Smell this, I think it's expired...

[Kath]

Going back to a much earlier point of davem's, I just wanted to disagree slightly.

when Frodo falls off the High Seat on Amon Hen he falls, given his size, the equivalent of about 18-20 feet onto his back

davem said that this destroyed the image of a secondary world, or at least pulled him out of it, but in this instance I found that it fit in. Smaller creatures can fall larger distances while sustaining less damage than bigger creatures. For example a cat can fall out of a 4th floor window and land without a scratch, whereas a human would break a good many bones. This fall of Frodo's and the fact that the Seat would be higher to him than a Man suits that theory.

What broke the illusion to me was then Aragorn leaping off the same Seat to face the orcs. Using the previous argument it should not have been possible for him to do this with no ill effect, and for it to look as though it was the same distance for him to 'fall' as it was for Frodo.

Then there was this

Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

Which I completely agree with. Tolkien wrote with a whole world and legend and history in his mind, so that what his characters said fit with their past, present and future. Changing this is just not an option if you want to make the film of the story. If this is done the film becomes a different story with the same elements.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kath

Smaller creatures can fall larger distances while sustaining less damage than bigger creatures. For example a cat can fall out of a 4th floor window and land without a scratch, whereas a human would break a good many bones. This fall of Frodo's and the fact that the Seat would be higher to him than a Man suits that theory.

What broke the illusion to me was then Aragorn leaping off the same Seat to face the orcs. Using the previous argument it should not have been possible for him to do this with no ill effect, and for it to look as though it was the same distance for him to 'fall' as it was for Frodo.

Really? I will have to check with my physicist friend to be sure, but thought that all objects fall at the same rate. Force = mass x acceleration (or something), and so Frodo would hit the ground with less force than would Aragorn, due to their differing masses, but I think that both would be in for a bit of a jolt.

Have considered testing this out using me and my son, but then figured that it would only land me in the hospital either due to:

• the fall, as I would be the Aragorn-sized control, or

• getting caught by Mrs. alatar, who would not take lightly me indulging in such stupidity...

As long as the world is internally consistent, then I can go along for the ride. As posted elsewhere, inconsistencies like Saruman's fireball took me out of the movie.

In regards to cats, I think that they can 'fall' further due to (1) less mass, (2) instinctively decreasing the rate of descent by cupping their bodies, and (3) having anatomy more suited to such fun. A cat falling on its back will be hurt.

Anyway, on the other hand, ME is a fantasy world, and in a world of magic rings, wizards, incarnate evil, etc, a little fudging of reality can be expected.

Tolkien wrote with a whole world and legend and history in his mind, so that what his characters said fit with their past, present and future. Changing this is just not an option if you want to make the film of the story. If this is done the film becomes a different story with the same elements.

Agreed. 'Seeing' a character 'speak' another character's lines was like experiencing something akin (I assume) to schizophrenia.

[Lathriel]

I have to disagree with the people who say that ROTK has less magic. As soon as I read that I had to think of Gandalf on Shadowfax, leaving Minas Tirith to drive away the ringwraiths from the Gondorian army.
I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons, Galadriel's phial, the charge of the Rohirrim, the Ring's destruction, and the grey havens. Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lathriel

I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons... Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

I would agree that the scenes/shots of the beacons blazing on the mountain tops etc were magical, yet this was just after the 'Pippin had to light the first one' stupidity, for which I've still never figured out the reasoning.

[Gurthang]

Well, PJ, being the expert Tolkien scholar that he is, decided that Pippin didn't have a big enough part, and so had him do many more things, like light the beacons. There is definitely reasoning behind it, if very faulty reasoning.


Originally posted by Lathriel

I have to disagree with the people who say that ROTK has less magic. As soon as I read that I had to think of Gandalf on Shadowfax, leaving Minas Tirith to drive away the ringwraiths from the Gondorian army.
I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons, Galadriel's phial, the charge of the Rohirrim, the Ring's destruction, and the grey havens. Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

I do agree that all those moments were magical. Yet there was so much that broke that magical feeling; it became almost jerky and bumpy. It was like 'OH! that was magical' followed closely by 'What the! Why'd he do that!'. Scenes like Pippin lighting the beacons and Gandalf's illegitimate confrontation with the Witch-King are what takes the magic back a step.

It's not that FotR had more magic, per se, it just didn't have those things that paused the magic and clouded the plot.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, PJ, being the expert Tolkien scholar that he is, decided that Pippin didn't have a big enough part, and so had him do many more things, like light the beacons. There is definitely reasoning behind it, if very faulty reasoning.

Oh, I knew what the real reason was for Pippin's part, but when watching the movie for the first time, couldn't get a handle on the 'Theoden's not coming unless he saw some fire on the hilltops' and Denethor was short on matches or something.

It made no sense, but it looked good.

[davem]

Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but did anyone else get the feeling from the writers/directors commentaries on films 1&2 that on the first one they all seemed to be very pleased with themselves & their achievement while on the second one they seemed to spend a lot of time apologising & making excuses for the changes they'd made to the story?

Don't know if this was self doubt creeping in or whether they were just trying to placate the book fans, but either way they seemed a lot more defensive on the second one.