Peter Jackson dropped from the Hobbit...

And an hour for something that was on three pages is .. diluted. At least it felt like that for me.

Click to expand...

Well, on the "felt that way to me" bit: Fair enough.

However, at the risk of sounding extremely obvious, the written word and showing things on film are very different mediums. Some things that a writer spends *pages* on, you know will always end up as only a few seconds on film. Other things that take up very little space on the page just always will take quite a bit more time to actually see play out.

Helm's Deep falls into this latter category. No matter who directed it on film, that few pages *was* going to take up <u>much</u> more time than its relative number of words / pages would indicate. You can describe a growing sense of dread or doom at seeing a huge army advance toward you in a sentence or two. However, to *show* it, you have to take a fair percentage of the amount of time that it would actually take an army to march across that open plain. You can say in writing that the defenders were slowly, but inexoribly pushed back until they held only the keep in one or two sentences (in fact, you kinda *have* to when writing it, otherwise it gets repetitive). However, to match that description on film, it has to actually *be* done slowly; otherwise it feels like a quick route rather than the stubbornly contested fight to the death that the author described.

Click to expand...

I agree,some things do take more time to show.Three pages of poetry in elvish can be missed for the film.

I found it better to forget the books(especially after the elves turned up at Helms Deep)and just enjoy the films as they were and not draw comparisons to the books.Well it worked for me anyway

I'm still sure Jackson said he didn't want to do The Hobbit just after filming LOTR's but can't find a link.If money is involved anything is possible though

'Cause then it's just three short dirty people schlepping up a mountain. zzzzz

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely (Frodo's going nuts, they're out of food and water, Mordor's crawling with orcs, if they're discovered or die then the entire free world is screwed), so I guess our tastes diverge.

I haven't read all of Lord of the Rings, how does the whole Frodo and Sam thing happen when it comes to Shelob's Lair (aside from Frodo not telling Sam to go home)? While I know it's divergent from the book, I'm not that bothered by Frodo rejecting Sam in the film as I view it as a means of showing the viewer that the Ring is screwing with Frodo. After so much of Frodo just stumbling around, the stumbling starts to not have quite the impact on the viewer that it would be for a person actually experiencing Frodo's position under the weight of the Ring. Having Frodo reject Sam shows us that the not only is the Ring physically screwing with Frodo, but also screwing with his mind.

I do agree about Denethor though in that in the movie he comes across to me more as just psychotic and less a ruler who's succumbed to dispair (which I'm to understand is what happened to him in the book as a result of what Sauron showed him through the palantir -- again, I haven't read anywhere near all of LotR). I think the extended scene of his march to the funeral pyre in the Extended Edition helped to make that a little more clearer that his problem is that he's fallen to utter dispair, but he still does seem to mostly be just crazy.

Briefly, Sam and Frodo go through Shelob's lair together. They break through because of Galadriel's glass and Sting, which, being Elvish, have a leg up on Shelob. As they break loose, Gollum jumps Sam from behind, and delays Sam long enough for Shelob to sneak up on Frodo and bring him down. Sam then catches up, wounds Shelob badly (again with Sting) and, thinking that Frodo is dead, takes the Ring. Then orcs show up, having heard of the fight by various means. Sam listens to them, realizes that Frodo isn't dead, and breaks into the tower of Cirith Ungol, where he discovers that the orcs have mostly killed each other off. He rescues Frodo, gives the Ring back, and away they go.

What troubles me about "showing that the Ring is messing with Frodo" is that there were other ways to do it that would have matched the book better. The thing is, the Ring was definitely affecting Frodo, but it didn't completely overpower his judgment until he was about to throw it in the fire -- not, as Jackson would have it, in Osgiliath.

The Two Towers really was tricky though; I can totally understand why Jackson had Frodo hold the Ring before the Nazgul. The story is about this big bad tiny gold band. We see a lot of it in the beginning of the story as we're getting acquainted with the Ring. We also see a lot of it at the end of the story as we're getting the climax of the whole shebang. But in the middle, it's mostly just being carried around. It tends to stay just tucked away. So, in order to have a bit of a climax for the second film for Frodo's character, the issues he has in Osgiliath were written. Otherwise, Frodo in TTT would just kind of end that chapter of the story not doing anything.

And putting Frodo's encounter with Shelob in TTT the movie wouldn't fit based solely on the chronology of the whole thing, which is something Jackson mentions in the extras on the DVDs. The shifting back and forth up and down the timeline works in the books because of how Tolkien structures the breaks, but it's just not something that would work for the film medium.

IIRC, the extended version of the third movie shows Denethor using the orb and showing it making him crazy. That's a pretty important plot element.

I didn't like how they messed with Faramir in TTT, but they put him right in RotK. In the books, Sam and Faramir are probably my favourite characters. I also didn't like how Sam seemed a little influenced by the ring and yet in the books it is one of the mysteries, he has no desire to keep it whatsoever.... and there is much speculation as to why it has such little effect.

It's no mystery why Sam wasn't effected by the ring. He's of pure heart and no ambition. He's a small minded, modest and genuinely "good" with no pretention. The ring plays on one's desires for power, greatness, greed and darker natures, of which Sam has none.

IIRC, the extended version of the third movie shows Denethor using the orb and showing it making him crazy. That's a pretty important plot element.

Click to expand...

Hmm ... I'll have to go watch the extended edition again (not that I need an excuse), because I don't remember that bit at all. In fact I don't remember Denethor having anything to do with the Palantir at all.

It's no mystery why Sam wasn't effected by the ring. He's of pure heart and no ambition. He's a small minded, modest and genuinely "good" with no pretention. The ring plays on one's desires for power, greatness, greed and darker natures, of which Sam has none.

Click to expand...

That is what I have always believed, but some stuffy intellectuals have argued that it's all to do with relative exposure to the ring. I think that's nonsense and takes away something from the story. Sam's character is very much the heart and soul of the tale. He epitomises the obscure little person who doesn't seem to have much use but plays a hugely pivotal role in the climactic parts.

I once contributed in a debate as to who Tom Bombadil actually was. Gandalf points out that he himself would be influenced by the will of the ring... but he says in quite a matter of fact way that Tom Bombadil wouldn't be.... but he would have no desire to go near it. I put forward the thought that maybe Tom bombadil was actually Illuvatar in disguise.

Gandalf points out that he himself would be influenced by the will of the ring... but he says in quite a matter of fact way that Tom Bombadil wouldn't be

Click to expand...

We don't even need to take Gandalf's word for it. In the book Bombadil sees the ring they're carrying, it's implied he knows what it's all about, and just shrugs it off- he was bored by the whole thing.

I think Bombadil was just a remnant of some other story Tolkien was working on and just threw him in there. It seems like the whole LOTR epic was a dumping ground for his various fairy tales and poems and such, which is why it all feels so disjointed.

I assumed he was one of the lesser spirits, the Maiar, who had assumed a humanoid form, along with Goldberry. This is the line taken in a lot of the David Day works.

This would put him in the same league as Gandalf and the other wizards though. As the ring was forged by Sauron, a former Maiar himself, I'm not sure how Tom would be immune, and Gandalf not. it may be that Tom was a spirit of nature, in tune with the earth whereas Gandlaf had involved himself in the affairs of men, and was thus bound to their will as men were. I belive Gandalf himself is also in posession of one of the lesser rings of power, one fo the nine, but cannot remember where I read this. This alone may bind him to the One Ring, especially if his power is in turn bound to a lesser ring. But I have nothing to support that.

I like your idea a lot though.

Narya the Great. I think it was the most powerful of the elven rings and was given to him by cirdan the elven shipwrright as he believed that Gandalf would have more use of it. It mentions it at the end of Return of the King as it is after the one ring is destroyed that he wears it openly. The reference to Cirdan comes in the notes section I think.

Okay, many things...

DL, I've heard your Bombadil=Illuvatar theory put forward before by the wisest man (and best Tolkien expert) I know. I've also seen GKE's "borrowed story" idea. The latter is probably more likely, but the former is infinitely cooler.

Regarding Sam's temptation by the Ring: if you read the books closely, you'll see that Sam is tempted. Briefly. The Ring has to really reach for it, however, and Sam realizes that it's a ludicrous notion -- and also, as he's alone on the edge of Mordor, he realizes Sauron would spot him instantly. So basic good sense prevails. Later, when he finds Frodo, he's briefly tempted to hold onto the Ring to try and help his master with the burden of it, but Frodo won't have it.

Also, hobbits in general seem to be tougher than they look; Bilbo survives decades with the Ring without much trouble, and he's the first being on record to voluntarily surrender it. Frodo offers to give the ring to Gandalf and Galadriel, which may also be unprecedented. Finally, in a different way, Pippin survives a one-on-one encounter with Sauron via the palantir -- troubled, but unbroken -- something that Gandalf worries even Aragorn wouldn't be able to handle. (And that's another bother of mine. To the best of my recollection, Aragorn never reveals himself to Sauron by way of the stone in the movies. It's one of my favorite bits of the whole thing, even though it happens "off-stage.")

Finally, Gandalf is indeed in possession of one of the elven-rings, the Ring of Fire (appropriately enough). It's never explicitly stated, but it's often hinted that he uses it quite often during the books. Since Saruman is also a Maia and is tempted by the rings of power even more than Gandalf is, I don't think having the Ring of Fire reduced Gandalf's resistance, as it were. But it did add to the risk. If Sauron ever recovered the One Ring, he would be able to sense and influence everything Gandalf was doing with his ring, thus depriving the Free Peoples of one of their most valuable, if hidden, weapons. (And if you're wondering, the other two elven rings are kept by Elrond and Galadriel, which is why Rivendell and Lothlorien are the two safest places to be.)




...I believe I just proved, beyond any question whatsoever, that I have absolutely no life.

Tom Bombidil was one of the Maiar,just like the Balrog,Gandalf and Sauron.

Goldberry was a River Sprite as I recall.Might even of been the daughter of their King.

I also don't remember Denethor using the Palantir either although I do remember Aragorn having a go.

I also hated what they did to Denethor,especially the sending of Faramir on a daft charge.Ramas Echor was part of the city's defences and was of course manned.They punished Saurons forces a lot in it's defence but shear weight of numbers forced a retreat.So from being tacticly aware he becomes stupid.

I also missed the Prince of Dol Amroth,one of my favourite minor characters from the book.

I absolutely hated what he did with Arwen.Glorfindal was way cooler and had even lived in the undying lands.Pretty sure he was the same Glorfindal that kicked a few Balrogs arses as Gondolin was being sacked but it has been years since I read the books and I'm not sure.As for the made up bits and Elrond turning up with the shards of Narsil that was all crap too.It also meant you never got to see Elronds sons and the rest of the Rangers.

Still a good set of films though and I do enjoy my extended versions box set.

What Jackson did with Arwen was the most logical major change he made. She's supposed to one of, if not the most, important influences and motivators of Aragorn, and yet she's not even in the book. I think she's in an appendix or some crap.

Arwen is in the book, albiet very peripherally, but yes. It made sense to have her role augmented. The way it was augmented made me cringe, occasionally, but at least they got rid of her fight scenes at Helm's Deep.

What they could have done was followed the appendicies and have Elrond say, "Arwen will never marry a mortal man who isn't king," rather than have Elrond come across as a) defeatist and b) somewhat racist. It seems that the movies completely forgot that he's Elrond Halfelven, and that he wasn't defeatist -- if anything he was chief of the Elvish rearguard. The real defeatists had left long before.


But you know, we could critique the movies to death. Jackson did an okay job -- and in some respects he did a truly great job. Edoras was perfect. The "this is a good sword" scene from Two Towers was a brilliant touch. The casting was almost uniformly great, especially Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis. He even managed to make Liv Tyler seem competent (if only when she was speaking Elvish). And the music is fantastic. All in all, it was a worthy effort.

Ok, many commnets from me.

IIRC, the extended version of the third movie shows Denethor using the orb and showing it making him crazy. That's a pretty important plot element.

Click to expand...

(And that's another bother of mine. To the best of my recollection, Aragorn never reveals himself to Sauron by way of the stone in the movies. It's one of my favorite bits of the whole thing, even though it happens "off-stage.")

Click to expand...

No, the extended edidtion doesn't show Denethor using the Palantir. There's never even a direct statement that Denethor has one, just a hint when Gandalf first meets with him at the beginning of RotK: "do you think the eyes of the White Tower are blind?" We do, though, see Aragorn use the Palantir in the extended edition to more or less call out Sauron. He goes infto the throne room alone at night, takes out one of the Palantiri holds it up in his hand, looks into it, Sauron's eye appears, he shows Sauron his sword, and basically says I'm gonna get your ass before Sauron freaks him out by showing him an image of Arwen laying weak in Rivendell with the grace of the Eldar having left her now that she's chosen to be mortal.

As for Sam an the Ring. I'd say he has to be affected by it at least a little. Hobbits are a most resiliant people, it takes a longer time for the Ring to wear them down, which would be why the Ring doesn't bother Sam as greatly as it does other people, but given enough time, it would wear Sam down too just like it did Frodo. The whole grand statement of the story is that when presented with domination over others, eventually everyone would fall to hidden desires for it; thus Frodo claiming the Ring for his own in the end.

About Tom Bombadil. As for the argument that he's a Maia, I quote:

One popular theory is that Bombadil is a Maia, as Tom seems to have unlimited supernatural power inside the boundaries that he set for himself, and perhaps the reason why he has such powers is the fact that he is content to live within these limits. "Eldest, that's what I am … Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn … He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside." The Dark Lord Bombadil refers to is probably Melkor and not Sauron[2]. But in that case, Tom was already there even before the Valar entered the world, dismissing the theory that he is a Maia. In addition, he is eager to protect the Hobbits from danger within his own domain, yet is completely indifferent to the threat to Middle-earth as a whole, which is paradoxical and also uncharacteristic of a Maia.

Click to expand...

I side with GKE on this. Bombadil was just something else floating around in Tolkien's head that he shoved into the story there early in the story before he had anything resembling a clear idea of what the story would be like. Scholars studying his works point to how the beginnings of FotR are so different in tone from what comes after those beginnings, and this difference is why I think Bombadil was included. He fit the jaunty tone of the beginning that still was a little bit The Hobbit-ish. I've also read that Bombadil's look was based on a stuffed toy that Tolkien's son had. So, there's that he's included because Tolkien enjoyed playing with his son with that stuffed toy. And finally, I offer this quote:

In reference to Bombadil, Tolkien himself said that some things should remain mysterious in any narrative, hidden even to its inventor....

Click to expand...

I think Bombadil is indeed something Tolkien put into the story without a clear idea of what Bombadil was, and that he didn't know didn't bother him.

I absolutely hated what he did with Arwen.Glorfindal was way cooler....

Click to expand...

I actually liked that they collapsed Glorfindel into Arwen in FotR. It gave her character something to do other than stand around and be all princessy, and barely there doing that at that. There are oh so few female characters in LotR, and giving Arwen Glorfindel's rescue in FotR gave her more screentime. Additionally, it truly helped with the problem of converting the books to the film medium as it removed yet another character that would have to have time spent introducting. The same problem comes in why Elrond's sons and the other Dunadain rangers are left out. Sure, every character in the books could have been shoved into the film, but then people unaquainted with the books would be lost going, "Who's that again? And who's that? Isn't that that other person?" and on and on. Never underestimate the average person's inability to tell the difference between fantasy and scifi story characters. By limiting the number of named, important characters running around, it helps streamline the story just a bit and make the story more accessable to average people.

The real defeatists had left long before.

Click to expand...

And we don't meet any of them in the film. In order to have any exposure to the reality that there are elves that have become defeatists and are more or less giving up on Middle-Earth, we have to have a character portray that to us.

I had a fair few of the extra books plus the official Tolkien Enterprises roleplaying game which both definatively state that he was Maiar.He was simply the first to go to Middle Earth and he stays for love of Goldberry.

Ungoliant was unusual as I remember in that she was not of the Valar or Maiar and yet not created by them.No mention of why or if Illuvatar created her.