The Council of Elrond

[Sauron the White]

Have you ever noticed how in actual real life things often regress pretty rapidly when you have opposing sides taking strong positions against each other? Notice how two smart people can be quickly overcome by road rage in a matter of seconds. There certainly was rational discussion in the Council of Elrond film sequence, but it regressed to what we saw. Again, I think it only served to underline the poignancy of Frodo's acceptance of the Ring.

In the end, only one thing matters when you are discussing a film. DID IT WORK?
And for me - and I would imagine millions of others who came back again and again - it did work. Mission accomplished.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

In the end, only one thing matters when you are discussing a film. DID IT WORK?
And for me - and I would imagine millions of others who came back again and again - it did work. Mission accomplished.

No...I don't think so... That is somehow wrong and slightly twisted. There are parts in that movie that didn't work, and yet people still came back. For instance, when Frodo stuck on the ring at Weathertop and you could see the Nazgul, who was impressed by the sniffing white guys looking down their noses at Frodo? No one...that certainly didn't work - and yet people came back.

There's a difference between making something that will hold together for a little while and making something that will last for a lifetime. The LotR movies were great for the first few viewings. All of us were stunned and amazed by the movies when we saw them in theaters. We went two or three or more times to see them while they were there. Then we bought them when they came out and we have watched them many times since. But! After learning them by heart and finally waking up from the dream that the beautiful scenery and intense drama that the movies cast on us, we realize, hey...these movies have holes...why? The books don't...

The difference between us and the millions that you mention is that they don't study the work like we do. I doubt they watch them as much we do.

Do you know why they were such big hits? Because it was the Lord of the Rings and the Lord of the Rings has amazing depth in characters, plot, history, and different scenery. And why does it have those things? Because Tolkien put them there. Jackson used a fair amount of Tolkien's work, but not as much as he could have. Do you know what would have happened if Jackson had used more of Tolkien's original work? I am convinced that the movies would have been a great deal more loved, by Tolkien fans and people who didn't know Tolkein both.

The Council of Elrond (as well as many other places in the movie) could have easily been done differently and could still have impressed the people who didn't know Tolkien's work just as much, and could have made LotR fans happy.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

After learning them by heart and finally waking up from the dream that the beautiful scenery and intense drama that the movies cast on us, we realize, hey...these movies have holes...why? The books don't...

Of course the movies have holes. Nothing is perfect. I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Army of the Dead render the complete battle before the gates of Minas Tirith meaningless. Of course there are holes. What film does not?

The other day I was watching WEDDING CRASHERS on cable. Pretty successful film with a very simple plot. But a hole big enough to drive the proverbial truck through. The preppie bad guy calls his buddies to get the real lowdown on the two crashers - but does not give his contact on the other end of the phone any real info about them which could lead to discovering their actual identities. Everything he tells them is meaningless crap. But a half hour later, he gets a call and finds out all the truth. There is no way the guy on the other end could have found out this stuff even if he was Sherlock Holmes. This is typical and every film has something like this. And books do also.

And as for the book LOTR not having any holes. I give you two words - the first one is Tom and the second one starts with the letter B.

No holes? Explain this to me then. Sauron needs the ring so he can dominate and control all of Middle-earth. Well, he had it once and it sure did not do him any good then did it? The forces of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and his armies even though Sauron had the ring firmly in his possession.

And for years now I have yet to hear a reasonable explaination as to why the forces of good could not have laid siege to the Black Gates to distract Sauron and his forces while at the same time Frodo swept in on an eagle, escorted by an army of other eagles, and dumped it right into Mount Doom.

No holes in the book? Really? And that is just off the top of my head.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Of course the movies have holes. Nothing is perfect. I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Army of the Dead render the complete battle before the gates of Minas Tirith meaningless. Of course there are holes. What film does not?

Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Master and Commander, to name a few. All of which are based off of well written books.

And as for the book LOTR not having any holes. I give you two words - the first one is Tom and the second one starts with the letter B.

Tom Bombadil is not a hole. What makes you think he is? He may be an unnecessary character, but so is Bergil, and the ninth Nazgul, and Haldir, and Glorfindel (Tolkien could have used Arwen) etc, etc, etc. These characters may be unnecessary but they do make the story deeper and more interesting and are not holes in the tale.

No holes? Explain this to me then. Sauron needs the ring so he can dominate and control all of Middle-earth. Well, he had it once and it sure did not do him any good then did it? The forces of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and his armies even though Sauron had the ring firmly in his possession.

Alright, then, I will explain. Sauron did not take over all of Middle Earth in the beginning because there were too many powerful opponents. There were many more elves and they were powerful elves Gil-Galad and Elrond were just two. The men were united and their blood still pure Numenorean blood. The force and strength of the Alliance could never be equaled again. What is more, they acted quickly to the threat of the Ring, whereas in the 3rd age after the Ring was found they tarried whilst Sauron got busy gathering orcs and trolls to himself. Sauron was too strong for another Alliance. An army gathered would be like waves on a sea shore - no matter how large, they always break, foam, and then fall back, defeated.

And for years now I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why the forces of good could not have laid siege to the Black Gates to distract Sauron and his forces while at the same time Frodo swept in on an eagle, escorted by an army of other eagles, and dumped it right into Mount Doom.

I've never thought about this. But I guess I will, just for you.

Eagles...eagles would have not only ruined the book, but would have caused the ruin of Middle-Earth. Think of it - the council decides to send eagles. They go find some and bring 'em back and the eagles start flying across Middle-Earth. They reach Mordor to. . . .get assaulted by the Nazgul and their winged creatures. What do you suppose would happen? A battle in the air resulting in what? Frodo falling to the earth, breaking his neck, and the Ring being misplaced in the land of Mordor. Yay.

As for the forces of good…what forces of good are you talking about? Theoden, the horse lord, was under the poison of Saruman, and Denethor was a jerk. What forces are you referring to?

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren... thank you for taking the time to offer your explainations on the items which I brought up. I have read them before both here and in other forums and they did not satisfy me then and do not now.

I certainly cannot discuss the films versions of Jane Austen books turned into movies. Not being an impressionable woman who is struggling with her role in society, I never caught the Austen bug either in book form or cared to see it on screen. Sorry.

Bombadil is more than just another unnecessary character. To me he is a huge contradiction that gets in the way. Tolkien gives us this being who has powers beyond the ring and then does nothing with him beyond the barrow wight saving episode. Sure, JRRT attempts to plug this "hole" (and I do not want to get into another endless internet discussion in which 90% of it is defining terms to fit into our respective arguments) by telling us that Bombadil would not want venture far from his stomping grounds and would eventually trade it for a comic book or pack of baseball cards. I am being sarcastic but in the end that is what his reasoning comes down to. I did not buy it when JRRT wrote it and have not bought the additional explainations of others in the passing years. You could omit the contradiction of Bombadil from the book and not miss a single beat.

The idea that you create a powerful being who is beyond the power of the ring and then do not use him to resolve the problem of the ring is - for me - a gaping hole.

Let me get this straight. The eagles can fly around everywhere they desire - and do so several times at pivotal plot points - but they cannot cross into Mordor? What is there to stop them that would not stop lesser creatures or beings? You mention the Nazgul on their flying steeds - sure that is the defense. But is that any different than 10,000 orcs in Mordor joined by other peoples to stop a couple of hobbits? How is that any different?

Allow me to answer. It is different because the eagles might have a better chance of success. They are much faster and have the advantage that speed and their numbers bring with them.

You say it would have ruined the book - AND I AGREE WITH YOU - because it would have simplified and shortened everything. I agree. I want a 1200 page book too. But its still one of the more logical solutions to the problem and is a glaring hole.

The free peoples I am referring to are the same ones who rallied to the cause and marched to the Black Gate. Yes, at the time of the Council there were the political obstacles you accurately refer to. But those could have been planned for and in fact were overcome by the varied forces present at the Council. Denethors plight was not fully known at the time of the Council and instead we heard the boastings of Boromir giving everyone the picture of the armies of Gondor ready to fight the good fight.

As to the forces of the Last Alliance being more powerful - I would partially agree with that and concede some of your reasoning. But only partially. However, let us remember that the Elven king Gil-galad was killed in that military effort as was Elendil. So they were not as powerful as we may think compared to Sauron with the ring. The fact is this. Sauron had the ring firmly on his finger and it did not lead him to domination of Middle-earth. But later we are told that if Sauron gets the ring all of ME will come under his dominion. That is a contradiction and a hole.

My overall point is a simple one. A book is one thing - a film is quite another. This whole business of comparing the book to the movie is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. They are two very different things. In the end we have some folks coming forth and declaring that after exhaustive study they have determined without a doubt that apples do indeed taste better. And cinderblocks are much harder.

And this is news?

I first read LOTR right out of college in 1971. I lost count of how many times I have reread it. I love that book and everything that JRRT wrote about Middle-earth. I also love the movies and have seen them too many times to count. I view them as two very different things and can appreciate the merits of both. I also am not a perfectionist. I do not expect perfection in even the best of what I love. I am more than happy when my glass is half filled. With the adaption of a great book into a great series of films, I think I drank from a beautiful cup that was 90% filled.

[Meriadoc1961]

Okay, I believe that Sauron the White has made some good points about holes in the book. One I always found troubling was very early on when Frodo, Pippin and Sam are being chased by Black Riders in the Shire, and they run into Gildor and Company. So what does this leader of these Wandering Elves do? He feeds them, won't tell Frodo what these creatures are except servants of the enemy and says, "Flee them!", and then he leaves them on their own knowing that Gandalf is missing with a promise to pass on to any other Wandering Companies to be on the lookout for good ol' Frodo! So yes, the book has a few holes. But back to the Council.

In all fairness to Peter Jackson, there IS a brief commotion in the book and pillows are spilled when Gloin becomes angered at hearing from the lips of Legolas of the nice treatment being given to loathesome Gollum, when he, Gloin, was treated so badly years before! But Gandalf quickly restored order.

By the way, my wife NEVER finished the book because she just could not get through the chapter The Council of Elrond.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

Okay, I believe that Sauron the White has made some good points about holes in the book. One I always found troubling was very early on when Frodo, Pippin and Sam are being chased by Black Riders in the Shire, and they run into Gildor and Company. So what does this leader of these Wandering Elves do? He feeds them, won't tell Frodo what these creatures are except servants of the enemy and says, "Flee them!", and then he leaves them on their own knowing that Gandalf is missing with a promise to pass on to any other Wandering Companies to be on the lookout for good ol' Frodo! So yes, the book has a few holes. But back to the Council.

I rather wonder if that wasn't Elves' natural behavior. It seems their character to do stuff like that and I don't rightly know why.

As for Sauron the White's points about holes...well, I disagree, but having found out that he's read the books and loved them since '71, I will withdraw from the debate and not argue further. I know, from personal behavior, that arguing with old fans of the books is rarely worth while because people rarely change their minds about stuff. I mean, it happens occasionally, but I see this as a hopeless case. Shall we bow out, S.t.W., and leave with both our honors in tact?

In all fairness to Peter Jackson, there IS a brief commotion in the book and pillows are spilled when Gloin becomes angered at hearing from the lips of Legolas of the nice treatment being given to loathesome Gollum, when he, Gloin, was treated so badly years before! But Gandalf quickly restored order.

As brief as -

"You were less tender to me," said Gloin with a flash of his eyes, as old memories were stirred of his imprisonment in the deep places of the Elven-king's halls.

"Now come!" said Gandalf. "Pray do not interrupt, my good Gloin. That was a regrettable misunderstanding, long set right. If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council."

Gloin rose and bowed, and Legolas continued.

Heh...come to think of it - in the movie, 'all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves' WERE brought up! And the Council was abandoned.

-- Folwren

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Folwren

and Denethor was a jerk. What forces are you referring to?

Denethor was not a "jerk".

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Denethor was not a "jerk".

I beg your pardon, but am not inclined to change my words. In all honesty, I don't know what else to call a father who wishes to esteem his older son and so tells his younger son who originally had the dream that he can't go on the mission to find out its meaning and when Boromir dies, tells Faramir that he'd rather it have been him. What would you call someone who insulted Gandalf to his face and refused to listen to his advice? Who wanted the Ring to come to Gondor and threw the wisdom of the Council out the window?

Surely, Denethor had his bits and pieces of good character - bravery not being the least - but they were nearly lost in his pride and conceit, his choosing favorites out of his two children. . .

-- Folwren

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I beg your pardon, but am not inclined to change my words. In all honesty, I don't know what else to call a father who wishes to esteem his older son and so tells his younger son who originally had the dream that he can't go on the mission to find out its meaning and when Boromir dies, tells Faramir that he'd rather it have been him. What would you call someone who insulted Gandalf to his face and refused to listen to his advice? Who wanted the Ring to come to Gondor and threw the wisdom of the Council out the window?

Surely, Denethor had his bits and pieces of good character - bravery not being the least - but they were nearly lost in his pride and conceit, his choosing favorites out of his two children. . .

Hey, it happens.

Denethor was a wise man despite his faults...in his own right. At least you do not disgard his more...noble qualities!