Forever?

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

I am sure that Jackson has not spent as much time analysing every detail of the books in the way that some of us do here. I understand, however, that he has been a fan of the book since childhood, so he no doubt has given some thought to what it means to him. And it is clear to me from the films themselves that he understood many of the themes impicit in the books. The same goes for his co-writers, I should imagine. Whether he has read The Silmarillion or not, I cannot tell. But then again, I would speculate that only something like 10% of those who have read LotR have gone on to read Tolkien's other works (The Hobbit aside). Apart from those on this forum (which is a special case, let's face it), of those people that I know who have read LotR and The Hobbit (and there are a fair few), none have read The Silmarillion or any of the other works.

What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire?

Largely for reasons of film pacing, as I understand it. Jackson is on record as having said that this is one of his favourite parts of the book. I too have great affection for this Chapter, but I can see the sense in omitting what would have been, in effect, a mini-story following the main climax.

went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima?

This was filmed and originally intended for inclusion in the theatrical release (although at Orthanc, rather than in The Shire), but was omitted for reasons of timing. There are those who would say that it should have been included at the expense of other material, and I would be one of them, but Jackson obviously felt different.

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?

Well, there are clearly a great many aspects of the book that were omitted for "film-making" reasons (whether that be timing, pacing, anticipated audience reaction or whatever). And I would be fairly confident in speculating that there are themes that Jackson (and his writing team) were aware of but omitted, either because there was not sufficient time to develop them or because they simply did not resonate with them. I can see the sense in focussing on a limited number of themes, given the time available to develop them. Rightly or wrongly, these films are first and foremost "action" films, and the intricate web of themes that Tolkien was able to weave in the book would have over-complicated them unnecessarily and hindered the action. In light of this, I personally feel that it is to Jackson's credit that he was able to include so many of Tolkien's themes, to capture the "spirit of Tolkien" as Christopher Lee put it (although I am fully aware that there are many who would disagree with me on this).

Did Jackson miss any of the themes of the book? Well, I am sure that he did. But then, so did I before I joined this site (despite having read the book a number of times, and long before the films came out).

As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I still think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly.

One further thought (again). I do think that we are rather lucky to have had the Grey Havens scene, which I do see very much as a bittersweet moment (as far as both the Elves and Frodo are concerned). It is not really necessary in the context of the films, but Jackson nevertheless felt it sufficiently important to include. Of course, its omission would have been an anathema to us Tolkien fans, but I am sure that the films would still have been greatly enjoyed by the majority of those who went to see them, and just as successful, without it. Indeed, it might be argued that "the politics of Box-office movie-making" would dictate the omission of this scene. I have seen a number of reviews of RotK (the film) which criticise it for the length of its ending. As davem suggests, most film-goers would have expected it to end with Aragorn's coronation and the honouring of the Hobbits. That would certainly have been the more traditional "Hollywood" approach.

[Esgallhugwen]

I agree with Saucepan Man, given the fact that Peter Jackson is not one of our fellow BD pupils (or teachers for that matter), I'm sure that if one of us were to make the movie's we would spare no turmoil and no detail no matter how small or intricate.

However that not being the case, I am one to agree that PJ did a fine job, though the omitting of certain scenes did displease me. The movies made me cry and I daresay certain parts of the books did as well (especially the ending). The Trilogy provoked more emotion from me then the movies and I do enjoy both deeply.

Let me remind that if some of us had our way one movie alone would be some 6 hours long, a movie that long would definetly call for an intermission (in this day and age because we no longer have need for intermissions in 3 hour movies). So mainly because of timing and no doubt pressure from the higher ups
some of our most beloved scenes (no doubt some of PJ's most beloved as well)from the book have been omitted or cut from the movies.

Now back to the subject of whether Peter missed the point of Tolkien's work. My opinion is both yes and no. Yes, because I felt he didn't develope the characters as much as he could have, but keeping in the bounds of movie logic he did well enough.

Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron. Morgoth was mentioned by Legolas in the movie, so PJ if he hadn't read the Silm must still know something of him. Also keep in mind, I pay way to close attention to these things and also that I havn't seen RoTK in awhile and heres the grabber I don't even own the theatrical release; I'm waiting for EE.

I might not remember this line exactly so I won't quote it. Gandalf (movie) mentioned something to the fact that peace will last as long as the days of the King last, though a happy thought keep in mind that can't last forever, even when Elessar's Heir rules something could happen to him and if not he will eventually pass from Middle-Earth as well, and so on and so forth.

Evil will eventually grow again in the land, its an ever changing cycle of life, nothing can be totally good nothing so totally evil. As evil resides good will eventually come to destroy it, as good prevails evil will eventually come to crush it.

And a final note, at the Haven's in the movie, though the Elves are all smiles and la dee da, there is still a sadness in their tone and something in their eyes that betrays their smile. In my eyes its not a Fanciful splendour cruise to Neverland, its a bittersweet parting, an end of an age.

Please tell me (politely) if I've gone too far from the mark, its just my opinion, and I'm not nearly as intelligent as the rest of you, whose knowledge and awe inspiring-ness (made up a word there) is something to behold.