Book vs. Movie characters

[Balin999]

Another character that has not yet been mentioned yet is Gimli. When I read about him in the books I always saw him as a very earnest character who is very loyal on the other hand. But in the two movies he is really the "idiot of the set" or call it as you wish.
But there have been other threads about Gimli and I'm too lazy to elabourate on the topic. (It was a very long weekend)

[Lord of Angmar]

In the movies, Aragorn's character is changed subtely but significantly. In the book, he knows the path he must take and follows it, although perhaps a bit reluctantly. In the movies, however, he denies this path and says that he does not want the fate of taking the kingship of Gondor and leading Middle Earth to a victory over Sauron. Book Aragorn seemed more aware of his noble purpose and destiny, although he was still very conflicted...

[Lord of Angmar]

Sorry I don't know what happened there it posted my message twice... my last post was a response to Linteamarthwen's post on page 1...

P.S. I also think Viggo mortensen has done an outstanding job on Aragorn, particularly in the second movie.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Also in the books Aragorn was very troubled which way to go after Lothlorien. After Frodo and Sam go off, and Merry And Pippin get caught you actually see some self doubt there. That wasn’t brought into the movie at all. I really don’t remember him having any problem with becoming king.

I found it hard to swallow Grima in the movie as well. Not the acting of course but the way they made him up into such a green looking weasel. I mean would you trust that guy? Come on, Theoden wasn’t an idiot give him some credit you movie people you!

All in all the movies are of almost a completely different story to me, if I don’t think of it that way I become rather sad.

[King_Elendil]

This is only my second post here, but here goes:
Elijah Wood as Frodo: Even though he is often seen as a frightened pretty boy and not an older Frodo, Wood captures the childlike Hobbit innocence of Frodo. Sure he seems afraid, but Frodo hasn't experienced anything like this before. He's a hobbit out of his element. So, you would probably be afraid, too.
Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf: Fantastic. McKellen captured Gandalf the Grey/White in a superb manner.
Liv Tyler as Arwen: I know about the whole why Arwen not Glorfindel controversy. I come down on Arwen's side. Why? Not only Liv's beauty, but what does Glorfindel really do for the story? It works on page to have a character introduced and then dropped. It's not so easy on screen. That aside Liv Tyler's a decent actress, who captured the character in a good way
Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn: Don't hit me, but Tolkien's Aragorn seems too egocentric. Viggo's Aragorn has a sense of a quiet, dignified leader.
Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee: Sam's main qualities are devotion and loyalty. Astin is just that to Elijah Wood's Frodo.
Dominic Monaghan as Merry: It's kind of hard to tell, as dialogue is concerned, but Monaghan acts out his character with a fun-loving attitude, but gradually morphs into what will hopefully be a fine knight of the Riddermark.
Billy Boyd as Pippin: More goofy than in Tolkien's work, from what I understand, however in TTT you can detect that subtle loss of innocence, i.e. There won't be a Shire.
Sean Bean as Boromir: Bean redeems the character, plus the death scene was a whole lot more emotionally charged.
Orlando Bloom as Legolas: Again, like Dominic Monaghan's Merry is kind of hard to tell, considering his lack of dialogue. Like Frodo comes off as a kind of pretty boy, but Legolas' main quality is devotion to Aragorn, which he shows at Helm's Deep
John Rhys-Davies as Gimli: Cut down on his punchlines, but he's a fierce rollicking Dwarf.
Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins: He IS Bilbo!
Bernard Hill as Theoden: Prissy, stuck-up, bullying Aragorn and acting like an overall jerk to Gimli. The scene at Theodred's grave and when he rode out were really and when he was revived were the only places where he shone.
Karl Urban as Eomer: GIVE HIM MORE SCREEN TIME!
David Wenham as Faramir: I agree with the popular assumption that his character was majorly screwed.

[Lord of Angmar]

In the movie Aragorn says to Boromir "I will not bring the Ring within a hundred leagues of YOUR CITY!", meaning Minas Tirith. I highly doubt Aragorn would have said such a thing, as he was still loyal to Gondor and still planned to return there.

[Elentári]

being a leggie lover, i can hardly comment fairly on him, but he did have a few odd lines in TTT...and isnt the way he pronounces 'aragorn' hilarious?
i was a bit annoyed by aragorn's uncertainty, even more so now there are those RotK pics, and there is one of Legolas comforting Aragorn and saying he 'has not failed on the quest of the Paths of the Dead' (cant remember exact phrasing)...and i was thinking wot the hell? those ppl, excepting leggy (wahoo!), were only on that path cos of their love for the noble and kingly aragorn.
i though bilbo was excellent, especially that bit where he comes over really old after grabbing at the ring at rivendell.
i cant remember merry and pippin from the books, but pippin was rather obviously the comic relief which i didnt remember quite to the same extent from the books.
i loved eowyn. she made it so much clearer for me, i could really relate to her. arwen frankly was annyoing. i thought galadriel was excellent in the scene with her mirror.
umm....boromir was v good, i agree. gimli was hilarious. faramir? ARGH!!!!!!!!! i couldnt concentrate on the rest of the film cos i was so annoyed with him. on another forum someone was like 'i preferred it like this cos it made him more like boromir'....argh again! that was the exact point- faramir is NOT like his brother!!!!!
elrond was funny...but then i guess it would be hard to pull off a character like that.

[King_Elendil]

Grima could once have looked better, but after years of being stuck in the same palace for years and continously bending your back to whisper in the King's ear, he would probably have become more the creature of shadows year after year.

[Finwe]

Lord of Angmar: Aragorn said that because he knew that Boromir would take the Ring to Denethor. When Aragorn was younger, he served Denethor's father, Ecthelion, under the name of Thorongil. Some say that Denethor found out who Aragorn actually was, and was very jealous of him. Aragorn knew Denethor's character, and also knew that if he got the Ring, disastrous consequences would occur. That was why he resolved to keep the Ring from Minas Tirith at all costs.

Frodo was a lot wimpier in the movies than in the books. I don't remember him just lying there wailing from Weathertop on in the books... I mean, the movie Frodo makes me think "Don't have a very high thresdhold for pain do you?"

[arianrod]

I've had a careful think about this whole Arwen business and come to the conclusion that PJ did the right thing. Glorfindel appears twice in the novel - and that's counting his brief appearance in the Council of Elrond.

You have a very good point, Lobelia. I agree that introducing a character for one or two scenes only would be confusing to the audience members who have not read the books. However, just because the change was sensible, doesn't mean we have to like Arwen. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] She did do something Glorfindel did not: she had to carry Frodo across the Ford and defy the Nine for him, taking away some of the great strength of will and mind that Tolkien gave him.

And she's just really obnoxious.

[Lalaith]

I'm glad so many people had issues about Theoden. That really annoyed me, he was about as different from the book as he could be. Theoden is supposed to be a kindly contrast in kingship to the coldly intellectual yet ultimately ineffectual Denethor. Instead, PJ just made him a Denethor mini-me.
Thumbs up to what Lyta and lots of others say about Elijah/Frodo. Too young, too one-dimensional.. Can you really see the Council of Elrond letting that quivering little puppydog loose in the Wild with the One Ring?
Tinuviel of Denton I also agree with your Pippin and Merry comments. I was really unhappy about them in FOTR, they became slightly less idiotic in TTT but even so...and ditto Gimli.
Legolas: lol at Yavanna228's "Captain Obvious." Not OB's fault, more the script, especially in FoTR. I like movie Legolas, actually.
Lobelia, absolutely agree on Arwen and the Luthien heritage. It's what I've been saying all along...I'm glad I've got an ally on the Barrowdowns! I think that the Arwen change could have been carried off better, though, with an older actress with more gravitas. Someone like Isabelle Adjani.
But I am all alone I think in not being a fan of the Miranda Otto Eowyn. Not Otto's fault at all, more a question of how the character was conceived. I wanted an ice maiden, and what I got was Meg Ryan lite.

Also would disagree about Boromir. Sean Bean is a great actor but this wasn't how I saw Boromir. I had visualised him as a bluff, barrel-chested soldier, loyal and slightly stupid. He wasn't clever enough to see why the Ring was dangerous. But Bean made him rather too intellectual and tortured. Still,movie Boromir was an interesting character.
I'm also coming slowly to terms with movie Aragorn, who I agree is fundamentally different from the book. Viggo is a bit too goodlooking (well, much too goodlooking really) to be Tolkien's Aragorn. Tolkien Aragorn was stern and I think rather bruised by his years of exile, he was tired of tramping through wilderness and longed to take his rightful place. Movie Aragorn LIKES being a freewheeling Ranger and sees kingship as a burden.
King-Elendil, agree about Eomer, Karl Urban gets it just right...
I like Cate Blanchett's Galadriel but could SO have done without the special effects during the "Instead of a Dark Lord" speech.
Also approve of movie Gandalf and movie Saruman (and agree about hating the wizard duel) and movie Bilbo. Class acting.

[Liriodendron]

It's funny, but as it stands now (before the extended edition of TTT) PJ has managed to make me understand, and agree with Denethor "liking" Boromir better than Farmir! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] I know that's "all wrong"...but Boromir comes across as a likable, personable guy, and Faramir seems like a real "d**k"! I hope this gets corrected, to at least equal footing on the brothers likability scale! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Also, the movie ents (ok Treebeard) seem "dumb". In the book, the "age makes wisdom" was a little bit of a stretch for me. It still took them too long (IMO) to decide to do the right thing, but "fit" well in the end. Once again, at this point in the movies (without TTT ex ed) Treebeard just seems like a hot-headed, boastful treeman! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] Ok, maybe I'm being a bit cruel! [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ July 01, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Darby]

My opinions... I think movie-Boromir totally changed my outlook on the character. I hated the book-Boromir! I thought he was a big dumb thug and was happy to see him die. Sean Bean's Boromir was sympathetic and tragic. Big improvement!
Movie-Frodo? Probably my least favorite change. He looks good, but he lacks the quiet bravery and thoughtful intelligence that book-Frodo had. Book Frodo was scared but brave! He fought off the barrow-wights, deliberately risking his life to save his friends when he could have simply put on the ring and escaped all by himself. And he tried to face down the Riders at the ford despite being morally wounded. I *hated* the whole Arwen wailing over Frodo scene.
Oh, and Arwen... Actually she's mostly ok, except when she's over-acting. I understand the desire to replace Glorfindel and give her a bigger part. I can see why Aragorn would love her.
Aragorn? He looks wonderful! Just as I imagined (except maybe a little on the youngish side). But his character is too self assured. I absolutely adore movie-Aragorn, but book-Aragorn is a little more wounded by experience. His face is "drawn with pain" when he talks about the Riders to the hobbits in the inn. He says something sort of wistful about wishing they'd accept him on his own merits. You get the impression in Bree that he's kind of lonely, and he blames himself when things go wrong and Boromir dies. He's a lot more self-critical in the book.
But Viggo is just scrumptious and he could be my king any day, so I don't mind the changes at all. :-)
Faramir is terrible. He was my hero as a teenager - almost Christ-like, and terribly noble and intelligent and just a little... not cynical, but he had a very quick wit. I saw him as more of a intellectual character, not so muscular, a Robin-hood type fighter as opposed to a knight or a warrior. And he was younger - especially in his relationship with his father, and the way he kept trying to hide his hurt feelings at his father's constant rejection. Having him be Boromir's mini-me is just not on. Sorry, movie-Faramir can't ever be Faramir for me.
Sam was perfect (especially when Sean Astin's doing the sort of stolidly-outraged thing); Gandalf was perfect; Merry and Pippin were fine, but too old looking; and Treebeard was not nearly wise and subtle enough. Book-Treebeard could never have been tricked like that. He knew lots and never let on to Merry and Pippen in the books, and he led them into telling him a lot more than they ever intended to.
And I was fine with all the other characters. I was very happy with the elves - best portrayal outside of the book that I've seen (the BBC's elves all had high silly voices, and the animated elves are just indescribably awful).
PJ's vision of middle earth comes closer to the way I imagined it in the book than anything else I've ever seen. I think the films are fantastic! But, they're PJ's vision, so they won't match perfectly with mine or anyone else's.

[King_Elendil]

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel: Probably was a bit too dark and mysterious, however in the Extended cut at the giftgiving in Lothlorien, her scene with Gimli is great.
Miranda Otto's Eowyn: Good job.
Christopher Lee as Saruman: A new power is rising!
Brad Dourif as Grima: Dark very dark
The other characters were Haldir, prissy, but redeemed himself at HD, Celeborn needs speech class

[Lord of Angmar]

Finwe: Aragorn's comment to Boromir in the movie would be something you would never find in the book. Although he was well aware that Boromir desired the Ring, in the book he would never have referred to Minas Tirith as "your city" nor would he have confronted Boromir in such a way. In fact, in the entire movie their whole relationship was far less subtle, as shown in the scene in FotR at the Council of Elrond where Sean Bean says "Gondor has no King... Gondor needs no King."

[peonydeepdelver]

The characters I had the biggest problems with were Haldir, Faramir, Treebeard, Arwen, and Nob (yes, Nob!).

Haldir: He was way too ticked off for anyone's good. Good thing he wasn't the Hulk, or Lothlorien would have been smashed to a pulp a long time ago. Also, in the theatrical version, he says, "You have entered the realm of the Lady of the Wood. You cannot go back." Then in the Extended Version he says, "You bring great evil here.... you can go no further." Will he make up his mind?

Faramir: One question. What ever happened to not touching the Ring if he found it on the highway? I am seriously going to write to Peter Jackson and ask why he changed Faramir from the noble son of the Steward to a hostage-taking jerk.

Treebeard: Need I explain?

Arwen: She cheated poor Glorfindel out of yet another movie. First 'twas Legolas, then Arwen. I feel bad for Glorfindel now. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Nob: This is literally my favorite not-quite-as-important Hobbit character in the whole book, and they couldn't even show him running around in the background giving customers drinks...


Oh, and Happy Wightness to me! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ July 01, 2003: Message edited by: peonydeepdelver ]

[King_Elendil]

Well, Glorfindel is a comparatively minor character, compared to Gandalf and Aragorn.

[Imladris]

I didn't like the movie Theoden either. I always pictured him as a kindly old man with long white hair and a long white beard. He's just too young in this movie. Good thing he didn't have too much screen time.

As for Frodo/Elijah being immature, I think that it was probably a good thing they had him so scared. As for falling down at Weathertop, he did become unconscience in the book. When he fell down in Moria, when he came to face to face with the cave troll, that was scary and rather a shock (even I jumped in my seat the first time I saw it in theatres). He's a hobbit less than a yard tall, and here is a cave troll who is 9 feet tall!!! And for falling down at the end off the watch tower, he was trying to get away from the eye. And Frodo had to look young because he got the Ring in his tweens, and the Ring kept him from aging.

Arwen's okay...not my favorite. Cate did a good job as Galadriel. I liked her.

[Gorwingel]

Posted by King_Elendil

Elijah Wood as Frodo: Even though he is often seen as a frightened pretty boy and not an older Frodo, Wood captures the childlike Hobbit innocence of Frodo. Sure he seems afraid, but Frodo hasn't experienced anything like this before. He's a hobbit out of his element. So, you would probably be afraid, too.

I have to agree with about everything you say about Frodo. But I do disagree with one part. For me when I read the book Frodo did not seem totally innocent. He was actually rather educated about the rest of ME, compared to Sam of course. I wish they would have included more about how he did know a little Elvish. But maybe they did not include some of those things because of the short amount of time they had to tell the entire story. In the book I have always thought of Frodo as a gentlehobbit who was very polite and had a great "grownup" air to him and would always go through with something even though he really did not want to do it. I just didn't think that all of that came out on screen, part of it did, but not all. He did have an innocence to him, but still the inncence that was in him was less than the amount in Sam, and I don't think that comes out in the film.

[King_Elendil]

Also, Frodo challenging the Wraiths at the Fords works well in the book, but on screen, people who hadn't read the book would probably be roaring with laughter at the sight of the 3'5" Elijah Wood challenging the Nazgul with his little Hobbit sword.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

It was only, I think, in his looks that Elijah Wood may have appeared 'innocent' or 'childlike' (actually I think he was OK); in his manner, he was indeed much more aware and educated about the world than the other Hobbits in the films, and much more serious. But it is unfair to say that. Sam did not look anything like he should have (one of the least pleasing characters in the film, I found *grimace*). They are being played by humans, remember, not real Hobbits -- like the Elves, the actors are bound to be slightly ill-fitting in their roles.

Personally, I didn't like the movie (or at least the first one, because I didn't bother seeing the second and so my only reports on it are from hearsay and trailers). It wasn't because of the story that they missed, which is inevitable and I can live with (in fact they would have been really bad if they'd included it all -- it isn't a screenplay of the entire works of Tolkien) but the rubbish that they put in. Chiefly displeasing were Arwen's reformed 'warrior princess' character and Aragorn, most evident in the first film, who was transformed from the Estel, that had been preparing to be King all his life, to a mere vagabond who sort of decided to tag along with the Company at the last minute. Elrond was pretty bad as well. Totally changed the character. I hear there was a lot of that story-altering going on in the second one (which I'll probably watch soon on DVD -- not my own, someone else's [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] -- if only to validate my point of view on it) which is why I didn't see it.

[Elentári]

hmm interesting...i dunno wot i had done if i knew what they had done to the second movie...maybe i wouldn't have seen it either. but i liked the first one, i thought it ok, cos to be honest i wasnt too fussed about the quality of the interpretation. i thought it was a great film. but i got more into the books as the year went on and when i saw ttt....well, i could have screamed. i'm gonna watch the third one, i just won't be reading it just before.

[Imladris]

The only real thing I missed in Fellowship of the Ring (the movie) was that they didn't show how resilient Hobbits are to the Morgul blade.

In Two Towers, I too could have screamed when they changed Faramir. I was thrilled in the book when he kept his promise to Frodo about not taking the Enemy's weapon. I heard somewhere that Two Towers is the movie that is changed the most, so I think that we shouldn't judge it too harshly until we see it in context. As for Arwen in Two Towers, what does she mean when she says to Aragorn, "You must go with Frodo." HUH? I hope in the third one they show Faramir and Eowyn getting married.

Even though P.J changed a few things, I think that he did a good job on both films for a few reasons: He kept the heart of the film. The selfless love, the loyalty, the nobility. Sam is clearly shown as the hopeful one, while Frodo is starting to loose hope, just like he did in the book. And it is true that Frodo would never have made it without Sam. As for Pippin and Merry, I think they are maturing nicely (as has been said before, I think). Though Eowyn was not quite the way I pictured her, I think she was great. Those are just my thoughts. The other changes I don't really mind, but I don't really care for the one with Faramir. I wonder what they are going to do with it.

[Imladris]

Just one last thought...

I think that I remember somebody mentioning that in the movie TTT, they thought it was highly unlikely that Frodo would sort of just go up to the Nazgul and "give" him the Ring. Maybe that scene was was alluding to the Chapter VIII in Two Towers (The Stairs of Cirith Ungol) when Frodo, Sam, and Gollum were passing by the domains of the Wraith-lord and Frodo felt the almost irristable urging of the Ring...that would have been rather hard to portray on film.

[Neferchoirwen]

Arwen vs. Glorfindel...if Glorfindel was given his own presence in the films, then post-readers (people like me, who read the books after watching the movies) may most likely scratch their heads and go "why didn't he get into the fellowship?" This is based on the premise that Glorfindel played a rather significant role in saving Frodo from the wraiths.

I can never say enough about Sean Bean...except that I cry every time it gets to his death scene.

Viggo grows in me, too. He is rather reserved, but proves strong in character as he fights will all his might!

Gimli's lines kinda messed it up for me. I was about to cry in awe when the wars build up, and *pffft* I loose momentum when he spills out a punchline [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Faramir...remember the close-up in TTT? If I remember right, that close up happened somewhere between Faramir planning for their next move and speaking with the Hobbits. That particular close-up showed a look on Faramir's face: he looked afraid, indecisive, and very vulnerable; even desperate. That close-up did it for me. The movie Faramir may have spoiled our expectations as readers, but the language of cinema portrayed him as raw as anyone in times of desperation.
Faramir had to be portrayed in contrast to Boromir, who was lofty, confident, and hasty (IMO), as opposed to Faramir, who was marginalized in his father's affections, at the frontlines of defense, and many other stressful things (the map is a telltale sign of the congestion that Faramir was facing).

Phew! that was a lot...

[Lyta_Underhill]

Faramir...remember the close-up in TTT? If I remember right, that close up happened somewhere between Faramir planning for their next move and speaking with the Hobbits. That particular close-up showed a look on Faramir's face: he looked afraid, indecisive, and very vulnerable; even desperate. That close-up did it for me.

I shall have to watch it again sometime! I only got to see TTT once in theatres and I eagerly await its video release. I remember railing against the portrayal of Faramir in past times, but I've read a few analyses on the changes made to Faramir in the movie, and they all seem to hinge on the changes made in Frodo. Frodo's behavior at this point does not inspire confidence, nor show the quiet nobility of his character that is brought out in the book. Since Faramir cannot reasonably trust Frodo, he is forced to make hard decisions. I do think he is kind of nasty, but then again, Frodo and Sam are much more evasive and Frodo less stable than in the book. I am prepared to forgive Faramir once I see how all works out in the movie ROTK. In a perfect world, we would have had a quiet but charged sojourn in Henneth Annun, where the errand of the hobbits is slowly drawn out by Faramir's deft interrogation techniques and a pleasant realization that he is NOT like his brother Boromir. "Not if it lay by the side of the road would I take it," Faramir is moved to confidence in Frodo slowly in the book, but in the movie, it is clear that more rash methods must be used and someone is going to have to pull Elijah Wood off that scenery before he chews it to pieces! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

So, it is a double letdown regarding Frodo and Faramir but probably necessary to keep the parallel structure flowing with the events in Rohan and Fangorn. There's got to be some action and I guess it wasn't enough to have Faramir's men skirmishing with the Southrons.

Something totally different than above rant: I know it is probably nitpicking, but why is Grima Wormtongue the only man of Rohan with black hair? Or did I miss something? Maybe evil darkens your hair? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I can't say anything against Brad Dourif, though; he's always excellent in his roles!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Neferchoirwen]

Actually, maintaining Faramir in the books into the films would cause the dynamic of his character to fail. Faramir is not really like his father, and is not really liked as much. So if the films show Faramir as he is in the books, then the audience would not get why his father does not love him as he loves Boromir. It also demonstrates the desperation for fatherly love from Denethor. So PJ maintained the desparation card on Faramir to underline not just the corruption of the city, or of the ring, but of the need to be fathered as well, which is fuelled by his father's loss of a favorite son. (And to faramir's chagrin, he isn't even the replacement of the lost favorite).

Hope I got that straight.

And yeah...why is Grima dark-haired? I guess it's just characterization and character, but perhaps Grima is not native to Rohan?

[Neferchoirwen]

bringing this back up in hopes of more discussion...

Definately Arwen. In the book she was just the daughter of Elrond and in the movie she was like some Warrior Princess.
Also Eomer.
Galadriel,in the book she was nicer and helpful, but in the movie she was scary.

[Genevieve]

I agree with you Linteamarthwen. In the book Aragorn seemed to accept that he was King, but in the movie he was almost running away from it in a way. Ya know? Did anyone else see that?

[Genevieve]

WHoops, sorry. I was looking at the first page. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Well, I do think that Arwen becomes a much bigger character in the movies, more than she should in my opinion. And Galadriel is just freaky in the movies. She was really neat in the books, one of my favorites. But the way she was depicted in the movies was kind of disturbing.

[Lyta_Underhill]

And Galadriel is just freaky in the movies. She was really neat in the books, one of my favorites. But the way she was depicted in the movies was kind of disturbing.

I kind of liked the way they made Galadriel imposing and sort of creepy. It takes into account her Noldorin sensibilities and her tendency to embalm things, an unnatural tendency, even though the things she embalms are natural. There are some disturbing things about Galadriel, and the test Frodo put her through was made all the more poignant by a reading of the Silmarillion and UT, so that we know Galadriel's history and the true import of the final test of her will, the culmination of her fighting the "Long Defeat" in Middle Earth. The scary green thing was over the top, but it illustrated the great battle going on in her mind, which could probably not be shown effectively otherwise. It also does double duty by making it clear to Frodo just how the Ring can corrupt both high and low, strong and weak. It would strengthen his view that he was going to have to break away from the Fellowship.

The Extended version of FOTR does great things for Galadriel IMO, by showing her softer and more kindly side. I cannot stress how much more I like the Extended than the regular version of this film! Galadriel comes off better; Frodo comes off better, Merry and Pippin and Boromir too, if that is possible (he was already a phenomenon in that I liked him in the film and not in the book).

As for Aragorn, I think they do play up a reticence to be king that wasn't there; however, there was uncertainty as to his path. He could not see how he was to achieve what he knew was his destiny. But in the Extended FOTR, his telling Boromir he would not take the Ring within 100 leagues of "your city" was too much. Aragorn was actually leaning towards going to Minas Tirith in the book. There was much uncertainty in Aragorn's mind as to his path, not to his destiny to reclaim the throne of Gondor. The events at Parth Galen forced his hand, and he ended up going the right way. I like the thought that it was destiny guiding him here...OK, I've probably gone off track, so I'll end here. Bye now! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta

P.S. by the way, Genevieve, I LOVE your sig! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[Neferchoirwen]

his telling Boromir he would not take the Ring within 100 leagues of "your city" was too much.

I think it was meant to sound that way. Gondor looked pretty much devastated...but then again, since he hasn't seen how Gondor's doing, it was like Aragorn was rejecting his birthright to the throne of Gondor. An inconsistency in the script, perhaps? Or a revelation in Aragorn's semi-reluctant character? Either way, it still sounds edgy...

I kind of liked the way they made Galadriel imposing and sort of creepy

That was my first impression as well; a bad one, since I had not read the books until about 5 or 6 months later. As a ring bearer, she ought to seem dangerous. Add a Noldori sensibility, and there you have that evervescence of creepiness about her.

I loved Galadirel in the extended version. She seemed more grandmotherly than motherly. Cate Blanchett's interpretation of Galadriel was indeed justified by differentiating a mother's concern from that of a grandmother's...and I always thought both sensibilities were the same [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

Although:

her tendency to embalm things, an unnatural tendency, even though the things she embalms are natural

I find this interesting, though I can't seem to understand it. Care to explain, Lyta? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Neferchoirwen ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

I find this interesting, though I can't seem to understand it. Care to explain, Lyta?

Sure, if I can! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] It is actually an observation made by others than me; it has to do with Galadriel's use of Nenya to preserve Lothlorien. Time does not work there as it does outside the realm, and things do not decay. It is an inherent power of Nenya, but it is also unnatural, as evidenced by the fear shown by those who speak of the Lady of the Wood outside her realm. It is this "otherness" and odd preserved state that makes Lothlorien creepy in itself, although it is beautiful in an Elven and a Noldorin "creative" sense. It is beauty created of suspension of natural cycles of life, much as the Elves themselves exist outside the cycles of renewal in Middle Earth. They are fading, becoming irrelevant and alien, and this "embalmed" realm of Lothlorien is symptomatic of that. I think it is significant also that the Three Rings and their power are tied to the One, for they are the very thing that those who would have tried to use the One Ring would have argued for: a good use for an evil thing. Not that the Three Rings were evil; but that they were tied to it. The evil of Sauron was unnatural, but by the opposite but similar measure, so was the embalmed realm of Lothlorien and the Elves themselves, after the end of the Third Age.

Boy, I hope I made sense! Because I don't think I can get any more mileage out of my brain tonight! It is interesting to contemplate, though, isn't it, Neferchoirwen?

Cheers,
Lyta

[Neferchoirwen]

w [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img] w, Lyta! That did make sense!

And may I commend you for sparing extra mileage from your brain! I needed to contemplate on something, thank you very much...I needed something to "eat" on to get me going at work. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

...and so now I know why Lothlorien is errily bluish in color...But it seems like I remember what you've just explained from the dark, unconscious of my own mind...

Anyways...back to the topic!

[HCIsland]

Okay, here I go.

Gandalf: Slightly warmer and more grandfatherly than in the books I think, but I liked that change. I think everyone agree's McKellen's performance was wonderful.

Bilbo: Ian Hom was absolutely brilliant. His scenes at Bag End with McKellen still remain some of my favourite. Of all the performances, this is the one that seems almost bang on to what's in the books.

Frodo: I think some of the nobility of this character was lost when Jackson decided to go for the deer-in-the-headlights look. I thought it worked well in the first film, but I began to get very tired of him in the second. Then again, I get very tired of Frodo at this stage in the book too. I'll forgive a lot and if PJ gives us a powerful Grey Havens with Frodo bearing the costs of war with courage and nobility, then I'll be happy.

Sam: As much as I like Sam in the book, I like Austin's Sam better with that edge of sycophancy not there. All the loyalty, courage, conviction and slow but cunning intelegence is there though and that can be tough to catch. It would have been to easy to make Sam Frodo's dopey lap-dog as he was in the animated film.

Pippin: I like Boyd's Pippin. I know some folks find him a bit too clueless, but those qualities where there to be found in the book. In a multi-cast film, you really have to streamline supporting characters more. You can see though an edge of wisdom beginning to creep in that will hopefully manifest itself more in RotK.

Merry: As has been mentioned, this one's tougher. I think the character of Merry is harder to nail down. More of a leader than Sam or Pippin but steadfast and fun loving at the same time. I'm not sure how well it's been captured and I'm reserving judgement.

Aragorn: Alright, here it comes. I really like Mortensen's Aragorn. Too often I found book Aragorn, stodgy and stiff. I like the conflict, especially his conflict over Arwen and whether he has the right to ask of her what he so deeply desires.

Arwen: I don't have a problem with Tyler's Arwen. If she had been swinging a sword at Helm's Deep (as I believe was originally envisioned) I would have been upset, but I think PJ has been restrained in her treatment. I think her replacing Glorfindel was appropriate and I enjoyed her stand at the fords, though I think I would have liked Frodo being given his moment to shine more.

Elrond: No issues with Weaving. There's a brooding wisdom that he carries very well. I like how they are exploring the conflict between him and Arwen.

Boromir: Along with Holm's Bilbo, I thought Bean's Boromir was one of the best things about Fellowship. Less egocentric and flawed than book Boromir but I think that even more underscored his tragedy. The right person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Legolas: Book Legolas never made an impression on me one way or the other and Bloom's Legolas is just fine with me. His lines are few but I think he captures the idea of a character learning more than he ever expected from this chaotic dwarf he's stuck with.

Gimli: Although I'm not as incensed as some, I would have liked to see one or two of Gimli's punchlines taken out of the second film. I think he is a suitable device for comedy though, and there is some material in the book like his axe falling out when he bows to Treebeard. I laughed at the dwarf tossing joke but rolled my eyes at his falling off the horse in front of Eowyn - mostly because I don't understand what he was doing on the horse to start with. I think his relationship with Legolas is developing well, which in my mind is the most important thing.

Galadriel: Once the extended edition scenes were added, I was very comfortable with Blanchett's Galadriel. This is a powerful person who has an edge to her. That edge has been slowly tempered by time and wisdom, but I think it would have been wrong not to have it still there underneath.

Saruman: I think Christopher Lee plays these fallen men of power so well it's tough to imagine anyone else playing the role. Certainly a cruel megalomaniac, but there is a touch of sadness that comes across in his performance. You can't help but feel a bit sorry for him.

Eomer: He was in the second film, right? I think I'll have to reserve judgement after I see him do a bit more.

I'm running out of time, so I'll have to continue in another post.

H.C.

[HCIsland]

Okay, I'm back.

Eowyn: Otto's Eowyn doesn't feel quite right to me. I'm one of the ones that thinks her relationship with Aragorn is being handled well, so I don't think that's it. There's this terrible sadness about Eowyn in the books, like she's walking around with invisible weights on her or a she's draped in a tarp that no one can see, least of all herself. In the movie she's coming across as some kind of midevil feminist. Of course the real test for this character is coming so we'll have to see.

Theoden: Here I go getting myself in trouble again. I like movie Theoden better. It always bothered me how in the book, right after he stops listening to everything Wormtongue says, he begins listening to everything Gandalf says. It just seems like he switched from one person telling him what to do to another. The film seemed to go through efforts to show him making decisions. Going to Helm's Deep was his idea and against the advice of Gandalf and Aragorn and once at Helm's Deep he shone as a commander of his forces. It wasn't just the Aragorn show. Hill's performance was great, especially at Theodred's burial mound and his "Where is the horse ..." soliloquy.

Wormtongue: It was mentioned earlier that Wormtongue was too slimy in the movie but I disagree. I've always pictured him as hunched over, pale and greasy and I liked his look in the movie. It's like he is also paying a physical cost for his manipulations of Theoden and his association with Saruman. I really loved all the moments that Grima was on screen. Then again it seemed all the best lines were either spoken by him or at him, so that may have been it. "I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm." An amalgamation of Tolkien's words I know, but it works.

Faramir: Jackson's treatment of Faramir has become a major sore point for my wife that the kids and I sometime like to ride her about, but truth be told, if any of the character treatments deserve the word butchered, it's this one. My biggest problem with Jackson's Faramir (I'm refraining from saying Wenham's Faramir, putting blame where it belongs) is that his motivations for letting Frodo and company go never really come across. I never quite understood this character in the film. Reasons for keeping Frodo are obvious. Besides the pull of The Ring, there is simple mindless duty and certainly the vast majority of soldiers would simply pass the responsibility up the chain of command - in other words, take The Ring to Minas Tirith even if they felt no urge to take it for themselves. But ultimately Faramir lets them go. Why? In the book it is knowledge and wisdom (which are certainly not the same thing but powerful in combination) combined with an extrodinary ability to judge character that aid Faramir in his decision. In the movie, I don't know what it was about Sam's speech that got to Faramir. I have the feeling a piece of the puzzle is missing and I certainly hope the extended edition provides it.

Gollum: Technically the achievement is brilliant. The most fully realized digital character ever - by far. In his first schizophrenic conversation, I felt he edged too close to cute but overall I was very pleased with the treatment as Gollum bounced between threatening and lap-dog. I can't wait for Cirith Ungol.

I think that's it.

H.C.

[Dancing_Hobbit]

I know this has already been touched on, but i need to vent somewhere. the Arwen parts of the movie made me so angry i wanted to cry. the bit in the first movie was particularly bad. Arwen is not like that!! she is not a strong warrior pricess! well, she's strong in spirit and all that, but she does NOT fight! having her ride Frodo to the ford detracted from Frodo, in that it made him look weaker than he should have been, completely removed Glorfindel, and undermines Eowyn's position as the strong warior princess. that is what bothers me the most. as far as i am concerned she was the best female character in the books (also the best developed one), but Arwen detracts from her. also, the way Eowyn was portrayed in the Two Towers movie makes her seem like a petulant little girl who thinks she can be as good a warior as a man, but can't be. the feeling i got from the book was that she WAS as good a warior as any man, and better than most.

a also think that the movies did not adequetly show Borimir as a good person who wants the best for the people he loves so much, but doesn't understand the danger of the ring, and is therefore corrupted by it. i got the sense that people who saw the movies without reading the books thought of him as weak-willed, or a bad person. my complaint is not at all with Sean Bean, who i thought did and excellent job. the problem was that too many scenes showed Borimir in a negative light and not enough showed him in a possitive one.

Sauron, was made to seem as if he had always been evil. while it is hard to explain his history and how he was corrupted in the movie, i think it could have been done, and would have produced a better character.

in general, i think almost all of the characters lost something to the movies. Frodo seemed like a weak tagalong, Pippin seemed uterly immature and helpless, and the relationship between Gimli and Legolas didn't get the same development and attention. however, it was a movie, and thus it is to be expected that it isn't as good as the books. standing alone, the movie was not as good. having read the books, i knew the background and was able to supply depth. this made the movie into and interesting and highly enjoyable story. only the a few of the character changes really bothered me.

Edit: erm...sorry about the book!

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Dancing_Hobbit ]

[Genevieve]

THank you Lyta and Neferchoirwen for helping me see a different side to Galadriel's character in the movie. Sorry, I'm probably interupting this discussion [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] but I just wanted to let you know that your posts are helping me see the different sides of this. Peace to all of you!