Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

I think the movies are still by far better than the books

I'm guessing that, considering that you have read the books, you read them only after seeing the movies numerous times. If that's true, I can understand you - just like I am mad every time the movies differ from the books, you are probably mad about how the books differ from the movies.

But the books are still better.

[sassyfriend]

You are right about me seeing the movies first but no i'm not mad just kinda let down by some of the stuff in the books for example Boromir....

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

You are right about me seeing the movies first but no i'm not mad just kinda let down by some of the stuff in the books for example Boromir....

Well, that's interesting... As a "book fan", I don't see how this could work...Boromir certainly adds dimention to the books not ony plot-wise but also character-wise... I'm really curious about your point of view.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Well, that's interesting... As a "book fan", I don't see how this could work...Boromir certainly adds dimention to the books not ony plot-wise but also character-wise... I'm really curious about your point of view.

Well, it's hard to say, because sassyfriend doesn't elaborate, but since he (she?) came to the fandom from the Movies, it would make sense that she (he?) was disappointed with Boromir's characterization in the Books as compared with how he was portrayed in the Movies. I think we've probably got to have threads on this forum somewhere already that argue about how faithfully Sean Bean's Boromir imitates Tolkien, and which is superior or preferred--and I'm CERTAIN there are a variety of opinions on the matter, though I get the feeling the consensus generally was that Tolkien's Boromir did not, on first glance, seem as noble as Bean/Jackson's.

Assuming I read this consensus right, it makes sense that someone starting with the Movies would find Tolkien's Boromir less... erm... "satisfying" is the wrong word... "noble," maybe?

That said, I echo G55 in saying I'd like to hear more of what sassyfriend is getting at.

[Formendacil]

As this is unrelated to the previous post, I'm going to commit the (hopefully venial) sin of double-posting. After writing the former, narrowly interested reply to G55 and sassyfriend, and having a full day of "nothing" *coughs* before my fall semester commences on Thursday, I read back through the entire thread, and thought it was about time I replied. The truly amusing thing about this read was the fact that the early parts of this retrospective, from when it started in 2007, read to me almost exactly like debates from right when the movies were new. Apparently more than not-quite-four years needed to elapse after the theatrical release of RotK before fandom was ready to talk about them more dispassionately. In any case, the posts from 2010 onward read almost like a different thread...

For myself, I was a Tolkien fan before the movies came out. I first read The Hobbit at age 11 and the LotR followed almost immediately, with The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales right behind. I admit that these latter were a real slog for an 11-year-old, but by the time the movie-FotR was about to be released, I was not-quite-15, and had read all the HoME that I could find in the local library and had started the process of collecting them for myself.

Bearing this in mind, and remembering that I was 14-almost-15, it's not to be surprised that I *had* to see the movies when they came out. I don't think there was a bigger Tolkien nut in Small Town, Alberta at that point, and if there was, I would have been sulky about it. I distinctly remember the utter fear that the movie adaptation would *RUIN* my favourite obsession, and being completely torn between wanting it to be an utter, validating success, and wanting no one to go see it and ruin the exclusive hold to "expert" that I held over a wonderful world.

Of course, no one could be allowed to see it before I did, so I was there in line for the very first local showing, two hours in the cold of a Canadian December (mercifully clement for that land), and another hour waiting in the theatre, getting hyper on over-priced drinks and candy.

Almost ten years later, it's kind of funny to look back at how obsessively afraid I was that the movies would be utterly terrible--or worse, terrible AND popular. I'm still a Tolkien nut; still probably the biggest Tolkien nut in the circles I usually frequent (and these circles include more Tolkien nuts than they used to)... and I almost never think of the movies. At the time I was afraid they would change my mental pictures forever, afraid they would ruin my enjoyment forever... things have come a long way.

Of course, the past decade has also been the transition from being fourteen to being twenty-four, and it's eminently possible that I've grown up, and that that has made all the difference--and, to be sure, much of the mellowness I feel towards Jackson's movies has a lot to do with the fact that I am no longer a teenager (not to disparage teens, but it was true about ME, perhaps...).

At the same time, however, the passage of ten years has allowed the hype of the movies to have crested and ebbed. Quite apart from destroying fandom, the tidal wave of the movies dragged in all sorts of interesting flotsam and jetsam in terms of new fans, and in no way "destroyed" Middle-earth. There has not been, as I almost feared, a "novelisation of the movie" to supplant Tolkien's masterpiece.

Perhaps, after a decade, what I think now is that the movies were ultimately forgettable. I could (and do) go on a long tangent about the pros and cons of different parts of the movies, but the point at the very end would be the same: at the end of it all, I feel a lot more charitable to the movies than I feared before them (and, after the euphoria of just watching them, tended to feel bitterly for sometime thereafter), but they've lost their grip on me. The movies were a monumental explosion of light, but it was ultimately just a gigantic flash in the pan.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The truly amusing thing about this read was the fact that the early parts of this retrospective, from when it started in 2007, read to me almost exactly like debates from right when the movies were new.

I remember the first debates with real nostalgia. That was a lot of fun.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I distinctly remember the utter fear that the movie adaptation would *RUIN* my favourite obsession, and being completely torn between wanting it to be an utter, validating success, and wanting no one to go see it and ruin the exclusive hold to "expert" that I held over a wonderful world.

And there, in a nutshell, are what it was claimed anyone against the movies must have based their feelings on. For me, at least, it wasn't quite like that.

I looked at the movies with a jaundiced eye from the start. That stemmed from a basic conviction that movies, as a whole, are an inferior form of entertainment compared to books. I wasn't enthused at all. I didn't think seeing someone else's vision of the books brought to "reality" was necessary. I knew nothing anyone could produce, no matter how expensively done, could surpass, or even augment, the scenes in my mind. So my thought was : "Why bother"?

Second, while I didn't fear the story would be "ruined", I was convinced fundamental things would be changed, and again, I had no interest in seeing that done.

Thirdly, I despised the inevitable commercialization that would follow the movies. McDonald's collectibles, action figures, and all that.

But, people said, the movies would have an upside, in that some who hadn't read the books would be induced to do so after seeing the movies. I was rather sceptical, even though I'm sure that has indeed been the case for a few. And another part of me railed that that would even be necessary. Such great books, and people won't pay any attention to them unless there's a Hollywood blockbuster associated? I thought that was a bloody shame, and I still do.

I've heard the arguments; books and movies are different, can't hold them to the same standards, one can enjoy both, ad infinitum. Personally, I'll take a book over a movie any time.

All that said, I did see the movies, sort of. My girlfriend, who later became my wife, wanted to see FOTR, so we did. I ended up sleeping through about a third of it, though a few pints of the local 1420 I'd had with dinner might have had something to do with that. I do remember seeing Arwen show up in place of Glorfindel, rolling my eyes at the exchanges between her and Aragorn, and the ludicrous alteration to the scene at the Ford of Bruinen. After that, it's sort of a blur.

We did see the other two movies as well. At this late date, however, I don't remember much about those excursions. I recall the bits in Two Towers with Arwen rescuing Aragorn who had fallen from his horse (), and the (Lórien!) elves showing up at Helm's Deep, and those are good enough examples of what I thought from the start the movies would be up to.

We now have all three on DVD, but I've never watched them all the way through. I start thinking "There has to be something better I can be doing", and I wander off.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Almost ten years later, it's kind of funny to look back at how obsessively afraid I was that the movies would be utterly terrible--or worse, terrible AND popular. I'm still a Tolkien nut; still probably the biggest Tolkien nut in the circles I usually frequent (and these circles include more Tolkien nuts than they used to)... and I almost never think of the movies. At the time I was afraid they would change my mental pictures forever, afraid they would ruin my enjoyment forever... things have come a long way.

I was never "afraid" of the movies; I just thought them unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps, after a decade, what I think now is that the movies were ultimately forgettable. I could (and do) go on a long tangent about the pros and cons of different parts of the movies, but the point at the very end would be the same: at the end of it all, I feel a lot more charitable to the movies than I feared before them (and, after the euphoria of just watching them, tended to feel bitterly for sometime thereafter), but they've lost their grip on me. The movies were a monumental explosion of light, but it was ultimately just a gigantic flash in the pan.

"Forgettable", indeed. Yet, they certainly have their enduring fans, and in that PJ at least has been wildly successful. All I can do is quote Jean Brodie: "For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like."

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Assuming I read this consensus right, it makes sense that someone starting with the Movies would find Tolkien's Boromir less... erm... "satisfying" is the wrong word... "noble," maybe?

How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

[sassyfriend]

I love that part too. And that is exactly what i was trying to say, alatar. To me he just seems more loveable. In the book he just seems very unkind to everyone. Its strange he cried for Gandalf in the book but in the movie i don't find it strange at all.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

In the book he just seems very unkind to everyone.

Well, you could say this: Ugluk is also very unkind to everyone, but I hope you won't put him on level with the book-Boromir. He's not unkind just for the sake of it. He's not ungentle for the sake of being rough. He has more to his character than you put on. He's much deeper, and his motivations much more complex.

I don't believe that he was there "just to provide some drama". As I said, he is very important both plot-wise and character-wise to the story. It's like he doesn't die until the very end.

But that is just one character. Is that enough to completely ruin a read?


I first watched the movies when I was around six. My only reaction was WOW. They were cool. Not that I really understood anything, but they were cool. Shelob's lair was my favourite part, and the troll (he's not a troll! He's an orc! - I scream now) who jumped out at Frodo in Moria always scared me, even long after I knew that he was gonna do that. I probably had more impressions, but these are the only ones that I remember now.

I don't jump in my seat when the troll comes out anymore. I kinda miss that. And once I began actually understanding both the books and the movies, I came to like the book just that much more. Maybe I'm in the same situation as the almost-15-year-old-Formy, and my passion for PJ-hating will fall away. We'll see in a decade. But for now, books over movies without a doubt.

Edit: xed with Zil

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

He glorified the wrong guy.

You mak a really valid point. And maybe even glorifying Aragorn "in battle" isn't enough.

I daresay that Aragorn and Boromir are equals when it comes to strength and fighting skills and that sort of thing. (Reminds me of that passage on Caradhras, where one is described to be broader in the shoulders but the other taller... so different, but equal...) Nonetheless, Boromir dropped his pride and let Aragorn take the lead. It wasn't only because of Aragorn's high title (kings of Gondor scorned Arnorians before, so why not follow suit?). It was more because Aragorn was, well, Aragorn. It's the inner him that is superior over Boromir. He's glorified from the inside, if that makes sense.

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

By the way, nice new siggy, Bb!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

A reader needs to be able to connect with the characters in the story. I'd never connected with Boromir, as he just seemed bratty and headstrong. The movies have helped me take a second look.

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Did not Boromir return at Parth Galen, even when the entire Fellowship was against him? Even when he sinned?

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

I was just talking about that this morning with the kids.

To quote Nickelback, "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait." For some reason, this seems appropriate.

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

I now understand his 'story,' his motivations, and he seems less of a cardboard cutout antagonist ("Boromir want Ring. Want Ring now!") and more the proto-Sam who sacrifices/overcomes.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

The movie is a bit messed up, and I may have written on that somewhere.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

Definitely not!