Age change in Théoden

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One cannot judge the qualities and success of one medium by applying standards
and qualities of quite another. That is fundamentally flawed and unfair

Balderdash! (pronounced to rhyme with 'pullfit').

It's just a threadbare excuse with which to counter all criticism of the films' many failings. Rot. An adaptation's success as an adaptation is fair game.

If you want to give some substance to this nebulous axiom, StW, then tell us *why* this different medium requires this change. Go on, tell us. Otherwise it's just empty handwaving.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I asked you before, and asked davem also, but you failed to reply. So I ask again. Where can you cite an objective and authoritative source on film who will tell us that the standard to judge a films quality or success is its slavish adherence to the book from which it is adapted?

Where is this found?

What film expert or film critic maintains this absurdity?

You guys do make up your own rules as you go along.

And why the deterioration of civility? You clearly now want to use the more base term for male cow drippings

Balderdash! (pronounced to rhyme with 'pullfit').

MatthewM has to use terms like "hate" and says he would love to resort to vulgarity.

Vulgarity it would be.

Cannot we reason together like civilized persons?

[Gwathagor]

StW: feel free to start a new thread which deals with, as you put it, "the real question".