The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies
 

I've been wanting to start a topic like this for some time now. This thread is an attempt to have somewhat of a movie review about the trilogy. More like an overall look at all the obvious bad changes, but also to shed some light on the good changes. I know there have been topics about these things before, but I think they were seperate and not joined.

Disclaimer: Please, if you are just going to post to rip apart something that you think is an insignificant change and shouldn't be listed here, don't. We all have our problems with changes PJ made. There really is no such thing as an insignificant change, because everybody looks at specific changes differently. For example, Frodo's age might mean more to somebody than Wood's portrayal of the character. Who's to say either is an insignificant change? They are both changes. So please post with respect if you disagree. Afterall, these are my opinions.

Before I start I would first like to list the parts of the story that were not filmed, the obvious and the not so obvious, that I think are better off left to our imagination. Because they were left out, we now have the ability to imagine our own Middle-earth, without PJ's vision. Our own characters and our own scenery. And because of that, I am glad that some scenes were not filmed (in The Fellowship of the Ring):

* The Old Forest - Tom Bombadil - The Barrow-Downs. Quite frankly, these chapters are so important and close to my heart that I am glad they did not get filmed. At first I was disappointed and that they should have been included, but thinking about it now- it's good that these scenes were not tampered with.
* Scenes with the Wood Elves at the beginning of the Hobbit's journey. I'm glad we got the nod in the EE.
* Saruman of many colors - I suppose the white robe was better than attempting one which flickered a bunch of different colors. That one is better left to us, I think.
* The entrance into Lorien / the talks the Fellowship had in Lorien
* The orcs shooting arrows at The Fellowship on the Great River, Legolas shooting down the Nazgul, and the hike through the Tindrock.

There are more, I'm sure, but off the top of my head that is what I came up with. Ok...

So, let's start with my personal favorite, The Fellowship of the Ring.

THE GOOD (Changes, also those scenes which stuck nicely with the book)

* The Prologue. Nicely done, although the geography itself poses a problem for a later scene.
* Gandalf's entrance. McKellen as Gandalf was a great choice. Although some don't care for Frodo's entrance, I think that it worked nicely with Gandalf's, and gives the viewers a decent introduction to the two main characters.
* Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
* A Long Expected Party
* The Hobbits. They look like Hobbits should and would look. (Yes yes, we'll get to Frodo's age, but there is no doubt the Hobbits look good)
* In the EE, we see the flight of the Wood Elves. I love this scene. A great nod to the meeting the Hobbits had with them.
* The Wizard Fight. This is one of the changes PJ made that I actually like, and I think it fits very nicely within Tolkien's world.
* The Nazgul. In my opinion, PJ succeeds in making you feel fear when the Black Riders approach.
* The Prancing Pony. Although I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo's magnetic finger trick, the P.P. scene is definitely kosher with Tolkien. The whole medieval feel of the inn completely does it for me here. Great lighting and everything. A nice nod at the book when you see Bill Ferny and his goons glaring at the Hobbits.
* Aragorn. Good entrance, and although nowadays Viggo would not have been my first choice, I think he pulled the role off nicely.
* The Ranger sword. This was recently debated in a topic here, but I don't see any harm in giving Strider a sword that is actually functional compared with a sword that is broken.
* The Three Trolls. Gives us book fans comfort and joy!
* Scene at the Ford. I have mixed feeling about the actual Flight to the Ford, including Arwen's appearance, but I don't think that it was necessarily bad. It wasn't good, though. I liked the water horses in the actual Ford.
* Many Meetings. You have to like the golden calm of Rivendell...beautiful.
* Arwen and Elrond. Looking good.
* (Strictly appearance wise) Legolas and Gimli fit the part. Bean as Boromir did not, and we will get to that later. I get touchy on this subject! We are talking strictly appearance right now.
* Aragorn and Arwen in the blue twilight. I think this is a great scene, and it plants those important seeds that need to be sown in order to show the people the relationship of A & A. Not to mention, great lighting in this scene. Love the blue.
* "I will take it! Though I do not know the way." I love the way Frodo delivers these lines. It makes for a powerful moment indeed.
* The Ring Goes South. I will get to the bad changes made here, but there are some good elements here which stuck to Tolkien, such as the scenery. I like the choice for Hollin.
* Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.
* "Knock your head against these doors Peregrin Took...!" I like how they added this (I think it's in the EE) because it shows Gandalf's short temper, especially when it comes to Pip.
* Moria. Was done very well. Of course, as with every part of the story, could have been elaborated more, but looking at what we were given - pretty good. I was glad to see Pippin's folly, although I don't understand why he couldn't have just actually thrown a stone instead of a whole skeleton.
* Gandalf's fall. Nice.
* The scenery of Lothlorien.
* Galadriel. I think Cate was a wise choice. I don't know if it's just me, but after seeing Cate as Galadriel she (Cate) is wayyyy hotter. :)
* The Mirror of Galadriel. Done well, along with G's temptation.
* The gift scene was nice, although I think it complete rubbish that they didn't show Boromir get his gift of a golden belt.
* The Great River and the Argonaths. Could have elaborated much more, though.
* The Breaking of the Fellowship. Bean did a awesome job in this scene of portraying Boromir and his temptation. The attempt to take the Ring, although I would have done things differently, was nicely done.
* Boromir's death scene. Again, I would have done it a bit differently, but it was done well. It showed Boromir's valiant and heroic nature as he attempted to save M & P.
* The Departure of Boromir. I'm glad they showed his funeral boat going down the Falls of Rauros.
* Frodo and Sam. Done well, especially Frodo thinking of Gandalf's words.
* "Let's hunt some orc." Delivered nicely by Viggo and set up for an optimistic future.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.

TO BE CONTINUED!
Ah! Unfortuntely I am out of time right now but I will continue this list tomorrow! I hope you all enjoy and I will finish this tomorrow.

I look forward to reading more of this!! :D Especially your views on Sean Bean as Boromir

yes... over the years I have read many posted comments from many different people on several sites indicating that they were thankful for the changes in the character of Boromir making him much more of a sympathetic character than he came across as in the book .... so this should be interesting given the previously stated feelings of Matthew for the Boromir character......

and interesting may be too mild of a word. ;)

Glad to see the interest, and I will be finishing this up tomorrow, however let it be known that I do not want to turn this thread into a debate on my opinions about Bean as Boromir...I have expressed these views numerous times on other threads. I was just going to say a few words about it, but again, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion solely on that. I'm taking a lot of time writing all of this stuff out and I would like to discuss more than just that.

Preeecisely.

It's my favourite part of the book, and it's also 100% unfilmable.

Nice. I have only read some of the list. I noted that your last 'Good' thing was the "Let's hunt some orc" line, and I just want to make note here that I disagree utterly. I hate that line. It is probably my least favorite line of any movie that I have ever watched. None other, to my knowledge, grates so badly on my nerves - not even the Legolas ones that people rant so much about.

Otherwise, everything else you've stated and that I've read, I agree with.

I don't agree it's unfilmable. In fact, many episodes of these chapters could have been fantastic visually, almost without special effects. Just picture the Hobbits leaving the Shire and entering the Old Forest in the grey dawn, with silver dew on the grass and fog in the air. Or the spooky atmosphere inside the Forest, the creaking of the trees, the sudden stirring of the leaves, a bransch falling right in front of them ("It's just the wind", says Merry). The Barrow Downs could also be great on film - when the Barrow Wight takes them you could use the book for a script and it would be a great scene. Tom Bombadill, as he is described, would be difficult to pull off though. But then again, he is silly, even in the book, with his hopping about, whistling, and hopeless fashion sense.

I think the problems have to do with plotting and time concerns, more than anything else. In order to do these chapters justice you'd have a running time of at least 20-30 minutes more. These episodes could also confuse the audience, since they are sort of a side quest with little or nothing to do with the ring.

The Old Forest itself is very filmable, but I only see the Tom Bombadil part as being sustainable in a good cartoon (possibly anime - that would be pretty, pretty interesting, or else disastrous, but you never know).

In my mind, there are some elements of the book that immediately lend themselves to filming, and they set the tone from the beginning. Then we come to Tom Bombadil, and we get this subtle, but important shift. And I honestly can't think of a single director who could do it justice.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Of course, by the time anyone gets around to doing a re-make (or re-interpretation, or whatever the kids are calling it these days), I'll probably be a senile old grandma.

*le sigh*

I read Matthew's op and also agree with most of what is said. Some things I don't even recognise though, but I haven't watched the EE so that perhaps explains it. Should I? This tread makes it clear to me how much I enjoyed the first movie however. I think it was excellent, and the few gripes I do have are easy to look past in the light of all that was great. Prior to it's premiere I had great expectations but the movie was actually better than I had hoped for. Sadly, the second film failed to live up to my expectations, and when the third one came out I didn't even to go watch it until months after it's opening.

I didn't mind the "let's hunt some orc" comment though. As I remember it, Aragorn did express some similar thoughts in the book, and it did not seem out of place to me.

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good. :Merisu:

That settles that then! :p

Those must be some mighty big mutant cockroaches. What do they eat when they can't get Lushes?

In regards to MatthewM's original post, I would say that, generally speaking, FotR is quite good for the first 3rd of the movie (I will only be referring to the extended versions, because honestly, has anyone watched the original film versions since the DVDs came out?). Perhaps that is because, save for acts of omission (like Tom Bombadil, for instance) which are pardonable, given time constraints, the movie adheres to Tolkien's story. I don't believe anywhere in the three movies does one get a better sense of Middle-earth. The sequences in the Shire are excellent, very Hobbitish; however, once one hits the Ford of Bruinen, the film begins to deviate from the original plot egregiously, and that's where the megalomaniac scripting (or perhaps it should be termed 'Narcissistic Jacksonophilia', for PJ's love of himself -- I will refer to the syndrome as NJS going forward) becomes apparent (fortunately, it is not as pronounced in FotR as it will become in TTT).

Arwen calling down the water upon the Nazgul is downright silly, isn't it? When the film was first released, I believe the entire movie theater giggled in unison. Read the sequence in the book, then watch the movie version. The book presents a failing Hobbit valiantly defending himself from the horrific specters of the Nazgul taunting him, almost hypnotically seducing him to follow them into darkness. It is a frightening, very vivid scene, but in the movie, we lose sight of the main protagonist completely, and instead we have Arwen muttering Sindarin, and then with a look of surprise she watches as the waves sweep away the Nazgul -- talk about anticlimactic. Plainly, it is a bit of NJS foisting a character who has no part in that sequence onto the viewing public. We get no sense of the power of her father, Elrond, at all (and he is insipid and whiny throughout all three movies); in fact, Gandalf doesn't even get to utter his humorous line regarding the adding of the horses to Elrond's flood. It is a lost opportunity to follow the better original plot for the director's personal aggrandizement.

Then we get a glimpse of Gandalf battling Saruman at Orthanc. Others here have said they liked the scene; however, to me the sharp angles, jangly shots and off-kilter camera positions in Orthanc make it seem more sci-fi than Middle-earth (although I admit the moth sequence atop Orthanc is superb). Then the entire film sequence at Rivendell becomes a hit or miss proposition: Bilbo craving the ring is excellent, Elrond's defeatism is ludicrous; Sean Bean's Boromir is magnetic in the Council of Elrond (certainly the most powerful perfomance of that sequence), Viggo's weakly apologetic Aragorn -- not so much.

I will reply further as Matthew continues and as time permits.

Yes, it certainly must be good for all kinds of ironical reconstructions and recontextualising, which I'm sure our darling Lushious savours. Can't say as I'd fancy eating one, though I can imagine crunchy and ketchup jokes. ;)

So even when chasing spiders, I'm one who niggles over Tolkien's own niggling over orcs and whether they had souls and etc. So my own curiousity is mildly aroused when Movie-Argorn is given a line more in keeping with a fox hunt. Are orcs animals (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether animals have souls and the entire animal rights movements, which surely does deserve its own thread, as Tolkien has given us lots of talking, animate animals) or are they a degraded form of human/elf? Remember, aboriginal peoples in North America were hunted like animals, with bounties on their heads, and the KKK thought nothing of hunting down and murdering in cold blood Black Americans.

Then there's thoughts of Book-Aragorn's nature to consider. Aragorn, he-who-would-be-king, and a character whose Book purity some find mighty hard to swaller. Book-Aragorn is a figure out of heroic literature whose idealism comes via some very high-falutin' language. Book-Aragorn would never snog his horse while in the midst of a dream of Arwen. Maybe in a dream of battle where his horse revives him, but Book-Aragorn doesn't cross-themes.

After all, the decision is a momentous one, where Aragorn must decide either to uphold his promise to serve and protect the Ringbearer or to pursue the hobbitnappers of Pippin and Merry. The situation is a tad more serious than 'let's have an adventure today.'

So, here's what Tolkien has Book-Aragorn say:

That's quite a Shakespearean monologue. Clearly Book-Aragorn is guided not by the blood-lust of the hunt but by ethical decision.

I wager that those who enjoy PJ's adventure flick prefer the pithy call to kill orcs while those who enjoy Tolkien's more ancient mode of heroism prefer the ethical eloquence of Book-Aragorn. Chaque-un a son gout.

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

I see nothing wrong with the line...

Anyway, I apologize for not elaborating further, it was father's day. I will add more asap. Thanks to all who have contributed!

Nice analysis, MatthewM!

Not that I agree with you on all points.
I hate the fight of Saruman and Gandalf - it is so undignified and so out of place... It made me wish to leave the theater.
I hate Elrond's portrayal and all this crap about "Men are Weak".
Arwen at the Ford was ridiculous, IMO, as well as the Weathertop fighting.

But why do you think Frodo should have looked older? Much fatter and less pretty, certainly, but why older?
He got the Ring at age 33 - age of maturity for Hobbits - and stopped ageing. He is 50 in 1318, but he shouldn't look it - because he had the Ring. I think his age is about right. It is another matter that he shouldn't have ACTED like a scared kid all the time.

Lushious One, you have given me two great lines here. Your orcroach line ranks with that other great movie line from Woody Allen, when he describes Keaton's roaches as "bigger than cadillacs" (or, well, something to that effect, memory being what it is). Only missing is a finishing touch, "Let's send them off to roach motel!"

You've given me an image of Aragorn on the shores of Sword beach on D-Day, exhorting his men. (Sword Beach, man! How much more forged could they get?) The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn. Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

No time for other scenes, although I am taken with Morthoron's allusion to SF style rather than M-e style for those dancing wizzs atop Orthanc.

Cockroaches/orcs do inspire, if only in a sick twisted way that has you staying up 'till dawn with weapons drawn.

Really? Because I see no inherent contradiction between the two. I see him, in both the book and the film, as a very intelligent, thoughtful man, who's got to do what he's got to do. I mean, war is disgusting, even when the conflict is pretty much straightforward, those orcs still cry out when they die. And friends betray. In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there. I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

*Random anecdotal information from the life of Lush, skip if not interested*

My granddad was a major general. I only wish he had been born in Middle Earth rather than the USSR, when a military man was not simply discouraged from pursuing his intellectual goals and useful hobbies (such as healing, and my grandfather was a healer), but literally forbidden. I don't want to harsh too much on the USSR, it was home, it was ours, and I don't think my granddad wasted his life. I think he would have been happier, though, if he was allowed to do more prior to his retirement.

My mom has tried readingLotR, but she always stops. Aragorn reminds of her dad. She says that watching the movies is easier, because at the very least, Viggo doesn't look like Pyotr.

I wanted to add a couple things about Aragorn's character in the movie. I've often disagreed with Jackson's decision to show Aragorn as the "reluctant hero" of the movies. In the books Aragorn is steadfast and sure of what he has to do, and that is become the King of Gondor. Where, in the movies, Jackson fits Aragorn into the "unwilling hero" archetype that a trademark of the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

However, while discussing actually about Faramir, I got to thinking about Aragorn. Someone had mentioned that he likes Faramir's character better than Aragorn's (in the books), because Faramir is more human. Faramir doesn't struggle with the Ring, but he does struggle with what is his duty to Gondor now that Boromir is dead? Faramir doesn't necessarily want to "please daddy," but he struggles with now feeling as if he has to live up to Boromir's expectations. Where Aragorn just seems all too perfect and sure of himself.

I pointed out that although Aragorn, is as Bethberry, describes the ethical, always seems to be right person, he does have his own struggles. Aragorn does go through his own tough times, they just aren't as "severe" as Boromir's or Faramir's. For instance, after Boromir's death, and the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn sincerely starts doubting himself as a leader, and doubts the trust that Gandalf had in him. And while Aragorn always knew he had to become the King of Gondor, he was never sure of the proper time. He originally joined the Fellowship to leave with Boromir for Gondor. Aragorn thought (at that time) it was the right time for him to claim the throne. However, Gandalf's death changes the situation. Should Aragorn keep his promise to Boromir, or to Frodo?

So, Aragorn does seem more perfect than the other characters in Tolkien's story, but he does have his own "low points." After that someone else brought up a very important point to keep in mind. In the books Aragorn is 88, he's already matured, grown, tested, where Faramir and Boromir are still relatively young trying to figure out their own paths. Aragorn had served Ecthelion in Gondor, served Thengel in Rohan, been raised by Elrond and I bet you on more than a few occasions he went to Elladan and Elrohir saying "Let's hunt some Orcs" :p.

My point is in the books, Aragorn's history is revealed to us, and we see he is already a grown, experienced, and matured characters. That's when something else hit me I hadn't thought about before. The movies don't have this luxury of "time" that Tolkien did. They don't have the luxury of explaining (or showing) Aragorn's "past," his moments when he was younger serving Ecthelion, or growing up with Elrond and his sons. Book Aragorn had already gone through the maturation process, and hence why he is more "sure" (or if you prefer perfect) of himself than the younger characters like Boromir or Faramir. The movies don't have this luxury, so Jackson places Aragorn into the "reluctant hero" archetype. Thus, the audience is able to see Aragorn's transformation on screen, from the unwilling hero, to the man who knows (and accepts) his destiny.

I also might add that it was a very convincing change. Sometimes when Jackson wanted to make the characters go through a change it didn't make sense. Example, Theoden, throughout TTT and most of ROTK, Theoden was in an "I hate Gondor" mode. "What has Gondor ever done for me, why should I help them?" Aragorn comes running in to alert Theoden about the beacons, and all of a suddenly Theoden decides to go ride to Gondor's aid. That made absolutely no sense. However, Aragorn's change is a convincing one, most likely because Jackson had three movies to show it and if he couldn't show a character develop and change in three movies he should give up directing.

It certainly does.

Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ;) ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

In addition when you deal with 11 hours of screen type and a central character who appears in much of that time, Jackson felt it necessary to create an arc for that character, to show growth, development, denial, acceptance and resolution over the films. That was deemed to be more interesting that the static character who is the same in the first hour of film as he is in the eleventh final hour of the film.

Ok...let's continue a bit. I don't think I will finish in this post, but I'll get some more out there.

So far, I have to say that I understand where Boro88 is coming from. I never thought of those points. I'm sure that Aragorn had his immature moments in his past. But by the time of the story, he is 87. That's plenty of time to mature, and time that PJ could not film. So although I don't know how I feel about the reluctant Aragorn, I do understand the reasoning here.

Gordis- I, personally, do not have a real problem with Frodo's age in the films. That's kind of why I put "Let's get it over with..." I think Wood did a nice job with Frodo, except of course when PJ made Frodo do things that were clearly not book Frodo. I just mentioned the age thing because I know it's a hot topic and I know that many, many fans hate how young Wood was.

Ok, let's continue a bit.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.
* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.

No more time right now, will continue asap.

StW, while I agree with the view that Aragorn is one of the most righteous, just, and ethical characters of the story, I disagree that he was absolutely pure, moral, good...however you want to put it. There is a little Aragorn quote regarding the capture of Gollum and moving him to Mirkwood, where Aragorn wasn't all that gentle with him. Also, I find his arrival in Rohan, where he demands his will should trump the will of Theoden, in Theoden's own hall to sound rather power-hungry and over the top. Why else would Gandalf restrain Aragorn from asserting his "power?"

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:

Although I know and embrace my reputation as this forum's resident finger-licking fangirl, that's not at all what I meant. I was commenting on his range. Both in terms of the acting and in terms of what it reflects of wisdom, maturity, sensitivity and, above all else, his destiny as King.

I suppose that these were things that got left out due to time constraints which I understand. But it would have been nice to see some aspect of "Conspiracy Unmasked" in the films, to underline the friendship that prompted Merry and Pippin to accompany Frodo rather than the "silly hobbits accidentally fall into adventure" scene.

Never, Legolas' lines are a thousand times worse! In fact, Orlando Bloom's depiction of Legolas has even furthered my dislike of elves. He plays Legolas in a very cocky and sort of arragant way.

My view of Orlando and his Legolas is that of Plank from Ed, Edd and Eddy. The entire protrayal of Legolas is :rolleyes: :( And the continual drooling by the fangurls :rolleyes: One thing about Legolas that really ruined it for me was his lack of emotion at all, I blame Mr. Bloom for this, since he has of yet been able to prove he nothing more than a pretty face that couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.

different strokes for different folks
 

It is true enough what you say about changing values and tastes in heroes. Yet, I would venture to say that it would not be impossible to present an ancient, traditional hero to today's contemporary audience. It would take but imagination, creativity, true subcreation of a genius film maker. At the risk of being accused of Bondage, I would say, 'never say never.' ;)

Perhaps as an aside, I would say too that Book-Aragorn is less a 19th century figure than one subcreated out of many earlier traditions of hero, Arthurian no less than Shakespearean and Old English. Arthur and Lancelot were flawed. Less so Galahad and Perceval. And there's been no diminishing in interest in Camelot in these rough modern times even with our Knights of Ni--who in fact were parodying modern misconceptions of medieval times.

So I would say not that Book-Aragorn could not be depicted in these cynical times but that Aragorn presents aspects of Tolkien's Middle-earth and Legendarium that could not be accomodated in the hands of PJ et al with the adventure flick concept which PJ wedded to Middle-earth.

I've been waiting for someone to bring that up and am much obliged to you, Boro88 for doing so. Clearly, that quotation is PJ's justification for moving the 'hunting orcs' line to the death of Boromir scene.

Yet, yet, I would argue that the two scenes are quite different and require a langauge, command and composure from Aragorn. Aragorn's audiences--Eomer and his Rohirrim Riders versus Gimli and Lego--are different and so his purpose differs as well.

Upon the death of Boromir and the loss of the Ringbearer and Sam, and the kidnapping of the two spare hobbits, Aragorn speaks with the remaining members of the Fellowship. This is not a mano e mano situation, but one where all combatants know each other. Aragorn's monologue hints of those moments in LotR where there seems to be a hidden guiding hand, such as at last comes free in its final exquisite play with Gollem's final desperate leap to claim the Ring.

The Riders of Rohan scene is mightily different, for here our intrepid little band of threeship come point to spear point with the warrior tribe of LotR. And here it must be a mano e mano confrontation between Aragorn and Eomer and so here such crude short hand is appropriate. It is also Aragorn's way of appealing to what he hopes will be the honourable side of the Rohirrim, should they not yet have fallen into the fiefdom of Sauron. Here Aragorn dares to appropriate something of the battle tastes of the Rohirrim as a means of closing the distance between the circled horse riders and his three fellows, closing it without spear or bow.

So, because of this contextual difference, of the need for Aragorn to appeal to different audiences, I find it easy to understand, and would not question, why Tolkien put those words in Book-Aragorn's mouth at that time of first meeting Eomer. Not so easy to see the need for Movie-Aragorn , other than the usual complaint of condensing three books into three hour movies.

I suppose another way of saying this is that PJ must have decided that his target audience for the movies were contemporary versions of Rohirrim. ;)

Dearie, Darling Lush, it is, after all is said and done, a weak reader who reads only with personal touchstones. We all do it, and reading would be much the poorer without it, yet alone is is a prison house of language. It alone, all else is solipcism. :)

The thing is, I didn't notice this until the third time I watched it (but then, the first two times I hadn't read the book, so...). It really gives you sense of the differcence, especially when you see Boromir barreling through (though I'm not sure I like that, but the contrast is good).

Nice thread there. :) Much of what I would comment has already been said, but here are a few more or less random things from me.

I think that one of the worst changes was the omission of the "Conspiracy unmasked" part. They wouldn't necessarily have to do the entire Crickhollow side plot, but had they only filmed the most basic essentials of it in a few minutes, it would have given Merry and Pippin a lot more depth - not to mention a more decent introduction.

I think the scenes in Bree are the only ones where Mortensen is really a good fit for Aragorn. I keep thinking that PJ had this introduction more in mind than the later story when he casted him. Mortensen makes a good Strider, but not a good Elessar.

The ranger sword has been mentioned - note that Strider is also given bow and arrow in the movie. I think this was a good deviation.

One change I liked was the introduction of Elvish lines. I know that half of the words and grammar was probably made up, but the sound was at one level with Tolkien's own. When used in conversation it sometimes seems a little forced, but I really liked it in the scenes with Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen and Saruman at the top of Orthanc conjuring the wrath of Caradhras (whether those scenes themselves were good or made sense is another thing). It's a pity that many original Elvish lines were omitted. It's no surprise Namarie didn't make the cut, but a little A Elbereth and a glimpse of the Hall of Fire would have been nice.

The Breaking of the Fellowship - the way it's been done is ok, but here it could really have been better had they stuck to the original text more. The dialogue between Frodo and Boromir is one of the best of the entire LotR. They surely could have saved a few minutes of screen time for it.

Beth, I wouldn't attempt to characterize anyone's relationship to the literary work based on this discussion. As I've stated upthread, I don't believe the thinking woman's Aragorn and the fighting woman's Aragorn to be in conflict with one another. I think it's a false dichotomy, whether it's applied to Aragorn, or something or someone else. And I read the mix of tears and cheerfulness at the breaking of the Fellowship scene very differently than you do. If you think that Viggo Mortensen's "designer stubble" has warped my mind, you are free to do so. But I think it takes away from the conversation.

That's something that I've always thought as well, Macalaure, though I don't limit his good scenes to Bree. I even think he's good for most of TTT. Then RotK happened, and I sat there wondering if the pod people had kidnapped the character. I could go on and on about my theories on this, but they're all boring.

Well, Bb, I knew that you knew that quote (and you probably knew, that I knew, that you already knew that quote), so here's my rebuttal.

Aragorn delivers that same message in the movies, just not in monologue form. Remember after Legolas and Gimli find out Aragorn does not intend to follow Frodo and Sam, Aragorn says:

"Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands."

Gimli says something about the Fellowship failing and Aragorn replies: "Not if we hold true to eachother. We will not abandon Merry and Pippin to torment and death, not while we have strength left. Leave all that can be spared behind. We travel light. Let's hunt some Orc."

So, Aragorn virtually delivers the same message in the movies as he does in the book, just a shortened version of it, and Gimli's tiny interruption. And lookie how the chapter Departure of Boromir ends:

There Aragorn goes on about hunting his enemies again, and he's with his two companions, not the macho Rohirrim. Jackson just decided to shorten that monologue pep talk down to "Let's hunt some Orc." :D Aragorn must be Tolkien's version of Hamlet, always wanting to hear himself talk. :rolleyes:

P.S. I happen to think Jonas Armstrong makes a very handsome yet ruggedly capable Robin Hood, by the way.

Ah but like Aragorn, Hamlet is struggling to make a decision...

I think book Aragorn can be a bit of a prig *hope Fordim isn't around with his gauntlet* and despite not being particulary dark and tall, I liked Viggo Mortenson's performance very much - he was excellent at Bree and Weathertop. However I thought it was very wrong to have him kill the Mouth of Sauron.

You just don't kill emissaries - even if they are slimey creeps who are extracting the Michael. It just seems craven and unworthy of the rightful leader of the free world.

The Good: The lovely music. The splendid scenery, both real and CGI. The battles.


The Bad:
Mainly this.
Tolkien: "Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is of another sort, proud and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power."

Jackson: "Theoden is a bitter old man with a massive chip on his shoulder. Denethor is of another sort, drunk and deranged, a man of far greater propensity to poor table manners and pyromania."

I've noticed that nobody has mentioned Gimli. I liked what PJ did with making Gimli tough, but it seems as if PJ has left out the loyalty and couragous side of Gimli, and has replaced that with comical relief. He also down plays the bond that Legolas and Gimli had. In the Return of the King I got so mad that PJ didn't make Gimli's and Legolas' final words more touching, instead it was right out of the blue.

Legolas: We're gonna die! Do you want to be friends, Gimli

Gimli: Sure, why not?

Added to the GOOD List:

- The Music

Lalaith, indeed! I completely forgot to mention the music. The music has to be one of the best parts of the films.


I agree. I actually must recant what I said about this scene, I actually think it should be under the "BAD" category. Boromir's words with Frodo should have been much longer and closer to the text. Bean was good in the scene, but again he is not my Boromir.

Boro88, nice points. I agree, and I agree with Lush as well. Beth, it seems to me that you are becoming a little rude to Lush and others, kind of segregating those who like the line and those who don't with "fangirls/boys" or whatever. I see nothing wrong with the line and I think if people like it, they like it...

Groin- I agree about Gimli, he was too much comic relief. I'll get to Gimli on the BAD list next update.

I wouldn't put it into The Bad category, it's simply not bad enough compared to the company it would have there (like the drinking game! :eek:). Maybe we need a, probably huge, Could Be Better category. ;)

Oh definitely, that was completely inexcusable in my opinion. I can't even chalk this one up to "trying to reach a more modern audience" defense, or the "modern audience wouldn't understand the era Tolkien was writing in" defense.

There are many many current movies where the evil, bad ambassador is granted parley, and even though you know the guy is as rotten as his teeth usually is, are granted parley. Look at Troy, Gladiator, King Arthur, Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven all these movies have "Rules of War" and treating with the enemies' ambassador/leader. I saw Prince Caspian about a week ago (absolutely loved it by the way!) and the evil Telmarine King dude is treated with dignity and respect when he is bartering a deal with the good King Edmund. So, I don't by the "modern audience won't understand" excuse for this one. Beheading the MoS is just inexcusable.

Sometimes it seems like Jackson thought we viewers were stupid and wouldn't "understand," so he had to dumb it down. That's possibly the most aggravating thing about the movies. What is it that the dwarf says in Narnia "You start treating animals like they're dumb and they become dumb?"

Lalaith, which is why when Theoden perks up and is all gun-ho about aiding Gondor, it doesn't make any sense. Quite literally 10 minutes ago Theoden was going on about how he would never help Gondor because what had Gondor done for him!

Gimli definitely seems to be one of the characters that takes a back seat to the talk about what characters were "ruined." Certainly he doesn't get as much mentioning as Faramir. I actually tend to forget about Gimli because I thought his portrayal in FOTR was pretty good. He was used for comic relief, and in Moria I admit that "no one tosses a dwarf" thing was pretty funny, but the 2nd and 3rd time it got old. Anyway, in FOTR Gimli had some comic relief but I don't think he ever lost his dignity. By TTT and ROTK that's changed and Jackson took the comic relief thing way too far with Gimli.

Who's on first? ;)

See, for some of us (well, maybe just speaking of myself, and not using the royal we) poetically speaking, "the same message" involves all of the ways that a message can aspire to meaning. So, if certain aspects are changed, then the message changes. Notice that Forth the Three Hunters lacks a direct object. Sometimes even the omission of a few small words can change nuance. And in writing such as Tolkien achieves, nuance is valuable, no?

What Mithalwen said. The allusion to Hamlet is significant for the character development of Aragorn and to omit it by shortening the monologue is to take away from Aragorn's character rather than to enrich it. JMHO.

And I absolutely promise not to make any cracks, wise or otherwise, about closets and leaving them, lest I be once again accused of crossing lines or taking away from the conversation. :D

Perhaps you're right - maybe "Bad" is a stretch. Just ...not as good as it could have been, although good. If that makes sense.