No, actually it was your response that was rude. You weren’t told to sit down or shut up, you were told that your opinions are in the minority. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t or can’t express them, it simply informs you that they are not definitive. I am sorry that you can’t handle being told this and instead resort to an attack on the messenger.
Well, I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question of the devout Tolkien geeks:
Is it more important that these movies stayed true to their source material, or that some minor changes* were made to make the movies appeal to a broad audience that would enjoy them enough to take it upon themselves to read the source material?
(My wife and I are both going to do this after the third movie.)
Basically, it’s the whole Grateful Dead “Touch of Grey” question - that song created a whole new generation of Deadheads, but are they legitimate fans since they knew nothing of The Dead before?
Or is this whole debate basically just to point out how 'tis better to see the movie (any book-based movie) first, and then read the book?
*Actually, and again I’m speaking as one who hasn’t read the books, I found the appearance of the Elves at Helm’s Deep one of the more stirring scenes. (Can’t figger out how the humans would have won without them - I know, I know, “read the book”).
My wife sees Aragorn’s fall off the cliff as showing how strong a character he is through the reactions of the other people. Gimli’s & Legolas’s heartache at the loss of their friend, Theoden’s & Eowyn’s dismay at the loss of such a noble fighter.
As for Entmoot (see I didn’t even know that gathering had a formal name), what I got from the movie was that the Ents elected to not get involved in the war because they viewed it as an affair between men, elves, dwarves, and orcs. Only after Pippen’s speech and seeing the ruin of Isengard did they realize that the forests were to become subject to Sauron’s dominion, too.
Now, Faramir. I saw his character as being very similar to Boromir, but he succeeded where Boromir failed, that is, ultimately resisting the seduction of the ring.
Tygr, some of the changes were really good things. The needs of storytelling are different in books and movies, so I have no problem at all with cutting nonessential scenes (the Barrow-wights in FOTR, for example), simplifying stories and compressing timeframes (battles in the books are considerably harder to follow), and filling in details in other areas that are only sketched out in the books (e.g. Arwen).
But it bothers me when they change important things about the characters and their motivations. The relationship between Aragorn and Elrond is all wrong in the movies, and that relationship is extremely important to the plot of the books. The changes to Faramir bother me because the scene in the book where he rejects the temptation of the ring is really cool. He’s tempted for a long scary moment, but he’s smart enough, strong enough, and moral enough to make the right decision on the spot – the whole point of Faramir is that he’s not his brother. They could have used him effectively in the movie to show why movie-Elrond is wrong in his contempt for humanity; instead, he just comes across as a slightly-better version of Boromir.
That’s not how he came across to me. I think that the people who are bothered by the Faramir thing are missing the point that it is not FARAMIR that was changed, it was THE RING. The Ring in the movie is much more seductive and powerful than in the books. Tolkien SAID it was powerful in the books, but it seemed that everyone and his brother could resist the power to some extent. In the movie, where you can’t just SAY something, you have to demonstrate it, the Ring is a temptation to EVERYONE to one degree or another. It even tempts Galadriel for a moment, and she is surely stronger and more powerful of will than Faramir. To show Faramir turning his nose up at the Ring would have cheated the viewers—it wouldn’t have been internally consistent. Faramir was shown, by his ultimate rejection of the Ring even when faced with a death sentence, that he was twice the man his brother was.
Hey, thanks for all replies, Mtgman! Let’s put on the Beatles’ “We Can Work It Out” and chill. XD
Regarding the food for thought: (yum)
I’m willing to concede that you’re right, I probably wouldn’t describe Merry or Pippin’s courage as “shining” at this moment (although I’d be very willing to argue for that later with the Amon Hen uruk-hai attack), but I do think this is probably very fixable:
-
Merry and Pippin obviously get to grow, change, and be significantly brave later on in the trilogy–a few of these moments absolutely HAVE to be shown, and so their courage (usually a latent hobbit characteristic anyway) will be brought to the fore for those who don’t know the books as well, and will be trusted and then re-emphasized for those who do.
-
It’s also worth pointing out that neither hobbit regards himself as particularly brave. Of course, this does make their actions all the more commendable, but it’s just interesting to see the view a character takes of himself. I was reading ROTK the other night when Pippin and Gandalf arrive at Gondor and Gandalf speaks of Pippin as “a valiant man” to the guard–I thought it was fascinating that Pippin’s first comment was pretty much “I’m not a man and I’m not valiant!” Now obviously both he and Merry ARE, but it could be that the movie is trying to show their initial characters as a bit more innocent and fearful (as Pippin rather comes off sounding) so as to contrast all the better with their brave actions and later personality developments.
Anyhoo, you can tell you’re speaking to an absolute Merry and Pippin fanatic here–Billy Boyd will no longer be Most Eligible Bachelor in Scotland when I get there. Er, but the point was that I can get kind of lengthy in the typing department. So yeah! The banter continues!
-Epi
Yes, this scene was in fact in the theater, but the scene wasn’t as long. In the theater and non extended cut, Legolas probably gets off 3, maybe 4 arrows max. In this new extended scene, he gets off 6, and it cuts with him ready to fire off a 7th (as you mentioned).
Ok, so I got the numbers wrong. And you’ve convinced me on the location of Ben’s murder. But come on, you’ve got to admit that having Spider-Man backflip over the glider instead of ducking under it is so stupid that undermines the entire intent of the story. It doesn’t reach the level of incompetence that the movie version of The Bridge on the River Kwai does, but it does show a fundamental disrespect for Stan Lee’s original vision of the character.
All this debate and no mention of how Faramir got Frodo, Sam and Gollum back over the river…especially since the bridges have been down for years…and then they went back across!
Or perhaps the orcs had occupied the West Bank?
I believe Faramir should have let them go at the hidden camp, and spared us the Osgiliath scenes.
jus my 2c
Just a minor point about the whole Merry & Pippin business – I like the changes in the movie. On the practical side, you can obviously see that comic relief is going to be necessary in a movie like this. Merry & Pippin are mostly comic characters in the book, but it’s more of the old-school, heartwarming “Oh, Pippin! You’re incorrigible!” type of comedy instead of being genuinely funny. So it could stand an update.
The first part of the book goes into great detail about how Hobbits abjure adventures and go for the simple pleasures, caring more about food and comfort than anything else. But after Moria, everything turns darker and all the characters, hobbits included, get to be so earnest. I think the movies do a better job, at least with Merry & Pippin, of conveying the sense of peaceful, comfort-loving characters thrust into the middle of a world-changing adventure and still managing to stay true to their convictions.
And I still don’t think that their motivations are ever changed – when Pippin says “Okay. Where are we going?” it’s a) funnier than the overdramatic speech in the book, and 2) conveys the same idea. The delivery of the line is like, “Okay, we’re going with Frodo no matter what the consequences, so there’s no point in arguing.”
I’m so sick of people acting like Spider-Man’s backflip over the glider was a new thing added just for the movie! It’s right there in Appendix B of Spectacular Spider-Man #324, which explained how Spider-Man had undergone years of intensive backflip training before the story of Uncle Ben’s death even started!
Considering how many liberties that hack Raimi took with the canon, you should at least give him credit for the one thing he researched adequately!
Okay, thanks for letting me know. 
Although if he still gets off 3 or 4 arrows in the same time frame (meaning that the extended scene didn’t speed up the film or anything, which I doubt it would do), you could still extrapolate it to an arrows per minute number. And that would still most likely be far more than the record 21 per minute that was stated previously.
Well, he can also walk on top of snow, and has silky hair even after days running across the Rohan plains. Elves are indeed a breed apart.
Galadriel’s temptation scene in the movie is in fact identical to the one in the book (minus the overdone special effects). In fact, in the book, the Ring tempts everyone who has significant contact with it, just as it does in the movie. No real difference, there - PJ just makes the corrupting effects of the Ring on a person’s will occur more quickly in his movie, for dramatic sake (as he needs to - film being a visual medium).
**
She’s also stronger and more powerful of will than Aragorn - but HE manages to resist the temptation nicely in the first movie. The Ring calls out to Aragorn in his final scene with Frodo on Amon Hen - and his response is to close Frodo’s fingers about the Ring and send the Hobbit on his way.
**
No, it would have been perfectly internally consistent, as we’ve already seen two people (Galadriel and, more significantly, Aragorn) manage to overcome that temptation through sheer will. The problem isn’t with internal consistency, it’s with PJ not wanting ANY human character to approach Aragorn’s level of virtue - and that’s a problem to many Tolkien fans precisely because, in the book, Faramir DOES equal Aragorn in that regard. He’s every bit as noble as Aragorn is - he’s just not of royal lineage. For some reason, PJ seems to want to show Men as a race as ignoble, with Aragorn as the sole permitted exception, and a lot of us have a major problem with that, as it certainly contradicts Tolkien’s portrayal of Mortal Men in his works.
Actually, the overdone special effects were there too:
Much is made in the movie of the idea that Aragorn is the last of the blood of Numenor, and that other than him the whole human race has devolved and is reprobate.
petcat:
As far as the Osgiliath/river issue, I don’t remember how it’s shown in the movie which side of the river they are on. But assuming it’s on the west side, I believe there were scenes cut from the film which shows Faramir & Co. making their way through the sewers of Osgiliath, and I assume under the river. Hopefully, in TTT:EE, we will see these scenes (and many more, please, PJ).
Yes - and that’s not entirely true to the spirit of Tolkien’s works. Numenore has fallen, and men are forgetting the past glories of their race - but individuals still have moral choices to make, and those choices still matter. The whole human race is NOT devolved in LotR, so why does PJ insist on showing the audience this image of Men in his movies? And Aragorn is NOT the last of the blood of Numenor, not by a long shot; he’s merely the last member of the royal line, and one of the very few people left whose ancestors didn’t intermarry with non-Numenoreans at some point. Denethor, Boromir, Faramir (hell, most of the people living in Minas Tirith) also carry the blood of Numenor in their veins (for what it’s worth).
That’s in the book. The movie has a different take on the Numenorian blood. That is a departure from Tolkien, but it is internally consistent and it strengthens my argument re: Faramir.
The reason Jackson showed the audience that image of men is that this is one of the over-arching themes of the movies: the Elves are leaving and it’s up to imperfect, mortal, flawed men to somehow find a way to rise above their weaknesses and do the right thing. Aragorn is seen, in the movies, as a sort of go-between linking the departing Elves to the humans.
Tried to post this yesterday but it got eaten because the poor hampsters were being slashdotted.
Once they hit the road it does become pretty obvious that they’re faithful companions, the “create a diversion so the Orcs don’t catch Frodo” bit was particularly telling(although that also didn’t happen in the book. Only Sam saw Frodo after he put on the ring and fled from Boromir at the breaking of the fellowship). I didn’t mind those changes really, they were necessary to show the courage of the hobbits because the original sequence of events leading up to Frodo leaving the Shire had been seriously chopped.(note this is why the complaint really doesn’t apply to Sam. In the books all three companions, Merry, Pippen, and Sam, had foreknowledge of Frodo’s danger and choose to go with him. In the movie version there was no foreknowledge to be had, but Sam was with Frodo from the very beginning, as much of it as there was) The chapter “A Conspiracy Unmasked”, where Frodo discovers that Merry, Pippen, Sam, and Fatty Bolger have known about his danger and are resolved to help him even to the point of placing themselves in great danger and take his burden seriously was one of the most touching in the entire trilogy. To have that replaced by snap decisions and seemingly happenstance encounters which turn into something more is simply not the same. It is a departure from the source material. It is one I have not seen, nor do I see, a compelling reason for. I keep hearing nebulous claims about “a movie isn’t a book” and “some things have to go” but that doesn’t really answer the question does it?**
I detected a fair bit of tension, mostly one-way(from her to him), but I can’t help but wonder why Arwen actually IS going to the havens and the tension is being built if PJ never intends to have it come to anything. In the book Eowyn didn’t really take an interest in Aragorn until he returned from Helm’s Deep and she saw him in a different light because he had passed the challenge of struggling with Sauron in the Palantir and was stern in his resolve to take the paths of the dead. The confidence and strength of character he exhibited in that moment in Dunharrow was really what seemed to draw her to him. **
All the performances were good. I can honestly say the movie was extremely well executed from the settings to the costumes to the vast majority of the performances. That doesn’t make it true to the source material though. I simply can’t imagine the book Eowyn putting up with advances from Grima the way she did in the movie. She would have been the one to draw blade against him instead of Eomer. She’s not a subtle character, nor does she deal in subtelty. She flat out begs Aragorn not to take the paths of the dead. She is won by Faramir because he spoke frankly and openly about his feelings for her and acknowledged her as a person worthy of honor and respect. If Eowyn had not been constrained by the responsibility of leading the people to Dunharrow(as the only member of the house of Eorl they would follow in the King and Eomer’s absence) I imagine she would have ridden with the king to Helm’s Deep. I just don’t see that same strength of purpose, independence, and character in the actions of the movie Eowyn(although the actress did a good job with the role she was given to play).
Aragorn the traveler to Aragorn the wanderer seems to be a little more than a minor change. It was emphasized over and over in the books that Aragorn was ALWAYS mindful of his heritage and working towards fulfilment of his goal of restoring the line of the kings of men. Do you remember Bilbo’s honorary verse to Aragorn, inspired by Aragorn’s steadfast dedication?
How is the character who inspired that verse the same characer whom the movie Elrond describes as “He turned from that path long ago”. Apprently you consider this a “minor” change. I’m a big flabbergasted that you can take this stance, but such is your right.**
I think it would have been possible to bring Aragorn the traveler to the screen. I didn’t find his characterization to be poor in the books at all. I agree that a movie with bad characterization is dead but I disagree that the Aragorn Tolkien described is unfilmable or would not touch audiences. **
Wrong? Why can my interpretation be wrong but Jackson’s be above reproach? Who died and made you god? Merry and Pippen, at least in the early stages of the film version, were very much moved by events instead of the movers of events that they were in the book. Your other point about their courage being greater because they volunteered to continue on at the Council of Elrond even though they didn’t even know where they were going could also be interpreted a stupidity on their part instead of courage. More of a knee-jerk “don’t go without us” instead of “we’ll go with you no matter where it is or how dangerous”. The latter is courage, the former is present in sheep.**
You may be right. If so that’s more a commentary on society than on books or films.**
In the book he had more than 300 overly old/young people at his disposal. He had not banished Eomer(although he was under arrest) and he had a few thousand riders he could quickly muster. The book Theoden mustered these able-bodied people, sent the others to Dunharrow and rode in person to the aid of the people in the Westfold(who had mostly retreated to Helm’s Deep). He both provided for the safety of the women/children/infirm who were in Edoras AND he rode forth with his men to fight the orcs who were threatening the Westfold. The question is why couldn’t he do the same in the movie? Why didn’t he have a decent number of able-bodied riders to take to Helm’s Deep(in the movie Eomer mentions to Aragorn that “these are all that remain loyal to Rohan” as if THEY, the 3000 with Eomer, was a small force in the grand scheme of things)? If the king had 300 able-bodied riders and 3000 were in rebellion/banished with Eomer that kind of equals a revolution not rebellion/banishment. Why have the king and his household journey to Helm’s Deep and invent the attack by wolf riders on the way instead of simply having the men go to war and the others go to sanctuary? The journey of the household and the subsequent events wouldn’t have saved much, if any, screen time over mustering Edoras and riding to Helm’s Deep and hooking up with the refugees from the Westfold there.
I just can’t see why this change was made AT ALL unless they just didn’t want to have the Hurons, but that seems like a lot of work to go through to cut that one piece which may be difficult.
I may have confused you because I’ve heard rumors that the beginning of the paths of the dead(in the movie) will be in Helm’s Deep instead of near Dunharrow(as in the book) and I addressed the possibility of these adaptations being considered necessary to avoid taking the time for Aragorn to travel to the paths of the dead from Helm’s Deep in RotK.**
Actually Sam freely gave it back to Frodo so Bilbo gave it up(mostly) willingly and Sam gave it up even easier(although he didn’t have it long). Bombadil doesn’t count because he’s pretty unique and not subject to influence from the ring(or indeed anything). Frodo tried to give it to two people, Gandalf and Galadriel. He recognizes it as being the rightful heirloom of the house of Isildur(and therefore property of Aragorn) but he doesn’t try to give it to him. Frodo complied with Bombadil’s request to have the ring for a bit but was clearly uncomfortable about it.
On the whole I agree with you though. I also found the ring to be less malovelent/seductive in Tolkien’s presentation than I felt it should have been. I’ve been fairly happy with the malovelance/seductiveness of the ring in Jackson’s vision. HOWEVER**
In the book Faramir knew Isildur’s Bane had destroyed his brother BEFORE he knew what it was or that Frodo had it. THAT is why he rejected it, he understood it. Faramir was a very intelligent and insightful character in the book. He divined the nature of Isildur’s bane(seductive and corrupting) and rejected it(intelligence and nobility) before he even knew what it was. Then he stuck by that decision(more nobility) even when it was revealed to him what Isildur’s bane was and how easily he could take/use it to achieve ends he desired.(well, sortof desired) His main goal was protection and preservation of the noble race of Numenor and while the ring would aid that goal in the short term, which is why Boromir desired it, Faramir was more far-seeing and he saw that the ring would bring destruction to men in the long term.**
It is clear in the book that Sauron’s forces are already on the move against other forces of good. Legolas and Gimli both mention their desire to have some of their kindred with them at Helm’s Deep but they both understand that their kindred are already beset and having to defend their homes. IIRC the quote was something like “they have no need to march to war. War already marches upon their borders.” My very problem was that this was(as you mentioned) the skirmish. By the time the Rohirrim faced Saruman’s forces there were MULTIPLE skirmishes happening all over middle-earth. This wasn’t a war with one skirmish(Helm’s Deep), one major battle(Minas Tirith) then a deus ex machina(expected to take place before the gates of Mordor as the ring is destroyed). There was a much larger scope to the war in the book.**
All arguements for my position that this is Jackson’s LotR not Tolkien’s. It’s ok to like both and still recognize them as distinct.**
I agree that the movies are good. I don’t agree that these are the definitive translation of Tolkien’s world to the big screen. There are too many serious deviations.
No. You posted a dismissal of my viewpoint. Any other interpretation of
is reaching new heights in the art of creative reading.
Enjoy,
Steven
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**No. You posted a dismissal of my viewpoint. Any other interpretation of
quote:
That’s your opinion, I disagree with it. So do many, many others.
is reaching new heights in the art of creative reading.
**
No, you’ve just proven once more that you identify too closely with your subjective opinions. Even if I were dismissing your opinion on the subject, which I wasn’t, it isn’t an attack on you personally. It’s a shame you took it all so personally, and began casting aspersions, but it’s really still YOUR problem. I don’t feel it was rude or uncivil to say it in the exact manner in which it was phrased.
Since you can’t handle the fact that I disagree with you, perhaps you would be wiser to ignore my comments.