This right here has been one of my main issues with the movies!!!! Ahhhh, drives me CRAZY.Solo Tetherball Champ said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Y'all should be happy that both the books and movies are masterpieces in their own right.
See: Game of Thrones, S7-8
Key example: Aragorn is transformed into a reluctant hero, leader, boyfriend. Why is that a poor change? Well, now every other human character down a peg or two (Denethor becomes a buffoon, Theoden is weak, Faramir is a worse Boromir, etc) so Aragorn can still look good in the comparison, undermining one of the key themes of "all we have to do is decide what to do with the time given". Note that in the book everyone is proactive, driving and manipulating Sauron all along, whereas in the films the good guys are pretty reactive with the actions of Sauron moving the plot along.
***** The Lord of the Rings: Official Thread *****
231,759 Views |
1954 Replies |
Last: 20 days ago by Al Bula
I think this is well said and is what always kept me from being totally in love with the films.Quote:
I understand that stuff will be changed, amended, or even excised in an adaption. I can't fault anyone for leaving something like Bombadil out of a narrative. What bothers me is how things are changed. Little things like "how" and "why" make all the difference, not just the "what".
Key example: Aragorn is transformed into a reluctant hero, leader, boyfriend. Why is that a poor change? Well, now every other human character down a peg or two (Denethor becomes a buffoon, Theoden is weak, Faramir is a worse Boromir, etc) so Aragorn can still look good in the comparison, undermining one of the key themes of "all we have to do is decide what to do with the time given". Note that in the book everyone is proactive, driving and manipulating Sauron all along, whereas in the films the good guys are pretty reactive with the actions of Sauron moving the plot along.
I'd never described it like you did, but I think you're right. For example, it always bothered me that the plan to take the ring from The Shire to Rivendell which was developed over the course of a year was condensed down into a "holy crap we gotta get the hell outta here!" situation in the movie.
Just feel like in the books the actions of the heroes in the book were always very deliberate.
In the books, Merry and Pippin were secretly plotting to help Frodo take the ring to Rivendell. In the movies they literally ran into him on the road.
Treebeard rallies the ents to action in the book. In the movie the hobbits almost trick him into it by taking him past Isengard.
Never thought of it like you described it but I think that's maybe part of the vibe that the movies didn't capture.
But why would anyone do that? You wouldn't just watch Empire Strikes Back and nothing else. Or see just the middle few episode of a limited series.redline248 said:
As a full trilogy, yes the movies approach masterpiece status. When viewed by itself, The Two Towers falls way short of that label.
I just enjoy them independent of each other. That is the point of my post.
Some things work better in film than in book narrative.
Edit: Also, funny that we're back around to the same discussion. Was reading the early pages of this thread and this exact same conversation was already had. Tends to happen on these long threads. Man...we need that series to drop like now.
Some things work better in film than in book narrative.
Edit: Also, funny that we're back around to the same discussion. Was reading the early pages of this thread and this exact same conversation was already had. Tends to happen on these long threads. Man...we need that series to drop like now.
My point is the other 2 pull Two Towers up, a bit. But you have to watch that one to complete the full story, and when I watch that one I think about how much worse it is.Brian Earl Spilner said:But why would anyone do that? You wouldn't just watch Empire Strikes Back and nothing else. Or see just the middle few episode of a limited series.redline248 said:
As a full trilogy, yes the movies approach masterpiece status. When viewed by itself, The Two Towers falls way short of that label.
I would agree that it's the least good, but it's also got the toughest role since it's the middle chapter without a beginning or end.
Helm's Deep was a great climax though. And we get a great character arc for Theoden, which really culminates in ROTK.
But that said, I still think it's a fantastic movie in its own right, and still better than 99% of other blockbusters. Really my main issue is that the middle act of the movie does drag a bit with Merry/Pippin in Fangorn Forest, and the trek to Helm's Deep.
Helm's Deep was a great climax though. And we get a great character arc for Theoden, which really culminates in ROTK.
But that said, I still think it's a fantastic movie in its own right, and still better than 99% of other blockbusters. Really my main issue is that the middle act of the movie does drag a bit with Merry/Pippin in Fangorn Forest, and the trek to Helm's Deep.
But they never tried to make the book work. Thats the point of my post. They took the "what" of the narrative but overhauled the "why" and "how".Brian Earl Spilner said:
I just enjoy them independent of each other. That is the point of my post.
Some things work better in film than in book narrative.
A committed Aragorn could work. So could a competent Denethor, or a warrior-king Theoden, a less passive Frodo, etc. But that requires more effort on the part of the screenwriters and less time devoted to the battles and action sequences that dominate the run time of the movies.
Maybe one day we can see a long-form adaption of the material.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I just enjoy them independent of each other. That is the point of my post.
Some things work better in film than in book narrative.
Edit: Also, funny that we're back around to the same discussion. Was reading the early pages of this thread and this exact same conversation was already had. Tends to happen on these long threads. Man...we need that series to drop like now.
I've deleted a few replies that I started typing to try and keep it from devolving to here.
But gotdang LOTR vs Peter Jackson vs GRRM...it was very very difficult.
Quote:
Edit: Also, funny that we're back around to the same discussion. Was reading the early pages of this thread and this exact same conversation was already had. Tends to happen on these long threads. Man...we need that series to drop like now.
Right? We need this new show to drop or some actual concrete info to dissect. Trailer, characters, etc.
Oh, by the way if anyone is on twitter/YouTube/reddit, you should check out this guy called "Fellowship of Fans". He is very dialed in to the production and has produced a lot of great information.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I would agree that it's the least good, but it's also got the toughest role since it's the middle chapter without a beginning or end.
Helm's Deep was a great climax though. And we get a great character arc for Theoden, which really culminates in ROTK.
But that said, I still think it's a fantastic movie in its own right, and still better than 99% of other blockbusters. Really my main issue is that the middle act of the movie does drag a bit with Merry/Pippin in Fangorn Forest, and the trek to Helm's Deep.
Had a friend tell me the same thing about The Two Towers dragging a bit. All I could think was "this is the same guy that read the ASOIAF books and watched the seasons of GOT ,where nothing happened for episodes at a time, and thought those slow episodes were brilliant". It's kind of amusing, the standards people hold movies to compared to TV series.
I love the movies and they are my all-time favorite trilogy even more than SW. However, I last read LOTR probably 35 years ago, so I don't recall of the nuance from the books. I'm concerned that re-reading the books may drop the movies in my eyes, but oh well.
Meh.
All of that is fine to have a problem with. At the end of the day, taken as a separate work of cinema, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece in film-making.
Again, you can find other parts on this thread where I say one of the reasons the TT and RotK fell in my mind is the number of deviances from the book, and specifically how they were handled. It doesn't take away from the achievement that is the movie trilogy.
The first thing I do when considering the changes is ask, "was this done to be more broadly accepted, and would it have affected its reception if done differently?"
I agree, having Denethor be absolutely useless for no apparent reason is a serious plot hole, for me. At the very least, give him the Palantir in the movie and play on a narrative that he had just given into despair and given up. That at least seals up the plot hole of leaving his entire country defenseless.
Faramir being completely neutered has always rubbed me the wrong way.
The change in Aragorn just doesn't bother me at all. I never even think about it, when watching the movies. He is still a badass and is perfectly played by Viggo Mortenson, imo. Showing Gandalf dehorsed by the Witch King, who then proceeds to break his staff is MUCH greater of a sin for me than the slight shift in Aragorn's character.
All of that is fine to have a problem with. At the end of the day, taken as a separate work of cinema, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece in film-making.
Again, you can find other parts on this thread where I say one of the reasons the TT and RotK fell in my mind is the number of deviances from the book, and specifically how they were handled. It doesn't take away from the achievement that is the movie trilogy.
The first thing I do when considering the changes is ask, "was this done to be more broadly accepted, and would it have affected its reception if done differently?"
I agree, having Denethor be absolutely useless for no apparent reason is a serious plot hole, for me. At the very least, give him the Palantir in the movie and play on a narrative that he had just given into despair and given up. That at least seals up the plot hole of leaving his entire country defenseless.
Faramir being completely neutered has always rubbed me the wrong way.
The change in Aragorn just doesn't bother me at all. I never even think about it, when watching the movies. He is still a badass and is perfectly played by Viggo Mortenson, imo. Showing Gandalf dehorsed by the Witch King, who then proceeds to break his staff is MUCH greater of a sin for me than the slight shift in Aragorn's character.
Yeah... but that's the same thing in the book. I laugh out loud in the extended editions when Treebeard is saying his poetry. Such a boring part of the book and wish Treebeard would just shut the hell up.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Really my main issue is that the middle act of the movie does drag a bit with Merry/Pippin in Fangorn Forest, and the trek to Helm's Deep.
That, and the Frodo/Sam part of Two Towers (book) is so hard to get through.
DallasTeleAg said:
The change in Aragorn just doesn't bother me at all. I never even think about it, when watching the movies. He is still a badass and is perfectly played by Viggo Mortenson, imo. Showing Gandalf dehorsed by the Witch King, who then proceeds to break his staff is MUCH greater of a sin for me than the slight shift in Aragorn's character.
Viggo did a great job with the role he was given ... but that role wasn't Aragorn. Aragorn is damn near a mythic hero; what we got was the same sort of pusilmanious individual I see everyday.
And yeah, Gandalf getting unhorsed was plain dumb. But the reason I didn't list that among the movies faults was because I am approaching it from the perspective of theme and tone: the degradation of the intelligence, morality, and general agency of those listed characters and how that shift actually undermined one of the key themes of the book.
Anyways, we're getting a new book out and some excerpts leaked!
https://preview.aer.io/The_Nature_of_Middleearth-NDAxNzU2
Warning: What I've skimmed so far seems to be using the "Always Round Earth" as a starting point, rather than the version in the Silmarillion. Not for the faint of heart.
It is a bit odd that Helm's Deep is in the middle of the book. IMO Frodo/Sam should've been the first half and the rest second.DallasTeleAg said:Yeah... but that's the same thing in the book. I laugh out loud in the extended editions when Treebeard is saying his poetry. Such a boring part of the book and wish Treebeard would just shut the hell up.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Really my main issue is that the middle act of the movie does drag a bit with Merry/Pippin in Fangorn Forest, and the trek to Helm's Deep.
That, and the Frodo/Sam part of Two Towers (book) is so hard to get through.
That is just crazy.Quote:
Viggo did a great job with the role he was given ... but that role wasn't Aragorn. Aragorn is damn near a mythic hero; what we got was the same sort of pusilmanious individual I see everyday.
Aragorn is incredibly heroic in the films as well.
He holds the ring nearly in his hand, but instead closes Frodo's hand and sends him on his way, something even Boromir couldn't do. (Who as we later learn was a hero in his own right.)
He charges into an army of Uruk-Hai by himself so Frodo can escape, with no assurances that the rest of the Fellowship will come to bail him out.
He gets Theoden off his ass and basically leads the people of Rohan for most of the Battle of the Hornburg.
He freaking charges into the Black Gate against insurmountable odds, into certain death, so that Frodo can destroy the ring.
Putting the books aside -- you're telling me THAT'S not a hero?
Aragorn was kind of mythic in the movies I'd argue even, if that's your barometer.
Got curious and started perusing our library and found my copy of The Silmarillion. It's a First Printing and First American Edition hardback with a large 12x18 inch fold out map in the back. It's in almost perfect condition aside from the sleeve.
I had no idea my copy was this.
I had no idea my copy was this.
Brian Earl Spilner said:That is just crazy.Quote:
Viggo did a great job with the role he was given ... but that role wasn't Aragorn. Aragorn is damn near a mythic hero; what we got was the same sort of pusilmanious individual I see everyday.
Aragorn is incredibly heroic in the films as well.
He holds the ring nearly in his hand, but instead closes Frodo's hand and sends him on his way, something even Boromir couldn't do. (Who as we later learn was a hero in his own right.)
He charges into an army of Uruk-Hai by himself so Frodo can escape, with no assurances that the rest of the Fellowship will come to bail him out.
He gets Theoden off his ass and basically leads the people of Rohan for most of the Battle of the Hornburg.
He freaking charges into the Black Gate against insurmountable odds, into certain death, so that Frodo can destroy the ring.
Putting the books aside -- you're telling me THAT'S not a hero?
You're forgetting something. he does all of that because a character named Aragorn in the books does most of those things. In short, the guy in the films has to do it.
But take the films at face value: Why does Aragorn do anything? He has no motivation. I get Boromir. Frodo. Sam. etc. But Aragorn...
Jackson stripped the character of his motivation and everything that made him tick. He doesn't want to be king, he doubts his heritage. Hell, he tries to break up with Arwen. I ask this question point blank, why is he even there? He has no reason for participating or doing anything in the adaption. There is no carrot making him persevere against the odds. To put it in Tolkien terms, he has no "estel", no hope he is clinging to and driving him. Disliking Sauron is not enough. Shame at Isildur is not enough.
It's hollow to me. It's a cardboard cut out of a character; Jackson took the doubt the original experiences leading the Fellowship, a time when he is torn between what he clearly feels is his destiny in Gondor and his apparent duty to guide Frodo to Mordor, and flanderized it to become his defining attribute.
And then I'm supposed to buy his change of heart when Elrond shows up and tosses a sword at him? Listen, strange elves distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical ceremony! The book Aragorn wins the kingship by earning the love of the people for his actions following the Pellenor. Movie Aragorn just shows up and assumes it by right.
Of course, I've already touched on this treatment in the film means Jackson now has to similarly reduce every other character in intelligence, morality, and agency so Aragorn still looks good in the comparison.
Book Aragorn is someone I want to be: focused, driven, confident in himself yet still humble enough to deal with hobbits on their own terms. Movie Aragorn...
Well you can certainly dislike his motivations, but to say he wasn't heroic is a stretch.
And I'll take issue with one point you made about him just assuming the crown. The people of Rohan and Gondor both came to love and respect him after his actions at Helm's Deep and the Black Gate.
But other than that I'll agree to disagree.
And I'll take issue with one point you made about him just assuming the crown. The people of Rohan and Gondor both came to love and respect him after his actions at Helm's Deep and the Black Gate.
But other than that I'll agree to disagree.
Book Aragorn has no real character arc. He goes from "I'm waiting to be King" to "Okay, now I can be King." As one of 3 (or 4) main leads in the movies, he needed some sort of character growth to sustain interest over 3 movies.
Movie Aragorn's motivation is the same as everyone else's in the Fellowship: do good. Each member had some personal change to overcome to truly acheive the end goal of Sauron's ruin. Boromir realized that might does not make right. Gimli and Legolas had to overcome hatred/dislike and see the world through each other's eyes (Lothlorien/Glittering Caves). Merry and Pippin had to grow up. Sam and Frodo had to resist temptation (both in the Ring, and as despair). Gandalf faced mortality (as far as a Maiar can). Aragorn's journey was to shed Strider and step into Elessar.
As for the other characters, I don't think they are diminished as much as distilled (especially for Denethor, since he appears in 1/2 of one movie). If I had more time I'd keep typing, but I need to start dinner!
Movie Aragorn's motivation is the same as everyone else's in the Fellowship: do good. Each member had some personal change to overcome to truly acheive the end goal of Sauron's ruin. Boromir realized that might does not make right. Gimli and Legolas had to overcome hatred/dislike and see the world through each other's eyes (Lothlorien/Glittering Caves). Merry and Pippin had to grow up. Sam and Frodo had to resist temptation (both in the Ring, and as despair). Gandalf faced mortality (as far as a Maiar can). Aragorn's journey was to shed Strider and step into Elessar.
As for the other characters, I don't think they are diminished as much as distilled (especially for Denethor, since he appears in 1/2 of one movie). If I had more time I'd keep typing, but I need to start dinner!
I've watched the charge of the Rohirrim probably 30 times, and it never loses its power. Top 5 scene in movie history.
This.Grimey said:
Book Aragorn has no real character arc. He goes from "I'm waiting to be King" to "Okay, now I can be King." As one of 3 (or 4) main leads in the movies, he needed some sort of character growth to sustain interest over 3 movies.
Again, I get the fanboying about a beloved book (Not using "fanboy" derogatorily here). However, when adapting such an epic story to movie, you have to build your movie to be... a movie.
Heck, in the book, Aragorn sure did wait long enough to finally claim what is his. To say he never doubted himself doesn't seem to hold with his history. He definitely seems a bit more confident, i'll give you that, but he did choose to remain in exile as the leader of the Dunedain for a large portion of his life.
At the end of the day, to really fit everything you would seem to want, you would need a 5-hour movie. I personally don't think Jackson wasted time adding stuff in RotK like he did in the Hobbit movies; and even at a nearly 4-hour run of the extended version, you would need a lot more time to really explain the houses of the healing and other things.
The people of Minas Tirith accepted Aragorn in the movies for the same reason they did in the book. He rescued their city and proved to have the healing hands of the King (granted only a quick scene in the extended edition with no exposition on the importance).
Now, i definitely think they should have been mentioning Gondor's southern forces being sieged and unable to rally to Minas TIrith for support, throughout the movie. Then we could have truly had Aragorn arriving the way he did in the books. I don't think that would have been too much of a stretch. I just hate the Army of the Dead "I Win" button.
Brian Earl Spilner
Joined:
Aug 6, 2013
Posts:
64,803
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can't recall if I've posted this before -- was anyone here into Lord of the Rings Online?
I was obsessed with it around 2011-12. I played WoW and this was an even better game imo.
If nothing else, it was an awesome way to get discover areas of Middle-Earth you only ever see in the maps. It was awesome.
Played both as an elf and a man.
I was obsessed with it around 2011-12. I played WoW and this was an even better game imo.
If nothing else, it was an awesome way to get discover areas of Middle-Earth you only ever see in the maps. It was awesome.
Played both as an elf and a man.
Never played much but I believe it is free to play now.
Yep, I got into it right when they made it free to play.
I recently watched Fellowship and TT with my son. Fellowship is great, but it does take a while to get going. All the stuff in the Shire is great for fans, but for newbies it takes a while to get to the big points in the movie. But once it reaches the formation of the Fellowship that movie just kicks out up a bunch of notches.
TT leaves you with a great feeling just because Helms Deep sequence is just so great.
TT leaves you with a great feeling just because Helms Deep sequence is just so great.
I never did (never big into MMOs), but a bunch of my QA guys at a former job did. I remember two things very vividly: first was that they loved the pipe smoking ability, and second was that after weeks of peer pressure, one of the guys finally broke down and bought it...the day before it went free to play.
"And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of war nor of wizardry, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.Fightin TX Aggie said:
I've watched the charge of the Rohirrim probably 30 times, and it never loses its power. Top 5 scene in movie history.
And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, in dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the north wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last."
Looking at my email it looks like I played back in the fall of '10 to the spring of 11. Only mmorpg I ever played. I enjoyed it and I was tempted to go back and explore some of the stuff that opened up after I quit like Rohan and gondor and the mounted combat but that was a different Era of my life with much more free time for pissing away.
Great Tolkien discussion starts at 34:30.
Grimey said:
Book Aragorn has no real character arc. He goes from "I'm waiting to be King" to "Okay, now I can be King." As one of 3 (or 4) main leads in the movies, he needed some sort of character growth to sustain interest over 3 movies.
Movie Aragorn's motivation is the same as everyone else's in the Fellowship: do good. Each member had some personal change to overcome to truly acheive the end goal of Sauron's ruin. Boromir realized that might does not make right. Gimli and Legolas had to overcome hatred/dislike and see the world through each other's eyes (Lothlorien/Glittering Caves). Merry and Pippin had to grow up. Sam and Frodo had to resist temptation (both in the Ring, and as despair). Gandalf faced mortality (as far as a Maiar can). Aragorn's journey was to shed Strider and step into Elessar.
As for the other characters, I don't think they are diminished as much as distilled (especially for Denethor, since he appears in 1/2 of one movie). If I had more time I'd keep typing, but I need to start dinner!
In the books Aragorn didn't have an arc, because he was a mature, established character. He knew who and what he was at that point in his life. The primary change he went through was other peoples perceptions of him.
Look, I understand movies allow characters some sort of growth. But the problem is (as I already pointed out) Aragorn has no motivation for growth: he doesn't want to be a leader, king, hero, boyfriend, etc. There is nothing pushing him to be better/different. He becomes those things because the narrative Jackson is adapting literally requires him to be gung-ho for those things when he goes into Gondor.... So Jackson puts off that character change until the last minute. Look past the soaring music (I think Shore deserves more credit for these movies than Jackson - his score covers a lot of issues) and think about what you're watching: Elrond gives Aragorn a sword and he pulls a 180?
Quote:
As for the other characters, I don't think they are diminished as much as distilled (especially for Denethor, since he appears in 1/2 of one movie). If I had more time I'd keep typing, but I need to start dinner!
Are they?
Where is the eloquence of Gimli? He's transformed into a burping asthmatic.
Where is the lightheartedness of Legolas? He mostly just stands stoically looking cool.
Theoden is saved from a weak and indecisive old man under the spells of Saruman into a weak and indecisive old man under the control of his own will.
Frodo is passive from the start... his fall to the Ring is far less impactful than it should be because he never showed much strength prior to it.
There is no tragedy to Denethors fall. We just meet a man already crazed and broken for no good reason.
Faramir becomes a worse version of Boromir without any of his brothers redeeming qualities.
What I'm arguing is that Jackson could have treated the characters better - but he wanted to emphasis the battles, the monsters, the big swooping cameras and all that spectacle.
Bravo, good sir.Quote:
And then I'm supposed to buy his change of heart when Elrond shows up and tosses a sword at him? Listen, strange elves distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical ceremony! The book Aragorn wins the kingship by earning the love of the people for his actions following the Pellenor. Movie Aragorn just shows up and assumes it by right.
The road goes ever on and on...
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
1d ago
2.7k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
2d ago
8.1k
47:49
2d ago
2.6k
99:23
2d ago
2.7k
FINAL from Reed Arena: Texas A&M 86, Western Michigan 38
by Kay Naegeli
Richard23
Auburn is going to be really tough without Moss. Teams Stats all on Auburns Side
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
158
MallalieuAg
Auburn is going to be really tough without Moss. Teams Stats all on Auburns Side
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
95