seem to like RotK best, and TT second. I feel the opposite, although not as… fervently as Fabulous Creature. I liked all three movies pretty well, but by the third started to cross into the absurd. In the first movie, when Legolas jumped on the troll’s back and shot an arrow into his skull at point-blank range, it was awesome. When he single handedly slaughtered an oliphaunt and surfed to safety down it’s trunk, it was just silly. But, it also had some wonderful high points. Theoden’s speech to the rohirrim just before the charge was magnificent, for example.
You might want to consider re-reading the trilogy, then, as an adult. There is just the slightest passing hint of religious and political themes woven into the story, that you may not have registered as a wee sprout. I’d agree that most fantasy and SF is unsophisticated escapism, but this is not really a criticism that applies to LOTR. At worst, it’s extremely sophisticated escapism.
So is Jame’s Joyce’s Ulysses.
The artistic merit of a work has little to do with whether or not the story hews to a particular form or not. It’s all about the execution.
Yes, that’s entirely possible. None of that seemed to translate across to the films (well, the first and third, which I saw on plane trips - I admit to not having seen the second), which I concede is probably a limitation of the medium, rather than a flaw in the production.
I agree entirely, but I’ve reached a different conclusion from you. And Ulysses is very, very far-removed from LotR in literary quality.
It may also be worth pointing out that, in a certain sense, LOTR is the exact opposite of what one might reasonably expect from the ‘archetypal quest.’ In just about any other fantasy-type scenario one might imagine, the hero would be going through all sorts of trials and adventures in order to find the one magical weapon that can defeat the evil overlord. In LOTR, on the other hand, the hero starts out with the doomsday weapon right at hand, and the quest is all about getting rid of the thing, because no one can be trusted to use it. Not entirely a strict ‘black-and-white’ scenario after all, really.
Oh, please. One of the gaping voids in Episodes I-III is Lucas’s utterly ham-handed development of Annikin’s turn to evil. Real life evil isn’t about consciously choosing “THE DARK SIDE” the way Star Wars characters do. Truly evil people are convinced of the rightness of their actions. The idea that the cartoonish emperor could seduce anyone is laughable.
Tolkein’s approach is much more sophisticated. None of the main characters are seduced by Sauron directly, but they are confronted by numerous opportunities to fall into evil.
The most obvious is the temptation of the ring itself, a metaphor for the corrupting influence of power. Boromir’s descent into evil is far more intelligently handled than Annikin’s. He is a good man. He wants to save his people. The tool of this salvation is placed before him. But it is a tool that will give him such power that it cannot help but corrupt him. The corruption begins with envy. He is the heir to the stewardship of Gondor – by rights the ring should be his. Boromir doesn’t “choose the dark side” consciously. He chooses evil, because evil is masked within a mantle of good.
Or consider the role that Saruman plays. Saruman is sophist and and equivocator. He is a seducer. He twists words so their meaning becomes fluid and diffuse. He works this “magic” on Theoden and later on the party that shows up when he’s trapped in his tower. He sounds perfectly rational, but he sows the seeds of despair and dillusionment. This sort of secuction is far more believable than the “join me in darkness” claptrap that Lucas favors.
I agree. One is a powerful and moving epic that deeply resonates with the roots of English literature. The other is set in Dublin.
LOL! Touche.
Yeah, but I already said that the prequels are crap.
I disagree. The Emperor and Darth are to a high degree motivated by their vision of an “orderly” galaxy. That is the principle they are pursuing.
I’m not saying that the whole thing is subtle; it ain’t. I’m saying that the drawing upon of anger and fear for power is insightful.
I’ll grant you that more of the subtleties come through in the books. They don’t come through at all in the movies.
I’m curious where you get that from. I certainly didn’t see anything in the movies about their rationale for ruling the galaxy. I assumed they did it because they were power-hungry bastards, or just plain evil.
C’mon, Dune was just Edgar Rice Burroughs with added cod-Eastern mysticism: it didn’t make a lick of sense.