Forever?

[Rimbaud]

An accurate crticism, SoNo, if not necessarily valid. The movie never could, and to its credit from a certain point of view, never tried to import the gravitas of the books. And neither were the films intended as one strand of a multi-layered mytholology, as with the literary counter-part; rather as an 'open-and-shut', if three-part, cinematic experience. There would be little benefit from a contemporary silver screen perspective of casting doubt on the 'ending' of the evil, and providing the more ambiguous realism of Tolkien's original.

Added to which, in so far as filmic LotR is concerned, there isn't a 'Morgoth', just a Sauron, and we all saw the death-dramatics of the effects at the end of of RotK. So he must be dead.

All this, however, is only if you have the relatively restricted view of 'blockbuster' movies being necessarily simplistic; I'll confess there is merit in argument, having meandered casually to either side fo the fence at various times, but is possibly a less Tolkien-related discussion than strictly warranted.

In the essence of what you say, I do agree: there is a loss of the deep sorrow of the books through the film. As above, that can be construed as necessary, and I would posit perhaps that once you have delineated the two media into distinct pleasures, there is less in the way of qualitative 'detraction' from book to film.

[Son of Númenor]

I understand the politics of big-studio filmmaking, but I still think it's a shame PJ (or New Line) didn't think audiences could stomach a quasi-tragic, bittersweet ending and a little ambiguity about the ultimate fate of evil.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.

Ah, but how much does this theme come across in LotR as a stand-alone trilogy of books? Until relatively recently, having only read LotR (aside from a failed attempt at the Silmarillion in my youth) I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Morgoth and the marring of Arda.

Perhaps the idea of enduring evil is explicit in LotR, but surely it is implicit in any event. Although the external "personification" of evil has been defeated, it stands to reason (to my mind at least) that this will not mark an end to the internal evil within the hearts of Men (and the other races). I suppose I really just took this for granted in the books without it having to be made explicit. So doesn't this also apply with regard to the films?

Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself? Or do you think that people might view Middle-earth at the end of the film as an idyllic realm devoid of evil? It's possible, I suppose.

One further, related, thought. The cinema release does not in fact close with all evil having been defeated since, for all we know, Saruman is still at large, albeit restricted to Orthanc when we last see him. Of course, this "little" detail is to be cleared up in the Extended Edition.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by SpM:
Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself?

I think most viewers (or well, atleast myself) viewed Galadriel's words as "an end to the ring, or an end to Sauron." Not saying "an end to EVERYTHING evil, forever."

Even viewing at that however, Numenor brings up a valid point. One could view it as Galadriel saying "an end to evil (meaning any type of evil) forever." And indeed we know that will not be true. There will eventually be one person down the line who will get greedy, power hungry, and then cause another "personified evil." Even after the one Ring was destroyed, "evil" in Middle-Earth still existed, hint hint Saruman (oops I forgot PJ didn't add that). That is why I would have to say Numenor's point is valid, because even if we would view it as a Galadriel's evil as being "personified," instead of "all evil," it would still be incorrect because we have Saruman. That is my book thought.

For my movie thought. Saruman is already dead, Sauron is destroyed, so the "personified evil," is gone, and if that's what PJ wanted to say, then so be it.

[davem]

I don't think they felt able to push it too far. How much of the tragedy would audiences accept? The movies have a very quiet ending, & there is a sense of loss. I suspect many movie goers were quite 'shocked' by the ending - most of them were probably expecting a Return of the Jedi type celebration complete with fireworks.

I can't help wondering what the reaction will be once people have seen the extended editions & know that that's it. When there's no more to await maybe something else will hit those who know only the movies - not the sense of enduring evil, but the sense of enduring loss - & perhaps that will affect them much more. Isn't eternal loss harder to ive with than enduring evil?

You could try here: http://www.lordoftheringsresearch.net/ for info on movie goers reactions to the films.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think davem's got it spot on (how many times have I thought that before?). The films as they are are already laced with a hefty order of melancholy, in the eyes of movie-goers. The 'normal folk' surely could not handle any more sadness - so assume the filmmakers.

But like many others on the site, I would have liked to have seen a darker tone to the movies. That might sound strange, what with the plot and all (so don't point that out Saucepan ) but Jackson only punched half-heartedly when it came to the tragedy and dejection.

[Bêthberry]

We seem to be explaining the ending of the movie by recourse to "the politics of Box-office movie-making" (I hope I have correctly quoted that from Son of Numemor. This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

Is this the case? I don't know enough about what Jackson has said about his work, but does he in fact share a sense that the books are melancolic, even tragic? What is his interpretation of Tolkien and what is his interpretation of the movie genre he is working in? What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire? went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima? The elves, in my intrepretation of the book, have failed and their departure over the seas is full of hapless regret. Yet Jackson's scene has more a tone of a happy sea cruise.

I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?

[Boromir88]

Did Jackson miss the big picture?

Good question Bb. Jackson is often critisized for focusing on death and gore. Now there isn't a lot of gore in LOTR but we'll say a reasonable amount of fighting. I'd have to say that PJ paid too much attention to fighting, and not enough character developement, or character, we'll say "analysis." I think in order to portray the "neverending evil," that evil will always be around, you have to focus in on the characters, the people, their ways, cultures...etc. Something Tolkien had did, and created a message. Where PJ focused on long fight scenes.

On the other side of the spectrum. Maybe PJ was forced to make the movie the way he did. Mr. Jackson studied these books for years, even before making the movies, so I think he has a pretty good idea of Tolkien, now I don't know to what extent, but I wouldn't be shocked if he knows more about it then me. Anyway to the point, another example of how maybe New Line put pressure on him, was the climatic, cheesy hollywood, Frodo hanging by one hand, and then the REACH, and oops, that's my bloody hand, REACH FARTHER, wooo, you did it! Anyway, point being maybe PJ was forced to make the movie like that, and not get into the "indepth Tolkien analysis" part of LOTR.

So, two possibilities. In all of PJ's years of studying he focused on the battles and missed the whole concept of Tolkien's writing. Or, he really did get the concept, but was on a short leash, and was pressured to make the movie more enjoyable for the non-bookies.