Split Personality?

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is ..... Gollum isn't that simple.

As a therapist in training I couldn't agree with you more. Gollum has a much more complex personality problem. DID very rarely presents so evil, and the splits usually do not know about each other, much less talk to each other. There are a handful of Cluster B personality types Gollum could easily fall into, but DID isn't it.

That said I belive anyone would have a hard time putting Gollum's personality into film, and maybe that is why Jackson did it the way he did it. And maybe the professor was right on some aspects not being filmable. And for the record the whole Gollum/Smeagol conversation is a favorite of mine in the movie.

[littlemanpoet]

STW, what you call PJ's improvements on the book may be separated into two categories. First: works better for movie medium

• the death scene of Boromir
• incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth

Second: improvement on the book

• entire portrayal of Boromir
• more emphasis on the character of Arwen
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• character developemnt of Aragorn

One of the two, "getting rid of weaker elements", overlaps into both categories.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

Incorporating Elves into Helm's Deep, I'm not sure it was necessary to the plot for the sake of the movie. It went against my sensibilities at the time, but I see why PJ did it; just not sure it was necessary.

I knew PJ would remove Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I recognized that they wouldn't fit into his movie, but I do contest that Tom Bombadil was not necessary to Tolkien's story. You say that Tolkien did absolutely nothing with it. This is not actually true. The issue of Tom came up in the Council of Elrond, and more is learned about him there. However, Tom Bombadil is used effectively by Tolkien to bring about the "growing up" of Frodo. But that's only his plot purpose. Tom Bombadil's setting and theme purpose within the whole corpus goes far beyond that, but that's an entirely different discussion.

As to the physical visualization of Middle Earth, it seems that you put the cart before the horse. The two Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee base their art on Tolkien's descriptions, and PJ's art department based their work on Howe and Lee's work. So what you call an improvement, I would call PJ actually achieving (in this one case) what he said he was trying to. So kudos to PJ on living up to Tolkien's descriptoins; but improving upon them? I don't think so.

Now onto what you claim as actual improvements over the book.

As to the entire portrayal of Boromir, it is certainly different. Boromir is more noble in the movie ( I can't help but place that beside his brother Faramir who is less noble in the movie). Boromir in the book is very much the son of his father, whereas in the movie the father is a ridiculous fool, which Denethor was not in the book. But back to Boromir. In the movie (seems odd to say but this just came to me) he had to die because he was more attractive to the viewing audience than Aragorn was. In the book Aragorn is clearly the more noble character. The problem with the representation of Boromir in the movie is that his brand of heroism is unabashadly glorified, whereas in the book the same type of heroism is shown to be shallow as compared to the purposeful and sacrificial heroism of both Aragorn and Faramir. So the book brings it deeper than the movie does. Sorry, I can't call that an improvement on the book per sé, but perhaps I can accept it in the movie (especially since Sean Bean is the actor).

I knew the movie would put more emphasis on the character of Arwen, since that's just the way Hollywood works. Again, not an improvement over the book in my opinion, but a necessary alteration for the movie.

As to the character development of Aragorn: this could take up an entire thread of its own, and I'm betting it already has. Notice that I could not discuss Boromir without mentioning Aragorn. Someone else has said that this is one of the biggest areas PJ "didn't get", and that the latter 20th into the 21st century just can't seem to "get", and that is the possibility of an actual good person, that such an entity simply cannot be believed. If so, that's just downright sad, and not a good sign for our times. If that comes off as smug and condescending, then all I can say is that western culture has apparently descended from something better that has been lost, and that's a shame. One of the things that Tolkien did best, was to communicate nobility of character. The death scene of Boromir in the movie was about the best I've seen it done by Hollywood! - - - and that was actually borrowed from another script (so I'm told)!

Originally Posted by STW

Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Originally Posted by STW

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing.

This comes as no surprise. And of course I think PJ has it wrong.

[Boromir88]

Folwren, nice insight about Gollum. The books set Gollum up as an even more repulsive and wicked person than the movies. So 'wicked' in fact that he has phantom stories about taking babies in the night and drinking their blood. But despite this, there is still that glimmer of hope that Tolkien created...and since there always is that small hope, I always wanted Gollum to pull through in the end.

Maybe it's just because I already knew Gollum wasn't going to repent, that I never got the same feeling in the movies, I don't know. Or also, I didnt like how they handled that Mount Doom scene (with the whole Frodo nearly tumbling in and Sam screaming REACH!!!)

Of course when we're talking about 'better' it's going to be subjective, on your own personal tastes. As far a who's the better 'story teller,' for me without a doubt it would be Tolkien. His knowledge of language, mythology, history...etc was just stunning. As CS Lewis said in Tolkien's obituary that Tolkien had 'been inside language.' And no matter what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created it could never come anywhere near the 'cauldron of a story' that Tolkien created.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for large battles and giant slugfests...which Jackson does do a nice job of creating. But that doesn't make LOTR a better story (in my opinion) that just made it cool to watch on screen.

So, let's see what we got...

the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book.

I actually preferred Boromir's death in the books. Seeing it through Pippin's eyes (as he describes it in the chapter The Uruk-hai) was more emotional than what the movie created:

His last memory was of Boromir leaning against a tree, plucking out an arrow; then darkness fell suddenly.

As great as the movies showed Boromir's final moments (absoluty the most tragic and touching parts of all the movies for me), Pippin's description of the battle made Boromir's last stand not only more heroic but more touching for me. As Boromir sent the Orcs fleeing twice, and the third time he was overcome as "they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir."

And I always found his last lines rather cliche: 'I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King'? I don't know that sounds a little too cheesy and would have preferred them to just end it with Aragorn's 'I will not let the White City fall' and have Boromir's "smile" as is described in the story.

the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did.

This is a tough one because I actually think the book Boromir is a lot nicer, it's just more subtle and harder to notice. But, I see what you're saying because I've seen the movies change the opinions of Boromir in people...they actually did for me.

When I first read the story, I never hated Boromir, I thought he was a great warrior, he made a mistake that he tried to rectify, but he wasn't my favorite by any means (I was a Theoden person). However, after seeing Boromir (and Sean's performance...Bean was a favourite actor of mine even before he did Boromir) I got a different feeling about him. The movie moments of him talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien and him teaching Merry and Pippin how to 'spar' show a more likeable Boromir.

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

Yes, I think Boromir is a sarcastic (and sometimes childish) person in the books, especially when he doesn't get his way. However, that just adds to Boromir's character and his 'growth,' plus it actually makes sense. In Gondor Boromir was used to having 'no rival,' he was used to making the decisions (as far as the military is concerned). He was used to giving orders and having people follow them. Then he's thrust into a situation where he is in far greater company than he, and he struggles with the fact that he is not the leader of the Company. He is not the one in a position of authority to 'give orders' when he's in the Fellowship. So, yes when Boromir doesn't get his way he can be stubborn (to put it lightly), he doesn't know humility. What really makes it work, is the contrast with Aragorn who is quite humble and willingly accepts orders (even orders from Boromir).

By Boromir's death however he has grown and learned humility. After trying to take the Ring from Frodo he goes back to the camp where Aragorn tells him to go find Merry and Pippin, and Boromir does so with no fight...then we have his final words to Aragorn: 'Go to Minas Tirith and save my people. I have failed.' Boromir's stubborn, sometimes childish, and 'anti-Gorn' qualities actually makes a great story because by his death we see how much he has grown through his journey with the Fellowship. Not only is he just a great warrior strongman now, but he recognized his mistake and I can't put it any better than Gandalf:

'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.'~The White Rider

I say it's a tough one because I've also seen people who have watched TTT EE when Denethor sends Boromir off to bring back daddy his little gift and seeing that Boromir's reason for joining the Fellowship was to sabotage it. I wish that part of the EE wasn't in there as FOTR did such a great job in creating Boromir's character, but that EE scene when Denethor pulls him aside is just irritating.

Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep.

But this was a fight that 'men' had to resolve...or mostly do on their own. Some Elves were staying around and had their own battles, but it was time for Men to deal with Sauron, the Elves have been doing it for too long.

Also, as I mentioned it is a distance problem, that isn't just recognized by a few book people...Jackson has actually been questioned about it many times. The Elves came from Lorien, well that was the wooded place way back in FOTR the Fellowship went to. And then Gimli says they've been chasing the Uruks for 3 days through Rohan...so this is something anyone can put together, you don't even have to know the name Tolkien to realize we have discontinuity. Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny. Aragorn actually remarks that he wishes he had the endurance of the Dwarves while they were chasing after the Uruk-hai (and it wasn't Aragorn making a joke). This adds to the trashing of Gimli's characters, as I've seen people making posts saying Legolas and Aragorn should have just killed Gimli because he was holding them back and he never does anything anyway. Making an argument that Gimli was a useless character that just cracks a bunch of jokes (I really liked Gimli's portrayal in FOTR, but by watching TTT and ROTK, I can't say I disagree with said people's view of Gimli when watching the movies).

Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film.

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there. Why Tom is so interesting? Perhaps its there is so much mystery about him, and an enigma such as Tom, can attract a lot of intrigue and interest from readers. I won't add much more than what was said, but also Tom goes to help forshadow the events at the end, when Saruman takes control of the Shire.

Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film.

Grant it book Aragorn seems much more certain and the all righteous hero in the books when compared to the movies; however this isn't so. Aragorn first serves as a good foil to both Boromir and Denethor, so all of Aragorn's good traits come through, so much so that it seems like Aragorn is just the perfect hero. However, this is not so, as Aragorn also has his own struggles and doubts in the books. Particularly after Boromir's death and the capturing of Merry and Pippin. Aragorn is at a loss, and starts doubting himself as the 'leader' of the company, but luckily for him Legolas and Gimli are there to pick him up. Plus, there is the confrontation with Hama when he asks Aragorn to hand over Anduril. Aragorn shows a little bit of power-hungriness as he tries to usurp Theoden's orders by saying he's the 'heir of Elendil' and his will should therefor trump Theoden's. But, again lucky for Aragorn that Gandalf is there to tell him he's being stupid.

I think this post that I came across a little while ago sums up elempi's (and many others) complaint about what Jackson did with the movies:

Okay, I started LotR a few days ago, and I am up to page 131. So far it has been a good read, and I like the way Tolkein writes, but so far it’s been pretty dull. When I say dull, I don’t mean bad, but just a little boring. It seems like it’s taking forever for little things to happen. Anyway, I’m just wondering, by what page or chapter does the action start to pick up? By action, I mean like fighting.

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that). They want to see the high action, Orli surfing adventure, Jackson created. There is a lot of action in the books, it's just not in 'fighting.' The action is the suspense, forshadowing, tension building, character interaction, character development, The Big Bad Read, and the language itself. Now, not everyone who was introduced to LOTR by the movies has these expectations from the books. But, I do think that Jackson did (whether intentionally or not doesn't matter) create a misrepresentation of the story, that leads to some fans when they go and read the books for the first time wondering why is this just a drag?

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet... it would seem that there is some middleground here that we both can stand upon with a degree of comfort. I am glad to hear you say that you see that some of the things Jackson did were better for the film.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

I see it pretty close to the way you do regarding this scene. A book does not have to be as dramatic and as emotional as a film does. What JRRT wrote was excellent for the book and worked extremely well. For the film version, it would have bordered on underplaying the whole moment. So Jackson made it more dramatic, more poignant and it turn took on more emotional resonance with the audience. And of course, that was Jacksons intent.

I see it much the same with the expanded role for Arwen within the LOTR story (as opposed to the Appendices). The entire Arwen-Argorn story is far more emotional in the film than it is in the book. In the book that type of showcase for the love story may have distracted from the rest of the tale and tried to turn the book into something it was never intended to be. But for the movie, what Jackson did worked well and it helped make the movie the success it was.

Perhaps the difference in how some of see these things is the perspective we are coming from. Allow me to explain how I have always seen this.

A book is one thing and a film is quite another. Each has its own internal laws, rules, constructions, devices, approaches, techniques and methods that further and aid in creating the world that it becomes. And each of these elements are somewhat different when you go from one medium to another. What makes for a great book does not always make for a great film.

I accept that and do not expect my films to look like my books.

I also accept the economic and business realities of the film making business and harbor no fantasies about what the true bottom line is and what the purpose of any film is.

In the end, I view the LOTR as a magnificent tale told by two different story tellers using two very different mediums. The story tellers are divided my more than half a century in time, and separated by different sides of the world. One had complete control of their end of the tale while the other had to work within from an established and beloved template and within a corporate and team concept. One had to answer to only himself since it was his own creation. The other had to answer to a host of masters, some of which had far different agendas.

So we end up with two LOTRs. The books and the films. Of course the books are THE LOTR. No doubt about that. The films are merely an adaption and can never supplant or gain the authenticity of the books. But having said that, the films are out there and were most likely seen by more people than who have read the books. In the minds of many, the LOTR has become the films. The story as portrayed in those films - for some viewers - is the LOTR. Sheer numbers have made it so.

The books are dearly loved by me ever since I read them right out of college in 1971. Among my most valued and treasured possessions are first editions - US sadly - of both THE HOBBIT and each of the three volumes of LOTR. I have the record album of THE POEMS AND SONGS OF MIDDLE EARTH with the actual signature of JRRT himself that came from the collection of a very well known and legitimate collector. I have lost count of how many times I have read the books and THE SILMARILLION over the last 36 years. And I have in the same room, shelf upon shelf of stuff from the films. I love and appreciate both for what they are.

The same story told by two different storytellers each emphasizing different parts and different characters but largely the same. At least, that is how I see it.

In reading many posts over the last six years on many sites, it is obvious that some people do not see it that way at all. And that is fine.

The one area we can debate about seems to be the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STW
Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

from littlemanpoet
What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Ends justifying the means? Who knows? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I certainly do not believe in cutting off peoples limbs but I certainly can also concede the need for it given certain medical situations. Lots of things are like that. The older I get, the less I cling to rigid principles, absolute black-and-white right and wrongs, clear cut moral choices and all that.

If we are going to engage in a discussion as to IF Jackson lied and seduced Tolkien fans with his early remarks it would probably be a good idea to find those exact remarks and reproduce them. To accuse someone of "base betrayal" is a pretty damning charge. I give you credit with the comparison to Saruman - its very cute and clever but we both know that Jackson is not Saruman or any such creature. He is a filmmaker who took on a task that even JRRT himself that was not possible. Jackson is not evil in the sense that Saruman was.

You ask if I think PJ was guilty of that. NO. What I do think happened was that Jackson wanted to make the best series of films he could that made the most money both for his studio and for himself. To do that he did not want to alienate hardcore and longtime Tolkien fans. He tried to enlist their support early on. Did he lie? Dunno. Does everybody "lie" when they promise to love someone forever and then things end sadly apart? A lie is not the words but what is in the heart as the words are spoken. Only Jackson knows what his intentions were.

Based on all the stuff I have read and watching all those features on the DVD's, it is my individual opinion that Jackson tried to satisfy all his constituencies as best he could given the realities of the situation. And that would include Tolkien fans.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny.

This is a sore point with me that you may have seen on another thread here. Having been a long distance runner for the past thirty plus years, the idea of an untrained dwarf running 140 miles in three days over rough terrain is simply ludicrous beyond anything remotely approaching reality. Sure, JRRT throws in the obligatory comments from other characters to help explain and justify the superdwarf feat that Gimli is undertaking, but its absurd just the same. And I do not give a single whit about how "hardy" or "strong" dwarves are. Running and especially ultralong distance running - is a world of its own that has nothing to do with strength or hardiness. I do not view the handling of that three day run any better in the film than it was in the books. But at least in the film we were spared a daily listing of milage which only added to the impossibility of it all .

from Boromir 88

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

I would mostly agree with your statement here. I too enjoyed the book Boromir more after seeing the films and picked up far more of the subtle nuances that Tolkien employed in his devolopemnt. If the film helped make that possible for both you and I, as well as others, then it is saying something very positive. You make a good point about the childish of Boromir being contrasted with is later growth as a character and that is valid. However, in the films, we have several other characters, dare I say more important characters, in their own stages of growth and development. Perhaps Jackosn felt that you could only have so much growth and development in changing characters and some had to be more constant. Especially in a character who is around for pretty much only the first film.

from Boromir88

Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Well, at least he had some explaination for it..... and I say that a bit sheepishly. There are mistakes both in the book and in the films and this could well be one of them. I do think that given the physical gifts of the Elves, you can make a far more rational and logical case for a squadron of trained Elven warriors to make that journey than you can for a squat, chunky untrained dwarf. But I do understand the point and concede some of its validity. I do think - and some will crucify me for this - that there is a "now thats cool" factor in movies. When we see something totally cool - like the Elves marching into Helms Deep - it aids to our willing suspension of disbelief and we push those nagging milage questions to the back of our mind. Perhaps only to be resurrected a few years later on sites like this one.

from Boromir88

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there.

Nice to see we agree on the film TB- or non-TB. I realize that this thread is not the place to discuss TB in detail. Perhaps you can refer me to where this has already been hashed out? Having read the books countless times I still see no actual purpose in him. If you excise him from the tale and come up with a different way to save the hobbits from the barrow wights, what is lost? Is that TBs main purpose? If not what is it?

from Boromir88

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that).

If that is happeneing, then it is sad that they do not see the beauty, depth and complexity that the books offer. I quickly concede the point that there is much more action and fighting in the films than in the books. But I thinks its an unfair oversimplification to hang the label of a mere action flick on the films. Just yesterday I was watching FOTR with my six year old grandson and the amount of slash'em up fighting is rather small. There are large portions of the film which move rather slowly and have nothing to do with violence or fighting. Of course, the battles are the set pieces of the last two films, but we still have lots and lots of exposition, character development and other bits of business that the standard thud and blunder film never has.

Again, the books are one thing. The films are quite another. I am glad to see there is some middle ground here for many of us.

[alatar]

Catching up a bit:

• Boromir, the more I read this thread, sounds a lot like Turin "I wanna build a bridge" Turambar in they both wanted what they wanted now...or else there's going to be some complaining. I agree that not only did Sean Bean's/PJ'S Boromir come off better than in the books - and the EE version added to that - but placing the Steward's son's death in FotR was a great idea. Score one for the Anti-Purists!

• Can't remember in which post it appeared, but think that I been told that certain changes had to be made to update the material from whenever it was written into today's language. And yet when I propose Gollum as a normal gent who suddenly splits his personality to deal with a horrible trauma (he lost a friend for gosh sakes! ), I'm told that this is not the deep character that could have been. So I'll retract that theory and add this one, based a little more on Peter Jackson's words: Smeagol/Gollum is an addict. The Ring, the "drug" effects all, but like the real world some fall sooner than others. Was Smeagol more animal that hobbit in that his id was more control than his superego, making him more open to the call? Gandalf had the sense to not touch the thing; if he did, would he have been quickly ensnared?

• The elves left for Helm's Deep while Galadriel was waving. Celeborn, having seen the future of Middle Earth in the hands of Pippin, thought that he'd better send help south as soon as possible.

• The elves were one of PJ's experiments. We judge the results of that experiment by (1) its result and (2) by what we already know. I was fine with PJ placing elves at Helm's Deep - initially. Couldn't help but feel emotional when Aragorn hugs Haldir. So far, so good. But when the elves rush an enemy when they have arrows to burn, and when none survive (and are quickly forgotten) then I'd have to say that PJ was careless with his thinking. I'm all for trying the new, but he could at least follow through. Given the result, I would leave them out. Score one for the Purists!

• More about the running. Back in the day, we were conscripted into going on these walkathons where we'd get people to give us money for each mile/kilometer that we successfully walked. This money was then donated to charity. So we'd walk, and the first mile was like, "We're walking! We're walking!" while the later miles weren't so Yellow Brick Road and Dorothy-like. My shoes were the cheapest that my parents could afford, and my one relief was extra socks. So, on all occasions I was able to make the 18-20 mile (29-32 km) walks. Afterwards I was sore - which I guess was the point of it all - and we would complain the next day at school about what a big adventure the whole deal was. During the event, note that some passed us by like we were walking with cinder blocks attached to our legs, as they made the mileage in much less time. Now, here's how my brain works: if I can complete a distance of whatever miles in so much time, having no training, no professional equipment/support and definitely no sense, what could someone in the top 1% of all walkathoners of the world do?

• The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

• What did Gollum want with the Ring? In the movie, as stated, it's shiny and he wants it. After this, he uses it as a way to eat (I think), but with the exception of getting him into the Books and Movies by giving him something to lose and pursue, what does the Ring do for Gollum?

• And lastly, regardless of Gollum, elves at Helm's Deep, Boromir and Faramir et al, PJ made successful films, and yet we will not ever know how much more or less successful if he were to have done it my way (which, of course, is the only right way of doing things).

[Sauron the White]

Oh Alatar... you take a great step forward but then.....

The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

Walking 20 miles in one day and then resting your tired cinder-block legs for the next few days is light years different than an untrained, stocky, short-legged dwarf running 140 miles over three days time. Lottery? Allow me to quote the great Robert DeNiro in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this." We are not talking about the lottery or odds of anything. We are talking about the possibility or not of a four foot dwarf weighing some 200 pounds carrying weapons and wearing heavy boots, without running training, running 1.6 marathons each day for three straight days. It simply is not in the cards - to keep with your gambling metaphor.

JRRT was a wise man who knew lots of things. He was a great writer. But he didn't know squat about long distance running or how the human body and its muscles work.

I can concede the Elf ---- and maybe under the really right conditions Aragorn IF we infer that he has been racking up great distances striding around for years and call that long distance training. I can meet you two thirds of the way in this. But the Dwarf. NEVER!!!!!!

[Quempel]

*pop*

Where does it say in the movies or books that Gimli was an out of shape, non-trained coach potato? Tolkien said that dwarfs were hardy....And by the time the three had taken up the chase, hadn't Gimli actually walked a long way, say from Moria to Rivendale and from Rivendale back to Moria by way of the mountain tops?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

I've anticipated your reply as in rereading my post I can see where I wasn't clear. Anyway, so here we go again:

One day a long time ago in class a friend of mine was rubbing her hands in a pained way. Seems that her fingers hurt, and this did not bode well as we were in a sign language class, and that required the use of one's fingers. I asked if she were okay, and she said that her arthritis was acting up. It was then that the conversation got interesting.

"Can't figure out why it's acting up...I've been eating peanut butter."

My brain stopped for a moment and reanalyzed what I thought that I'd heard. I checked the tape; yes she was somehow saying that peanut butter would help her joints. Sure, peanut butter, as far as I knew, wasn't bad, but somehow I guessed that she meant more than eating protein was good. So I asked.

My friend looked at me as if I were stupid and replied, "Peanut butter has oil in it. "

I must have still looked incredulous, so she continued, "The nuns told me that to prevent arthritis I should eat peanut butter." I figured that the nuns were just trying to get someone to eat peanut butter and found a lever in which to move one person. I asked by which mechanism peanut butter worked, and she explained, matter-the-factly that the oil therein lubricated joints, and with the quantity of peanut butter she was consuming, her joints should not be stiff.

She was and is a dear friend, and so I gently let her know that this isn't how it works.

Anyway, what does peanut butter oil have to do with Gollum/Smeagol and running? Little, but the point it that people see something - a creaky door hinge - and extrapolate from there. My friend, I think, saw the door hinge, saw how oiling it made it better, saw the hinges in her hands, knew that there is oil in peanut butter, added 2 + 2 and arrived at 22.

Tolkien gets us to 22 by choosing careful data from which to extrapolate - to go beyond the data. I can run so far (and though I am taller, not every reader obviously is, and just how much smaller do I see Gimli as being, having a mental and not real image with which to compare?) in a day. Aragorn and company are proved heroes. I've already bought the farm, and so 22.

Yes, I know you'll say 4, and in math/running/physiology/reality I agree, but Tolkien still gets most people to 22, and that's why he's one of the best. If PJ had Smeagol/Gollum wear a goofy hat each time the personality changed, the average viewer would add 2 +2 and get 4, then subtract 4 for stupidity.

0.