Age change in Théoden

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If you have something to say, please, get it off your chest, step up to the mic and say it loud and proud. I am not a child and can take it. Just so nobody jumps to any conclusions, please provide me with a link to where you brought this up five years ago so we can put that charge to rest and move on.

I said what I needed to say. However, what I meant there was that - I do not think vulgarity would be welcome at the Downs. Vulgarity it would be. I am sure you are not alien to such a thing, acting like you do, correct?

Perhaps you are inexperienced or very young and do not know how these things work so allow me to help you acquire some basic understanding. You ask me to show you a negative..... something that does NOT happen. You will discover that one cannot prove a negative. In point of fact, and it has already been brought out here by others, Bernard Hill was an actor approaching sixty years old - fifty-eight to be exact. At the time of his death in the books, I believe Theoden was seventy-two. Both were indeed older men in the last section of thie lives. And Hill did portray an older man, enfeebled by Saruman, who was facing the challenges of his own doubts about his rule and place with his ancestors who he believed were superior to him.

Pray tell what you are trying to preach. They could have made Hill's hair grey and his beard longer. They chose not to - therefore, although he was old, he was not accurately portrayed appearance wise - I said nothing about character wise.

Thats okay . People often find it very difficult to laugh or even smile at themselves and their own foibles. You would not be the first to have that charteristic. Its okay.

I simply find you a nuisance. There is nothing to laugh at - I proposed a question and expected members to post their thoughts - not preach on how good the movies are, like you always seem to do.

I do not have to spend lengthy time telling you why the changes were made and certainly do not want to turn blue. Its obvious why the changes were made to anyone with an IQ above 75 --- a book and a film are two different things with different constructions, characteristics, demands and ways to tell a story. That should be obvious and a point which is made in mere seconds.

Wow, good one. Again...shocker.

Overall however, the films are a spectacular achievement.

Who said that they weren't? Wow, again, off the subject.

[Sauron the White]

MatthewM ... my initial point to you was a very simple one. I said that your observation about the age of Theoden could not have been too damaging to the films success since it took you five years to come up with the point. You said I was mistaken, that it had not taken you five years. I then asked you very clearly

please provide me with a link to where you brought this up five years ago so we can put that charge to rest and move on.

Of course, you failed to produce this which confirms my original suspicion that this is something that just dawned on you and is not really a very serious problem with the films. After all, it sat there for five years.

I have no idea what you are alluding to about vulgarity. Why would you need to be vulgar when we are discussing something like this?

You claim that my repeated statement that a book is one thing while a film is quite another is something that you well know. In fact you say

Wow, good one. Again...shocker

Your attempt at some level of sarcasm fails because of one very damning fact. It was you, in your original post, who said

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It is you - MatthewM - who brought up the comparison on what the book says and what the movie shows and then casts negativity upon the movie because, in your opinion, the movie changed something.

If you know that books are one thing and films are another, why are you comparing two very different things?

And even now, in your very latest post, you still continue to do it even though you maintain that you know the difference:

They could have made Hill's hair grey and his beard longer. They chose not to - therefore, although he was old, he was not accurately portrayed appearance wise

Accurately portrayed????? By what standard of measurement are you judging accuracy? Obviously from the holding up of the book to the film. You claim you know the difference and attack me for constantly reminding people of it but you slip back into error even now.

Its interesting to note that your assesment of age difference was off by many years. Bernard Hill was 14 years younger than Theoden. Your high end estimate of 30 years difference was off by a factor of over 100%. Even though your comparison serves no point, you were not even correct in the factual assumption you made. Even that was incorrect.

As a personal aside to you, its sad that you could not notice my closing comments in my post to you since I was attempting to show you that there is common ground between us. I agreed with several of your statements and even went further agreeing that Jackson was not perfect and has flaws in his films.

I have never met you or talked to you or exchanged any mails with you. However, you do strike me as either a much younger person who has some insecurity problems or a person with some anger issues. You can post any way you decide to post. I would think a little less personal anger would go much further to making your point about salient issues.

[Gwathagor]

MatthewM: I, too, find StW a nuisance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

MatthewM: I, too, find StW a nuisance.

I think you're being slightly unfair there - STW judges the quality of the movies based on how much money they've made & how many people know of them.

This is a valid approach - its fairly obvious that if you apply the same criteria in judging people you find that those who are rich & famous are in every way superior to those who are poor & unknown ...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

There's no need for this silliness. I've just been on another website which allows comments and the aggression there was pitiful to see. Let's talk nicely.

I for one have no problem with the appearance of film-Théoden. To me, Bernard Hill was a perfectly fine old man to play the part. I would have thought that, out of everyone, it would be our older Downers who saw such differences in age.

The issue of Frodo's age (as well as his differences in age with the other hobbits) seems like a more interesting topic.

There are far more annoying things about the films. Even if I loved every part of the films, though, I wouldn't mind one bit about Théoden's 'youth'.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

I think you're being slightly unfair there - STW judges the quality of the movies based on how much money they've made & how many people know of them.

This is a valid approach - its fairly obvious that if you apply the same criteria in judging people you find that those who are rich & famous are in every way superior to those who are poor & unknown ...

Unless that was sarcasm, I find your comment on StW both unfounded and insulting. I could counter by saying that many purists tend to judge people's level of competency(both in general and with regards to Tolkien lore) based on whether or not they support the movies. I remember readng purist comments like '80% of movie viewers are Aragorn/Legolas fangirls, it'll died down eventually' and 'there's no point teaching class to the classless' on various internet forums in past years.

Worst of all are those purists who pretend to be guardians of JRRT's legacy and adopt a patronising tone towards movieists, only to embarrass themselves by showing that they often know less than the movieists(not here, places like the Tolkien forum).

Now I guess I'm a nuisance for purists too.

Now back on topic. Like Eomer of the Rohirrim said, Bernard Hill is perfectly fine as Theoden. He's still an old man, and his acting performance more than makes up for the difference in appearance. BTW, did the books ever say that Theoden had grey hair?

EDIT: BTW, davem, my post may have seemed too inflammatory. I have nothing personal against you; I just thought your criticism of STW was unfair and was defending him.

[A Little Green]

Excuse me, all of you, but I must say I just hate the way so many threads seem to end up in the purist/movieist -debate. I see the debate as entirely pointless and indeed ridiculous. As an outside watcher, I find it weird that a question as simple and neutral as Théoden's age should be transformed into insults, anger, and evil jokes.

I, for my part, think Bernard Hill was an excellent Théoden, and the role was nice and whole. Anyway, the question I think was not on whether Bernard Hill succeeded as Théoden but rather why wasn't he made older. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

BTW, did the books ever say that Theoden had grey hair?

Not exactly grey, but yes, it does say he had white hair and beard. Here's the passage:

Upon it sat a man so bent with age that he seemed almost a dwarf; but his white hair was long and thick and fell in great braids from beneath a thin golden circlet set upon his brow.

[Sauron the White]

from A Little Green

Anyway, the question I think was not on whether Bernard Hill succeeded as Théoden but rather why wasn't he made older. Simple as that.

And why should he be made to be older when Hill as Theoden was already depicted as old?

The implication does not even have to be surmised as the answer is directly in the first post by MatthewM to begin this thread

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It right there clear as crystal. The poster is comparing the Theoden of the book to the Theoden of the movie. That is his standard and that is the basis upon which he frames his question.

One cannot judge the qualities and success of one medium by applying standards
and qualities of quite another. That is fundamentally flawed and unfair. It serves no end or purpose but one: to continue a debate which you yourself characterize as pointless and ridiculous.

In point of fact, the real question is indeed whether Theoden as portrayed in the film worked in the context of the medium of film.