New Line Kicks Jackson to Curb, Millions of Fans Commit Suicide

[Alan Dunkin]

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

Odds on new director being Brett Ratner: 3 to 1.

--- Alan

[SpoofyChop]

I honestly have no problem with this whatsoever. Although I thought Jackson's approach to the franchise was great there were some things that I felt could have been better. I could easily see a non PJ Hobbit film being perfectly fine. It may suck and it may be great. Whatevs.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Well, that's a shame, but I can't imagine it would have lived up to expectations.

[Stroker Ace]

http://darthno.ytmnd.com/

Seriously, Jackson had his run with 3 nice movies. I'm not sure a new Hobbit movie from Jackson or anyone else would excite me.

[VegasRobb]

Most likely I'll end up seeing The Hobbit regardless of who directs it.

The impact of this decision on native NZ actors and actresses looking for work will be significant.

[Desslock]

Worst news ever. Although I'm not sure this is really over - this may be a negotiating move to covet popular opinion.

I hated Jackson's King Kong, but he really nailed the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Slainte Mhath]

As long as New Line retains WETA Workshop to do the special effects and CGI stuff as in the trilogy, they should be OK with another director. After seeing the unparalled success of the trilogy, I sincerely doubt New Line would hire anyone that wanted to put a signature stamp on the new films by going in different direction creatively.

Sounds like a move by New Line to save some $$$ upfront on any new films in the mythos it decides to produce.

[Flowers]

I have seen fifty bajuillion hours of Peter North Jackson's vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth. Someone else should get to do the Hobbit. It's only fair. Otherwise, it's like letting him drink all the good Soda, and then finish the RC. Sharing is caring.

[Desslock]

..they should be OK with another director..

The quality of a movie is 100% correlated with the quality of the director. Good directors may not hit home runs every time, but lesser directors are actually incapable of producing a good film, and will continue to produce souless dreck.

New Line is taking the stupidest gamble ever by not going with Jackson - each one of the LotR movies made a BILLION dollars! Why risk screwing up such a colossal success?

Having some hack fuck up this setting, and this franchise, will be really depressing. I would MUCH PREFER that they do not make the Hobbit or any related Middle Earth projects.

[SpoofyChop]

Having some hack #*@# up this setting, and this franchise, will be really depressing. I would MUCH PREFER that they do not make the Hobbit or any related Middle Earth projects.

I don't know Desslock...maybe I just don't have much invested in it being "great" because if I did I would probably agree that PJ should direct. I'd just rather see somebody else's take on the whole thing.

P.S. By the way I liked your oblivion column in one of the recent PCGamers

[madkevin]

I think Desslock is wildly overstating his point. Now God knows I loved Jackson's trilogy, but there are other directors who I'd also love to see tackle The Hobbit - Alfonso Cuarón and Terry Gilliam off the top of my head, but I could probably think of about a hundred others. (Spike Jones? Michael Gondry?)

He's also conveniently ignoring what a crazy pick Jackson was to direct these movies in the first place, considering he was basically unknown outside horror movie circles in North America. Sure, we were all hoping it was going to be as good as Heavenly Creatures, but there was always the chance it was going to be closer to Meet The Feebles.

[Alan Dunkin]

Except New Line didn't pick Jackson, Jackson picked New Line (so to speak). Without him, there weren't any LOTR films to be made, period.

--- Alan

[Vic Davis]

I have to agree that this is probably all about PR and pressure for settling the lawsuit. What a byzantine thing that accounting world must be? This seems to happen over and over. Hey, where's the money for the 100,000 plastic Lurtz's you sold!

I wonder how Jackson personally feels about the property? Is it something he really doesn't care about walking away from or does he feel protective of what he's already created and uneasy about somebody bothching a movie that everybody will closely associate with his trilogy?

What's sort of interesting is that there is leeway to invent a second film prequel. If you have that much latitude why not get somebody to turn the Silmarilion into something coherent and understandable. Watching the fall of Gondolin would be very cool.

[Moore]

meet the feebles is way better than LOTR.

[Desslock]

Except New Line didn't pick Jackson, Jackson picked New Line (so to speak). Without him, there weren't any LOTR films to be made, period.

Exactly - they are entirely the product of his (and his partners) creative vision. It was actually a really hard sell to get those movies made in the first place.

You can't take an ass-backwards approach of just popping in a director, even a competent one, and telling him what to create -- if it's not driven by genuine creative vision, it'll be, at best, a pale, soulless, shallow imitation. I won't complain as vigorously if it's Alfonso Cuaron -- and there have been other directors, like James Cameron with Aliens, who stepped into a franchise that already had a strong creative vision and, without bastardizing what came before, managed to impose his own, unique creative vision for the project, but that's pretty damn rare.

And Lord of the Rings is far less likely to be inherited successfully by anyone else because of how uniquely Jackson treated the property -- an incredible zealot's attention to detail, serious approach to the subject matter, focus on effective casting -- I hate the prospect of someone else's comparatively cartoonish approach, casting "more marketable" stars, etc. Fuck, just make your own fantasy movie in a different setting, and I'll approach it with a more open mind, otherwise I'll be ferociously rooting for this project to die.

- thanks Spoofychop!

[JM]

King Kong was a steaming pile of shite. Jackson isn't a directorial deity.

[Desslock]

King Kong was a steaming pile of shite. Jackson isn't a directorial deity.

I said the same thing about Kong earlier in this thread, but he really nailed the LotR trilogy. When someone creates something so distinctive, so successfully, it's absurd to think you can replicate it with someone else.

[Jason Becker]

Its possible to go in a new direction with a franchise and end up with something good like the latest Batman movie, which granted since the 2 before sucked so bad they had nowhere to go but up. On the other hand though you can end up with something like X-men 3.

Another group could try to do it, but with the Jackson, Wetaworks/Wetadigital combo I just don't know.

[JM]

Desslock: I give you 20 minutes of hobbit-and-man-love, on a bed, in an Elven village.

[Matt Perkins]

I'm in agreement with Desslock (he's crazy though!). Peter Jackson got LOTR. He completely and totally got the feel of the books, even with the changing of the story. They were an incredible adaptation of a book / set of books. Maybe the best book to film translation with staying close to the source material ever.

The Hobbit won't be the same without him. A director almost always makes or breaks a movie.

[Vic Davis]

The Hobbit won't be the same without him. A director almost always makes or breaks a movie.

Maybe Uwe will be interested?

[Backov]

He hardly "nailed" the LOTR movies. He butchered them, and despite that fact, people loved them anyways because they had great CG. I will admit the extended editions were better, but he made so many grass-fucker Hollywood-style changes that they sucked for me. "Must have a love interest", "Must for some unknown reason have Faramir be a prick", "Must make everyone below average height the comedy relief".

Fuck Peter Jackson.

As for hack, that's the very definition of PJ.. Have you SEEN what he did before LOTR?

[Slainte Mhath]

Personally, I think the "Hobbit" and "Silmarillon" movies are doomed before they even get started, with or without Jackson. Even if New Line can get WETA back on onboard for these, the differences between these works and LotR Trilogy are just too great. They would feel "less" than LotR, no matter who did them. For example, The Hobbit is a very good story, but I just can't see retelling it in 2.5-3 hours without massive edits, and it's not easily split into two halves for two movies. Casting would be a difficult proposition at best. Then, at it's core, it's a story about a Hobbit and a bunch of Dwarves, with little interaction with men or even between groups of characters outside of their brief encounters with elves and lake men. All of these things would make it different enough from LotR to effect it's mass appeal, thereby insuring it doesn't make the giant fortune that each of the LotR movies made.

No, even with Peter Jackson at them helm, I'm not sure I'd ever want to see these movies made, as I think I'd only be dissapointed.

[Jasper Phillips]

He hardly "nailed" the LOTR movies. He butchered them, and despite that fact, people loved them anyways because they had great CG. I will admit the extended editions were better, but he made so many grass-fucker Hollywood-style changes that they sucked for me. "Must have a love interest", "Must for some unknown reason have Faramir be a prick", "Must make everyone below average height the comedy relief".
Seconded. I had fun watching the LotR, but thought it was greatly overrated. Way too much tearful angst, and zero subtlety.

Having someone else do the Hobbit on the other hand seems risky. I'd say there's a decent change another director would do better, but they could do worse, and considering how much money LotR made it seems crazy.

[Ergo]

He hardly "nailed" the LOTR movies. He butchered them, and despite that fact, people loved them anyways because they had great CG.

As for hack, that's the very definition of PJ.. Have you SEEN what he did before LOTR?
Oh, do shut up.

[Mark Crump]

You can get the Hobbit into 3 hours. The battle of the five armies might be a little short, though.

How was the comic edition in terms of cuts/length?

[madkevin]

As for hack, that's the very definition of PJ.. Have you SEEN what he did before LOTR?

Dude, "hack" doesn't mean "somebody you don't like". A hack is a hired gun, a journeyman director who comes in and points the camera at stuff. A hack is an artless technician, the opposite of an auteur.

Whatever your feelings on Jackson, he's clearly a guy who has a singular, artistic vision which shows through all of his movies, even the bad ones. You don't like him, fine. That doesn't make him a hack.

[Moore]

he's only made 1 bad movie (and 3 slightly boring but WAAAY better than the source material ones)

[bigdruid]

This just in:

Hollywood is run by soulless corporate dregs whose only pleasure in life is to squeeze everything worthwhile out of the art form while charging us $9 a pop for the privilege of watching the trainwreck unfold.

As for the PJ naysayers, I hope you guys enjoy "somebody else's vision" - perhaps they can turn it over to Jerry Bruckheimer and let him work his magic on it for ya.

[Alan Dunkin]

...or Brett Ratner.

--- Alan

[Sebmolo]

I liked Kong - kickass fights, diabetic shock syndrome levels of eye candy and more genuine emotional impact than, say, Brokeback Mountain. But I can understand people might not have felt the same way.

Similarly I loved LOTR, but acknowledge it had its problems - half from the book, half from the telling of it.

But calling Jackson a 'hack' and a 'butcher' just makes you look like a bitter whiny nerd, Backov. That battle is over, and he won. Give it a rest.

[Ergo]

If anything, Jackson improved on Tolkien.

[Sebmolo]

As for hack, that's the very definition of PJ.. Have you SEEN what he did before LOTR?

Well - yes. Bad Taste - cheap, funny splatter filmed in three years of weekends. Quite brilliant for what it was.

Meet the Feebles - puppet splatter movie, grosser than gross and funny if you're in the mood for it. Went on too long for the material, but still not like anything else in the world. Must see, if only for the climactic 'Hippo with a machine gun' bloodbath.

Brain Dead - Slick crazy splatter zombie flick. Fun.

The Frighteners - Comedy/Horror - slightly skewed tone and a draggy ending but good performances and a pretty decent movie. Underrated.

Heavenly Creatures - Normally cited as his best film, with real people and no zombies. Won a couple of awards. Excellent.

[Backov]

I will say that I liked the stuff before LOTR much better than LOTR.

And yes, the majority "won" the war of opinions. I think they sucked, and I almost walked out of ROTK.

[bigdruid]

I think they sucked, and I almost walked out of ROTK.

And I pity you. You live in a darker world than I do, apparently, if you could find no joy in these films.

[quatoria]

Well - yes. Bad Taste - cheap, funny splatter filmed in three years of weekends. Quite brilliant for what it was.

Meet the Feebles - puppet splatter movie, grosser than gross and funny if you're in the mood for it. Went on too long for the material, but still not like anything else in the world. Must see, if only for the climactic 'Hippo with a machine gun' bloodbath.

Brain Dead - Slick crazy splatter zombie flick. Fun.

The Frighteners - Comedy/Horror - slightly skewed tone and a draggy ending but good performances and a pretty decent movie. Underrated.

Heavenly Creatures - Normally cited as his best film, with real people and no zombies. Won a couple of awards. Excellent.

Yeah, the only PJ movie I've ever disliked (actually walked out on) was The Frighteners. Then again, I was a bit young for the humor, most likely. Heavenly Creatures is what made me await LOTR with baited breath. What an incredible movie. Bacov, you're a weenie.

[Bill]

He hardly "nailed" the LOTR movies. He butchered them, and despite that fact, people loved them anyways because they had great CG. I will admit the extended editions were better, but he made so many grass-fucker Hollywood-style changes that they sucked for me. "Must have a love interest", "Must for some unknown reason have Faramir be a prick", "Must make everyone below average height the comedy relief".

Fuck Peter Jackson.


Man, I don't know. I used to love the books but going back to them 25 years later I see how overrated they are. I still think they're wonderful, especially The Hobbit, and Tolkien does a great job of weaving a believeable history into them. Likewise the movies are wonderful, and PJ creates a believeable world and some incredible vistas and battle scenes. If you can't appreciate that then you have no soul.

You mention problems with characters a lot, but I don't think either the book or movie does a good job of creating real, compelling characters, except maybe Gollum in the movies.

By the way, what's a grassfucker?

[TheTrunkDr]

Man, I don't know. I used to love the books but going back to them 25 years later I see how overrated they are. I still think they're wonderful, especially The Hobbit, and Tolkien does a great job of weaving a believeable history into them.
Exactly, Tolkien's strengths are in his fine details and creating a rich world and lots of back story. He's fucking horrible at actually telling a story, pacing or character development of any kind.

[Backov]

So defensive you guys.. I didn't kill your baby, I just hate the movie you love.

Conan The Barbarian >> LOTR Movies

A grassfucker.. A term stolen from the Filthy Critic.

My definition:

He was the studio exec that said "What do you mean Aaron doesn't have a love interest. Oh, Aragorn. No love interest? We'll cast Liv Tyler. Oh, the elf he's in love with isn't in the book much? Liv won't do that, write her a major part. The public really loved the first movie, it must've been because of Liv, we need to her in more scenes for the second movie. The movie isn't funny enough, so let's make all the shorties the butt of all the jokes even when they are supposed to be heroic... " etc.

There was a lot to like about the movies, but the changes just ended up pissing me off a lot.

[Sebmolo]

Backov, backov, backov. We're not being defensive, we just think you're a poopyhead.

PJ's recent biography tells some stories about discussions at the beginning of LOTR. You think Arwen at the ford and a slightly testy Faramir were bad? Harvey Weinstein was all for killing one (or more) of the hobbits, compressing the fellowship into a threesome, combining Gondor and Rohan, turning Sauron into Saruman AND SO ON.

[John Reynolds]

Having some hack fuck up this setting, and this franchise, will be really depressing.

Yes, it was.

Sorry, couldn't resist. But this is good news, because now New Line might get lucky and hire a director with actual talent.

[Backov]

Backov, backov, backov. We're not being defensive, we just think you're a poopyhead.

PJ's recent biography tells some stories about discussions at the beginning of LOTR. You think Arwen at the ford and a slightly testy Faramir were bad? Harvey Weinstein was all for killing one (or more) of the hobbits, compressing the fellowship into a threesome, combining Gondor and Rohan, turning Sauron into Saruman AND SO ON.

Ya, that's a grassfucker. And I totally agree, that it could have been MUCH worse. :)

[bigdruid]

I'm not defensive, Backov...more stunned. Although I shouldn't be surprised that there's nothing on this Earth so sublime that you can't find a coupla chuckleheads on the vasty internets that profess to hate it.

Case in point - when ROTK comes out, I managed to grab a couple of tickets for me and my wife and a couple of friends for an opening-day LOTR marathon at the local Cinerama. 12 hours of LOTR goodness (extended edition of FOTR and TT on the big screen, followed by a midnight showing of ROTK).

So we're there in the theater, it's like 1:30 AM, after hours of watching movies and eating bad pizza, and we're worn out.

Onscreen, Gondor is under siege, and we see the beacons of Minas Tirith being lit, one by one. Aragorn is watching from Edoras, sees the last in the long chain of beacons alight, and runs to the throne room shouting "The Beacons of Minas Tirith! The beacons are lit! Gondor calls for aid!"... There's a long pause, and Theoden calls out in a strong voice "...And Rohan shall answer!".

And the whole theater filled with tired fans just fucking explodes. Strong men leap to their feet. Women swoon. The aisles are filled with shouting nerds. It's a pure, distilled moment of movie magic, nearly unparalleled in any other film.

And you "almost walked out" on this film?

*That* is why I pity you.

[MatthewF]

And the whole theater filled with tired fans just fucking explodes. Strong men leap to their feet. Women swoon. The aisles are filled with shouting nerds. It's a pure, distilled moment of movie magic, nearly unparalleled in any other film.

That's hilarious. "Strong men leap to their feet"? "Women swoon"? I eagerly await your novel.

[Steve Canyon]

And the whole theater filled with tired fans just fucking explodes. Strong men leap to their feet. Women swoon. The aisles are filled with shouting nerds. It's a pure, distilled moment of movie magic, nearly unparalleled in any other film.

Fabulous!

[Justin Fletcher]

There's no doubt that another director could do a take on the story that would be just as compelling, but I really wanted to see Jackson's vision of The Hobbit. Especially so that it and the LOTR movies would seem cut of the same cloth. Now we'll either get a (probably poor) imitation of his style or a version that, good or bad, doesn't mesh with the other films.

I wish they would save the new director for the inevitable remakes (in, say, fifteen years?).

[bigdruid]

Yeah, I wouldn't even bat an eye if they gave the Silmarillion to someone else. But The Hobbit is kind of the 4th book in the LOTR quartet - it just seems wrong somehow.

[Backov]

I'm not defensive, Backov...more stunned. Although I shouldn't be surprised that there's nothing on this Earth so sublime that you can't find a coupla chuckleheads on the vasty internets that profess to hate it.

Yes, yes, we disagree on a movie so of course I'm a chucklehead.

I could quote for you the crap scene that made me so angry I almost walked out, but what's the point. Enjoy the movies. I'll just hope they make one I don't hate so much in my lifetime.

[Enidigm]

The biggest challenge to making The Hobbit will be to make it a movie driven by the characters and narrative rather than the CGI and plot; because, after all, what Biblo finds and what he does with, and the adventures he enjoys doing it, are the real point of the novel, especially now that we have seen the "real" battles in the LotR movies.

If you don't think Jackson is capable of the subtlety neccessary to make this movie anything more than a low-budget, sequal ridden, "cash-in-on-LotR" style of movie, then mabe a new director using Jackson's style could pull it off.

[Desslock]

Exactly, Tolkien's strengths are in his fine details and creating a rich world and lots of back story.

Naw, his strengths are in writing some of the best books in English literature.

[Flowers]

I just figured out who would be the perfect director for The Hobbit. Liam Lynch.

Think about it! He's the only man to do naughty puppets BETTER, than Peter Jackson. What's more? I'll tell you, he could bring the genuine disdain that the dwarves have for the hobbit to the silver screen. The hobbit is a cowardly slacker, and the dwarves are all like, "Dude, fuckin' come on, we've got shit to do, quit fuckin' around and almost dyin' from shit. Level up, fucker." Gandalf is all like, "Whhaaaaooa, I am Gandalf, I've got a great big beard and a magic horse, and I'm going to ninjaloot this badass blade, even though my class is wizard and I am totally going to ditch out on the group in a few minutes. Whhaaaeoooa, I ever nerfed the exp!"

Also, I would only trust him to capture the "holy fuck" factor of having to fight a dragon, and then watching a dude totally nail it. Dude totally nailed it.

Dude.

[John Merva]

I think Desslock is wildly overstating his point. Now God knows I loved Jackson's trilogy, but there are other directors who I'd also love to see tackle The Hobbit - Alfonso Cuarón and Terry Gilliam off the top of my head, but I could probably think of about a hundred others. (Spike Jones? Michael Gondry?)


Tim Burton?

I have a friend who swears that Burton would have done LOTR better. I don't think he could have done the scale but the smaller scale and quirkiness of The Hobbit may be right for him.

[Desslock]

Tim Burton?

I have a friend who swears that Burton would have done LOTR better. I don't think he could have done the scale but the smaller scale and quirkiness of The Hobbit may be right for him.

I like some Burton, and Gilliam, films -- but their efforts at fantasy tend to go over the top, and focus more on visual spectacle than sensical plots, and they've proven to be pretty bad at handling effects movies or scenes of big scale. I wouldn't mind seeing those guys tackle a Harry Potter or Narnia movie, but Tolkien's world is more grounded.

I probably agree with a lot, if not all, of Backov's criticisms of Jackson's LotR movies, but I weigh those criticisms substantially less (obviously), and think he undervalues how much Jackson got right with this series (and I'm talking about the extended versions - I think Fellowship is the only one of the originally released films that actually worked as a stand alone intact film). And Backov, it certainly wasn't Jackson's idea to play up the love story -that was imposed upon him by New Line - he got the creative freedom to cut out a lot of that stuff in Two Towers and RotK because Fellowship was a success, so he was able to cut out filmed scenes that interposed Arwen at Helms Deep and crap like that)

[krayzkrok]

I don't understand the Jackson hate for LOTR. Perhaps the movies could have been better, twice as long, included Tom Bombadil, have the characters break out into poetic song every other scene, but the fact is he created a far, far better series of movies than just about anyone realistically expected for those stories. Just think how truly bad they could have been given Hollywood's history with fantasy films in general. Go watch Dungeons and Dragons and you'll see how bad they could have been.

Giving The Hobbit to anyone else is just asking for trouble.

[Flowers]

In a strangely raspy, frantically pubescent rollercoaster of pitch; "I'm Tim Burton I wish the whole world was The Cure!"

[Kitsune]

Not only do I not get the hate for Jackson's interpretations, but for Tolkien's work as well. They're timeless and can be adapted and reinterpreted for many generations, observe:

In legendary times of yore, Yamauchi created great implements of power that he gave as gifts among the three races.

To the fanboys, great crafters of bullshit, in their rigid hall of stone, he gave a Phoenix Wright pointer stylus to point out the flaws in others.

To the graphics whores, who above all, desire power, he gave four lighting settins so they could blind old ladies and so they could be more easily manipulated in Yamauchi's visions.

To the hardcore gamers, he gave PictoChat, so that they would be able to transmit their knowledge throughout all timespace, yet it dwindled to only a few meters without the legendary Wi-Fi Connection, now inaccessible, lost in the Elder Days, beyond the Gray Havens, due to the a mix-up with friends codes.

But Yamauchi kept the most powerful implement for himself: the GBA-Insert-Doohickey-That-Keeps-Dust-Out-of-the-Slot. One GBA-Insert-Doohickey-That-Keeps-Dust-Out-of-the-Slot to rule them all, one GBa-Insert-Doohickey-That-Keeps-Dust-Out-of-the-Slot to find them and in the darkness bind them*. He used this to control the other implements until he lost in a late night gaming session of Advance Wars.

The GBA-Insert-Doohickey-That-Keeps-Dust-Out-of-the-Slot was found years later by a creature known as That Thing That Hides Stuff That is Missing and You Can't Find. TTTHSTiMaYCF took it into the Misty Train Stations until it was found by the most unlikely of people: Kitsune, of the Crazy Nips.

There, it lay, happily guarding Kitsune's DS Lite, he unaware of its true power, until the afternoon of November 21st, 2006. When Kitsune took The-GBA-Insert-Doohickey-That-Keeps-Dust-of-the-Slot to the Cracks of Laundry Room, it was stolen by TTHSTiMaYCF, along with several pairs of socks.

Now Kitsune is a fit of rage, destroying his entire house, uprighting everything to find it and degrading the market value of the place in the event the Sackville-Bagginses ever get it.

The End.

You see? Now where is my fucking doohickey?!

-Kitsune

[roguefrog]

^WTF

..........

[roguefrog]

Old story: the books are better. The movies are hit and miss for me. The extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring is VERY GOOD and is hands down the best of all three films. Starting in the shire with Bilbo and then shifting focus to Frodo, the extended gift giving, etc... Great! Also the only scene in all the films that comes close to matching the book in my mind is the bridge of Khazad-dûm. I was giddy. The Two Towers made me gag (Faramir). ROTK has some problems but isn't as offensive as Two Towers.

Now doing a movie on The Silmarillion isn't really comprehendable. A single chapter in that book can be an entire movie. (Beren and Lúthien anyone?) It's like trying to do a movie on the entire Bible.

[Damien Neil]

Onscreen, Gondor is under siege, and we see the beacons of Minas Tirith being lit, one by one. Aragorn is watching from Edoras, sees the last in the long chain of beacons alight, and runs to the throne room shouting "The Beacons of Minas Tirith! The beacons are lit! Gondor calls for aid!"... There's a long pause, and Theoden calls out in a strong voice "...And Rohan shall answer!".


In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a great menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.
"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master! Go!"
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
"Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.
And as if in answer from far away there came 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.


Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse on a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Eomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fury in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered and lo! it shone like an image of the sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rolled over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.


"Toss me!"

Yeah. To hell with Jackson.

[Elton]

I don't understand the Jackson hate for LOTR. Perhaps the movies could have been better, twice as long, included Tom Bombadil, have the characters break out into poetic song every other scene, but the fact is he created a far, far better series of movies than just about anyone realistically expected for those stories.

Yeah. My Tolkien-loving friends were aghast when the movies were being filmed, almost certain that it would be rank butchery. Now like most of you I'd have been happier with less Liv Tyler and fewer dwarvish one-liners, but come on -- Jackson had to satisfy his corporate masters and popcorn-moviegoers. I thought he still did well by people who can quote the books by heart, even if many subtleties had to be skipped. It's a minor miracle the movies were made at all, much less with the financing to make them look really epic and gorgeous. I invite the Jackson-disdainers to tell us what how another director would have improved the movies while still getting the funding. (And only Jackson would have made use of those awesome New Zealand landscapes.)

Still, if he could do it others can too. I am cautiously curious about the change in directors for The Hobbit.

[makore]

meet the feebles is way better than LOTR.

That's blasphemy and you should know that I have alerted the proper authorities.

[makore]

So defensive you guys.. I didn't kill your baby, I just hate the movie you love.

Conan The Barbarian >> LOTR Movies


I disagree with the evaluation, but it gives me an interesting idea. How about a Peter Jackson remake of Conan? What musclehead plays Conan though?

[Erik J.]

I disagree with the evaluation, but it gives me an interesting idea. How about a Peter Jackson remake of Conan? What musclehead plays Conan though?

Vin Diesel. Duh. I thought that rumor was floating around already for like the last 2 years...

Erik J.

[TheWombat]

For me the LOTR movies are greater than the sum of their parts (which can be and have been picked apart ad nauseum). I don't mind the dwarf jokes, either; they capture the "fellowship" aspect of the group, albeit in a more contemporary style than Tolkien did. I still get a sense of wonder from watching the extended edition DVDs.

As for the Hobbit, well, I'll be pretty surprised if anything ever comes of it. But I'll be interested in it if it does, whoever directs it.

[Squirrel Killer]

I wish they would save the new director for the inevitable remakes (in, say, fifteen years?).
Only 15? Weren't Jackson's in production for six or seven? That's a pretty short turnaround time. Assuming no copyright law changes, I'd predict we'll see remakes in about 40 years.

[Slainte Mhath]

Coming soon to a theater near you: "The Silmarillion - A Michael Mann film"

[dermot]

Michael Bay: "Unfinished Tales? That means I can write my own ending, right?"

[Mike O'Malley]

I disagree with the evaluation, but it gives me an interesting idea. How about a Peter Jackson remake of Conan? What musclehead plays Conan though?
The Rock. You heard it here first.

[bigdruid]

Yeah. To hell with Jackson.

Heh, Damien, now that's cherry-picking.

I could instead contrast the incredibly moving death of Boromir in FOTR (the movie) with the off-handed way Tolkien kills him off in TT. But what's the point - both are incredible works of art, each in their own way.

Nobody needs to tell you that Books and Movies are different art forms, and are going to have different highs and lows. Jackson made a movie, which is going to be emotionally powerful in a more visceral way than the book, but is going to substitute visual impact for some of the lyrical passages from the novels.

But, OK, I get it - there's *no* filmic adaptation that will please you. Good for you - no doubt you'll be rewarded in the next life for your loyalty to Tolkien's vision.

P.S. Of *course* the Rock would have to play Conan. It's the role he was born to reprise.

Edit: I didn't see Scorpion King, so maybe that'd change my view of The Rock. I just like the way his head is shaped - he has a Conan-esque skull.

[makore]

The Rock. You heard it here first.

Err did you see Scorpion King? The Rock's performance managed to make a mediocre script even worse. I'm not a Rock hater, but the action/comedies seem to be the right fit for him.

Vin Diesel wouldn't be a terrible fit as long as they don't try to add extra dialogue this time around.

[Damien Neil]

But, OK, I get it - there's *no* filmic adaptation that will please you. Good for you - no doubt you'll be reward in the next life for your loyalty to Tolkien's vision.

This is the attitude that pisses me off. "You disagree with me about these movies, therefore you are a mindless drone who hates all movies. LOL."

Jackson's adaption isn't even vaguely close to the books. This isn't a matter of cutting Bombadil prancing about (a good choice) or switching Arwin in for Glorfindel at the ford (not a bad idea at all). It isn't even so much about the gross plot changes (by the third movie, film and book have completely diverged).

No, the reason I get my hate on for Jackson's movies is that he stripped almost every character of any semblance of dignity and nobility.

Merry and Pippin: Independant, strong-willed characters. Without them, Frodo wouldn't have made it out of the Shire alive--they knew well in advance that he was leaving, and prepared to accompany him whether he willed it or not. In the movie, reduced to comic relief, a pair of buffoons who stumble into the adventure by accident.

Aragorn: The true king of Gondor, who has lived his entire life preparing to return and reclaim the throne of his ancestors. Decisive, confident, and the model of all that a king is supposed to be. In the movie, he becomes indecisive, worried, uncertain of whether he wants a crown at all.

Gimli: From proud representative of a noble race to comic relief.

Faramir: From the man who wouldn't take up Isildur's Bane if he found it lying by the side of the road, to avaricious and grasping foe.

Treebeard: Intelligent, courteous, and brave. In the movie, he doesn't even know what is happening to the trees in his own forest, and only offers assistance after being tricked into it by Tom and Huck...err, Merry and Pippin.

Time and again, Jackson's films change characters to be less intelligent, less noble, less couragous. This isn't a matter of one or two minor changes; it's a pervasive shift in the nature and tone of the characters, and as such, the story being told. And, for me, it renders the movies nigh unwatchable. (Fellowship, admittedly, I mostly liked on first viewing; it's only after seeing the progression into the later movies that it was completely spoiled for me.)

The movies are pretty, I'll grant you. They nailed the look perfectly, and my hat is off to the fine people who worked in the costuming, set, and special effects departments. There is no question that a tremendous amount of passion and love for the books was present there. It's just a damned shame that it was all pissed on by the scriptwriter.

And we can, of course, disagree on the value of the movies. But not if you insist on pulling out the pathetic, insulting canard that any opinion that disagrees with yours can only be irrational.

[Damien Neil]

Vin Diesel wouldn't be a terrible fit as long as they don't try to add extra dialogue this time around.

The Rock looks more like Conan to me, but Vin Diesel is the better actor and could probably pull the role off quite well. (Seriously! Vin Diesel isn't half bad at what he does.)

Plus, he's the logical choice for the role, being the second coming of Schwarzenegger.

[Ergo]

WAAAAAH

[Desslock]

Jackson's adaption isn't even vaguely close to the books. ..It isn't even so much about the gross plot changes (by the third movie, film and book have completely diverged).

That's just absurd. I hated every single change Jackson made to Tolkien's books, but the adaptation was astonishingly faithful. Anyone who thinks otherwise has completely unrealistic expectations.

Look at Spielberg's Jaws or Jurassic Park/Lost World if you want to see how off the wall a Hollywood adaptation can become (and that may not always be a bad thing).

[Slainte Mhath]

That's just absurd. I hated every single change Jackson made to Tolkien's books, but the adaptation was astonishingly faithful.

Agreed. For me, the magic of the movies wasn't that the story was ported over word for word, line by line, or even that the characters were brought over completely intact, it was the dedication to detail to insure the mythos as a whole came over exactly as I'd envisioned it while reading the books all those years ago.

Jackson and the WETA people did an amazing job at recreating Middle Earth from the detailed descriptions liberally sprinkled throughout the books. So many times in all three movies I was completely floored when a new location would come on screen and it would look EXACTLY as I'd pictured it in my head. The Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Rohan, Gondor, Minas Morgul, etc., etc.. If the dialog or even the characters were a little off for purposes of adaptation, who cares? As long as they are walking in Middle Earth it's all good.

[Matt Perkins]

Yeah, I'll agree the books and the movies weren't the same...but damn if they didn't feel the same. The world of Middle Earth was recreated on the screen. And if I had to pick something I would have changed is the overall message of the movies. It lost the "working together is key" and went with, the humans are all important.

I won't say they are the best movies ever made, but damn me if they aren't incredible.


Oh, and for movies that diverge. Anyone read and see Red October? Sure, they both had subs and a defecting captain, but NOTHING else was the same.

[Sebmolo]

Other amazing scenes - Aragorn saying goodbye to Frodo at the end of Fellowship (that slow mo walk towards the onrushing wall is the essence of cool) the fall of gandalf and the balrog at the beginning of TTT, Gandalf telling Pippin about death in ROTK.

You can pick any number of dumb tedious passages or creative decisions from both film and book, but what matters is the moments of sheer motherfucking glory you get in both. Booklovers who can't recognise what the film got right look a little silly now. That doesn't have to mean the films were perfect, just that they were better than anyone had a right to expect.

[Rimbo]

Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience.

Dear Mr. Jackson,

If that were the case, get a hand camcorder, go out and make the movie from your heart with whatever volunteers you can find. Heart does not feed the families of the hundreds of people who spend years of their lives making a film that suits your artistic vision at the level of quality and detail of the original Ring trilogy..

Deciding to make a movie that could potentially cost its investors tens of millions of dollars prior to it making a dime in a theater makes it a matter of business convenience.

Part of the reason American theaters screen garbage is because the directors who understand this basic are guys like Uwe Boll and not guys like Peter Jackson.

If you want to know more of the folly of standing on principle, why not give The Bridge on the River Kwai another viewing? I'm sure you have the time to spare, since you're no longer working on The Hobbit.

Have fun.

[awdougherty]

Coming soon to a theater near you: "The Silmarillion - A Michael Mann film"

I'd watch this...

... because you know when shit goes down at the end, it will be a tight take down with automatic rifles. Picture the Heat L.A. gunfight in the shire. Picture the collateral damage.

[Ben Sones]

otherwise I'll be ferociously rooting for this project to die.



I'm already hoping that the other project that Jackson said that New Line wanted to do--an LotR prequel--will die on the vine. I love the Silmarillion, but man, it make a terrible movie.

[bigdruid]

Time and again, Jackson's films change characters to be less intelligent, less noble, less couragous.


And, I, on the other hand, would say that the films change some of the characters to be more human, and less like brittle caricatures. You are correct that some, like Gimli, continue to be caricatures, but in a different way.

Yes, everybody in the books is noble and courageous. Nobody but the ring carrier is beset by self-doubt. And in the end, it's a tribute to the strength of the tale itself that the novels transcend the shallowness of the characterization of some of the major players.

Answer me honestly - when Boromir died in the novels, did you care? Did Eowyn's brave stand against the Witch King in the novel bring tears to your eyes? It's the very human qualities that Jackson injected into the characters that makes the movie watchable. It's one of the reasons why his adaptation succeeded where others failed.



And we can, of course, disagree on the value of the movies. But not if you insist on pulling out the pathetic, insulting canard that any opinion that disagrees with yours can only be irrational.

I didn't say your opinion was irrational - I said that I didn't think that any filmic adaptation would please you. After reading your latest post, I think that's not strictly true, but I think an adaptation that pleased you would be less of a movie and more of a visual adjunct to the books.

[dermot]

I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy a long time ago and I loved it but it there were loooooooong passages that were boring as fuck. They are fantastic books but they aren't perfect and claiming that they couldn't or shouldn't have been altered during adaptation is just silly.

Nor is Jackson's adaptation perfect; I love all three films but there are points in each were I groan silently. The dwarf tossing is a little daft, Aragorn falling off the cliff is a blatant red herring even to people who haven't read the books and there are probably more that I can't think of right now. But Jackson got far far more right: the films look spectacular,obviously; the characters feel far more human.

Faramir's family have held back the armies of Mordor and stewarded the kingdom of Gondor for generations; his father has played favourites with his brother for years and made no secret of the fact; he behaves exactly the way I would expect someone in his situation to behave, especially when someone wanders into the land claiming to be the rightful king.

Aragorn behaves in a manner befitting the good and noble king that we are presented; he is torn about whether or not to take up the crown, knowing that he will be returning to a kingdom that has been without a king for a long time, that he will be upsetting the balance of power and that the people who have acted as stewards in this kingdom for years will no longer have the status that they once took for granted.

Gimli may have been demoted to comic relief but it's not like he was a particularly well-drawn character in the books so it's not much of a fall. And really, these are long, dark, ponderous films: they needed comic relief.

Merry and Pippin are fine characters as Jackson has drawn them; whilst Frodo and Sam are slowly losing some of the characteristics that make them Hobbits, Merry and Pippin manage to retain them. They are loyal and noble creatures but they are also happy-go-lucky, curious and cheeky.

And Frodo and Sam; the relationship between Frodo and Sam, as Tolkien wrote it, was informed by his experiences in the front lines during World War I. It belongs to a time and a place when relationships and friendships were perversely innocent when everything else was brutal and violent. Viewed through modern eyes it's all a little gay but Jackson renders the relationship, the friendship on screen in a way that is true to the source material, without irony or care for modern sensibilities. Frodo and Sam are on the front line; they are dependant on each other, not just for physical survival but for mental and emotional sustenance. And Jackson portrays that beautifully. I don't think I've ever cried at a film the way I cried at the end of RotK when Sam and Frodo part. And I blub up like a baby whenever I see my wife cry.

[Slainte Mhath]

I'd watch this...

... because you know when shit goes down at the end, it will be a tight take down with automatic rifles. Picture the Heat L.A. gunfight in the shire. Picture the collateral damage.

Exactly. That and some great atmosphere shots of Middle Earth locations with storms rolling in, while Isildur and Elrond stand on a balcony smoking, looking intensely off into the distance as a remix of a Phil Collins or Glen Fry song plays, with Isildur finally breaking the prolonged silence by announcing in steely voice "Let's hunt some fucking orc."

[Kevin Perry]

Damien, the Witch-King scene you quote above (flaming sword and all) is in the extended version of ROTK.

I don't think the movies should be judged on the theatrical releases, but on the extended versions. I think PJ cut some stuff from the extended ROTK-- the laughing bed-bouncing scene was interminable in the theater but quite short on DVD.

[Damien Neil]

And, I, on the other hand, would say that the films change some of the characters to be more human, and less like brittle caricatures. You are correct that some, like Gimli, continue to be caricatures, but in a different way.

There are humans who are noble and couragous. I think that Jackson shares your attitude: That nobility and courage are something alien to humanity, something that no real person can express. And, therefore, he stripped those "unrealistic", "shallow" attributes from just about everyone.

It's a very Hobbit attitude, actually--to believe that nobility is something that happens only to Elves in far-off places. Lord of the Rings is, in large part, about denying that view. Tolkien shows that courage is not just for the great and powerful, but for mortal Men and Hobbits as well.

And given that he served in World War I, I'm not inclined to say that Tolkien had an unrealistic view of the nature of nobility and courage.


Answer me honestly - when Boromir died in the novels, did you care? Did Eowyn's brave stand against the Witch King in the novel bring tears to your eyes?

Yes, and yes, a thousand times yes! Far more so than I cared about the cheap slow-motion theatrics Jackson employed in Boromir's death scene, I should say. (Although credit where credit is due: Jackson's portrayal of Boromir, taken as a whole, is the solitary occasion where he surpassed the original.)


I didn't say your opinion was irrational - I said that I didn't think that any filmic adaptation would please you. After reading your latest post, I think that's not strictly true, but I think an adaptation that pleased you would be less of a movie and more of a visual adjunct to the books.

This is simply not true.

There is no necessary reason for Jackson's changes. His characters aren't "more human"; they're simply less decent, less honorable, and less wise. The changes he made to the plot don't make for a more cinematic experience, nor do they reduce the running time of the films. These were not changes made as a necessary step in converting a textual work to a visual medium, but ones made because his artistic vision didn't match that of Tolkien's.

The visuals of the movies are superbly done--an absolute tour de force. They do tremendous credit to the people that created them. However, the script is--despite many superficial similarities to the books--an almost total rejection of the actual content of the books. I object to that, and I don't think that I am unreasonable to do so.

[Damien Neil]

I don't think the movies should be judged on the theatrical releases, but on the extended versions. I think PJ cut some stuff from the extended ROTK-- the laughing bed-bouncing scene was interminable in the theater but quite short on DVD.

I am judging the movies based on the extended versions. My objections have nothing to do with what was included or left out, and everything to do with what was changed.

[Sebmolo]

The film versions of Aragorn and Faramir aren't courageous or honourable? I'd say doing something you don't want to do, even though it terrifies you, because it is the right thing to do is the very definition of courage and honour. Viz - F letting Frodo go, A taking the Crown.

In the books both A and F had absolutely no doubt or hesitation about what was right and wrong. That makes them more like the Terminator, not more interesting.

[Vic Davis]

I'm already hoping that the other project that Jackson said that New Line wanted to do--an LotR prequel--will die on the vine. I love the Silmarillion, but man, it make a terrible movie.

Come on man, what a defeatest attitude! You're quite right but if you took one of the story concepts and ran with it you could do a lot better than the D&D movie or this Eragon thing coming soon. Turin Turambar, Gondolin, Beren and Luthien, dragons, hordes of balrogs, infernal machines, swords that shimmer like colored icecicles....did I mention hordes of balrogs, and their leader Gothmog.

[bigdruid]

However, the script is--despite many superficial similarities to the books--an almost total rejection of the actual content of the books. I object to that, and I don't think that I am unreasonable to do so.

Fair enough. My opinion is that the script, despite many superficial differences, is true to the spirit of the books, and that many (but not all, certainly) of the changes were required to make the story viable in a different medium.

But I understand why you feel the way you do, even though I (obviously) strongly disagree.

[Desslock]

However, the script is--despite many superficial similarities to the books--an almost total rejection of the actual content of the books. I object to that, and I don't think that I am unreasonable to do so.

It's your characterization of that movies as "superficially similar" to the books that's unreasonable, when judged by any reasonable standard, the films are actually painstakingly accurate recreations of the books and the world they create.

I agree that the changes are largely annoying, and for the most part unnecessary and misguided because they introduce logical problems (if the ringwraith saw the ring when he almost snatches Frodo at the end of the cinematic version of Two Towers, a whole bunch of things don't make as much sense....and how did the elves get to Helms Deep (an example of a change that made characters more honorable and heroic, not less, by the way), etc., etc.) I agree with almost none of the changes, except perhaps cutting out the Bombadil/Old Forest section, and removing Shelob's dialogue to avoid that Dragonheart-like goofiness in what's supposed to be a tense situation.

But given the immense task and sheer amount of content to adapt, the changes are superficial and minor compared to the amazing amount of material that is accurately reproduced. They're not perfect by any means, but I never dreamed we would actually get the opportunity to watch such amazing reproductions of the books, which is, as others have stated, far beyond what we could reasonably have expected.

[Damien Neil]

It's your characterization of that movies as "superficially similar" to the books that's unreasonable, when judged by any reasonable standard, the films are actually painstakingly accurate recreations of the books and the world they create.

Visually, yes. But only visually. My objections aren't to the visuals, and I don't think that it's unreasonable to also judge the movies on points such as characterization, theme, and plot.

[Desslock]

I don't think that it's unreasonable to also judge the movies on points such as characterization, theme, and plot.

Nobody has suggested that's unreasonable in this thread -- quite the contrary, since that's precisely how we're all judging them. We just think your conclusions are unreasonable, or at least not persuasive, because they're not supported by the facts.

[MikeSofaer]

I felt the same way as Damien to some extent. Mostly it pissed me off how stupid they made everyone. "It's a diversion!"

[Robert Sharp]

I cried when Boromir died in the books, so yeah, I thought Tolkien did that passage quite well. I still remember it being one of the most moving parts of the trilogy. I also seem to remember Aragorn having doubts about returning to Gondor too, but that could be revisionist because of the movies. I read those books in HS after all. But I'm positive that I saw him as a guy hiding from his destiny rather than seeking it. That's how Tolkien portrays him. I agree about the dignity thing though, especially with Gimli. But Legolas showed dignity overall (I could do without shield surfing). Aragorn showed lots of it.

I think though that if all the characters had shown the same amount of stodgy dignity that Tolkien used in his books, the movies would have been tedious. They would be like watching a Victorian novel movie, where characters are so uptight you just can't have empathy for them. In the books, it was fine because empathy can be developed over time. In movies, there is no time, even when you take 3 hours to tell the story.

I think what Jackson did was fantastic. He made movies that I love as a Tolkien fan and that my wife loves (more than I do, actually) as someone who's never read Tolkien.

[Backov]

(if the ringwraith saw the ring when he almost snatches Frodo at the end of the cinematic version of Two Towers, a whole bunch of things don't make as much sense....and how did the elves get to Helms Deep (an example of a change that made characters more honorable and heroic, not less, by the way), etc., etc.)

Yes, let's examine these.

Aragorn fights off the Ringwraiths, instead of Frodo with his ancient Elven battle cry and his sword of Westernesse. After all, hobbits can't be heroes.

The Elves went to Helms Deep for two reasons - everyone loves Legolas, so here's an army of them.. And two, apparently the humans can't do it themselves. Even though they did.

Both of those changes support Damien, who, btw, I agree with in every single particular.


Merry and Pippin: Independant, strong-willed characters. Without them, Frodo wouldn't have made it out of the Shire alive--they knew well in advance that he was leaving, and prepared to accompany him whether he willed it or not. In the movie, reduced to comic relief, a pair of buffoons who stumble into the adventure by accident.

I can't support this enough. Not only were they independent and strong willed, by the end of the book they were straight up Heroic in their own right. And we didn't get to see any of it, ever. Even the scene on the battlefield was stooges level "assistance" to Eowyn.

[bigdruid]

Aragorn fights off the Ringwraiths, instead of Frodo with his ancient Elven battle cry and his sword of Westernesse. After all, hobbits can't be heroes.

Sigh. It's because the movie didn't meander around the Shire and the Barrows for 200 pages like the book did. So suddenly showing Frodo as this kick-ass fighter didn't make much sense in the context of the movie.



The Elves went to Helms Deep for two reasons - everyone loves Legolas, so here's an army of them.. And two, apparently the humans can't do it themselves. Even though they did.

If you recall, it's because the elves are leaving Middle Earth. They have to make a decision whether to help fight at all, or just head to the Grey Havens. They know that Rohan will fall without their help, and may fall anyway.

Having the Elves show up at Helms Deep in one final show of solidarity with Mankind, risking their own immorality, is one of the most powerful moments in the TT. But perhaps you were out getting popcorn during the exposition for that scene.



I can't support this enough. Not only were they independent and strong willed, by the end of the book they were straight up Heroic in their own right.

Guys, Merry and Pippin are really minor characters in the books. If you take out the Scouring of the Shire, there just aren't that many heroic moments left for them.

They charged the Uruk'hai at the end of FotR, and went to battle with the Rohirrim. I'm sorry that you didn't get to see whatever other obscure feats of bravery you had in mind. But...you are really grasping at straws.

It's fine, you don't have to like the movie, and from a purist's standpoint, you can find defensible reasons not to like it (especially if you are a die hard Gimli fan). Just leave it at "it diverged too much from the books" and move on with your dignity intact - trying to justify comments like "Peter Jackson is a hack" just makes you look bad.

[Desslock]

I hate to say it, but to the extent Jackson made the Hobbits seem less heroic (an assertion I don't entirely agree with), it's because they represent the "common man" in both the books and the movies...and frankly it's difficult for modern audiences to believe that an average guy can heroically go to war, without self-doubt, without fear, and just go "do your duty" with honor, unlike the heroic ideal at the time Tolkien wrote the books. There's a lot more cynicism now, and it just wouldn't seem plausible to modern audiences. Black and white is out, even in our heroic archetypes, apparently.

You certainly saw those sorts of changes in the Narnia adaptation - it was just viewed as too preposterous to modern audiences if the kids just picked up their swords and bravely went off to battle killing things.

[MatthewF]

I just thought I'd mention that I thought the LOTR movies were boring, ill-paced, and occasionally overacted. ROTK wasn't terrible, though, and by far was the best of the 3.

WHERE'S TOM BOMBADIL?!

[Desslock]

I thought I'd mention that trolling isn't cool.

[Ben]

How can anyone say Fellowship isn't the best of the films? Boromir's death is fantastic cinema.

But I'll play that game. The books suck. Tolkien writes artless, meandering prose with far too much poetry and singing, and his plot is terrible. He splits the party up so the interesting characters don't see the important characters for roughly one million pages.

[MatthewF]

I thought I'd mention that trolling isn't cool.

I'm being completely serious. I guess that means you're trolling me? Well, the next time you say something I don't like, I'll make sure to pay you the same respect.

[Backov]

If you recall, it's because the elves are leaving Middle Earth. They have to make a decision whether to help fight at all, or just head to the Grey Havens. They know that Rohan will fall without their help, and may fall anyway.

Having the Elves show up at Helms Deep in one final show of solidarity with Mankind, risking their own immorality, is one of the most powerful moments in the TT. But perhaps you were out getting popcorn during the exposition for that scene.

I remember it very well. I remember that THEY FUCKING LEFT. They said screw Man and they went to the Grey Havens. And they definitely didn't show up at Helms Deep to help the humans, because the humans didn't (in the end) require their help. You know, they were courageous and they won without the help of the Better Than Thou fucking Elves.




Guys, Merry and Pippin are really minor characters in the books. If you take out the Scouring of the Shire, there just aren't that many heroic moments left for them.

Ya, Scouring is out, but that's post-Heroic. That's them coming back and kicking ass. I'd have to read the books again to point out to you exact scenes, but I'm hardly grasping at straws. You really need to stop trying to attack my credibility here.



It's fine, you don't have to like the movie, and from a purist's standpoint, you can find defensible reasons not to like it (especially if you are a die hard Gimli fan). Just leave it at "it diverged too much from the books" and move on with your dignity intact - trying to justify comments like "Peter Jackson is a hack" just makes you look bad.

Again, "move on with my dignity intact" - ya, like this effects it. And like I am obviously not correct, and you are. Maybe you shouldn't venture out of P&R.

It's not that it diverged from the books. It's not that every scene wasn't filmed. It was that Peter Jackson added a bunch of unnecessary crap that SUCKED, and changed a bunch of stuff for Hollywood reasons that also SUCKED.

In short, the films had some serious suckage. The ONLY thing they did right was the visuals. They were fantastic. A few scenes were great. Moria was pretty damn good, the bridge especially. Even the fall into the Abyss/Fight with the Balrog was good. But fuck - Aragorn falls off a cliff in a battle that has no purpose but to extend the movie and give Liv Tyler more screen time? That when they said TTT was TOO LONG and that other scenes would have to be cut?

Fuck Peter Jackson.

[Desslock]

I'm being completely serious. I guess that means you're trolling me? Well, the next time you say something I don't like, I'll make sure to pay you the same respect.

Sorry, I actually thought you were trolling, not just being flippant. Didn't mean to disrespect you, dude - don't mind if we have completely different opinions.

[Sebmolo]

It's not that it diverged from the books. It's not that every scene wasn't filmed. It was that Peter Jackson added a bunch of unnecessary crap that SUCKED, and changed a bunch of stuff for Hollywood reasons that also SUCKED.


No, it's that you're a cock.

[deccan]

Having the Elves show up at Helms Deep in one final show of solidarity with Mankind, risking their own immorality, is one of the most powerful moments in the TT. But perhaps you were out getting popcorn during the exposition for that scene.

Nice slip. ;)

[roguefrog]

Come on man, what a defeatest attitude! You're quite right but if you took one of the story concepts and ran with it you could do a lot better than the D&D movie or this Eragon thing coming soon. Turin Turambar, Gondolin, Beren and Luthien, dragons, hordes of balrogs, infernal machines, swords that shimmer like colored icecicles....did I mention hordes of balrogs, and their leader Gothmog.

Maybe they can do The Silmarillion in 10 movies.

[Backov]

No, it's that you're a cock.

I was wondering why he added all that shit to LOTR.. It turns out it was because I was a cock! Thanks Sebmolo, you really cleared that up for me.

Also, go upstairs and give your mom a big hug for letting you live with her so far into your 30s.

[roguefrog]

The films would be a lot better if I could omit all the bogus scenes. TTT would be diced up a bit around Faramir. Have the hobbits back on their journey after the secret pool. No Warg encounter, thus no Aragorn falling off a cliff, thus no Arwen scene. On that note, absolutely no Arwen scenes after Fellowship leaves Rivendale. Hate that Father Elrond/Daughter Arwen bullshit. Cut the scene where Treebeard is taking the hobbits out of the forest by cutting straight to the Ent attack on Isengard. Looks like we know the real outcome of the Entmoot! Scenes where the camera is focused on a hobbits face for 5 minutes definitely have to go.

[dermot]

You know what, I take it all back. The Lord of the Rings movies sucked. They should have had entire chapters devoted to Gimli discovering that forests were nice and that elves weren't so bad after all and there should have been an hour-long interlude during which Legolas discovers that caves are animal because they have shiny things in the walls and stuff. That would have made both of them more nobler characters and would have drawn attention away from the less important shit that was going on with the other, lesser characters and also, it would have been ace.

[MatthewF]

Calm down, Douchey McOverreaction. Nobody stabbed your mother, we just don't like the movies as much as some people do.

[dermot]

How did you know my real name? Have you been googling me?

[Damien Neil]

Guys, Merry and Pippin are really minor characters in the books. If you take out the Scouring of the Shire, there just aren't that many heroic moments left for them.

Merry has as many heroic moments, not counting the Scouring, as Éowyn does. He gets half the credit for the death of the Lord of the Nazgûl--his dagger in the Nazgûl's head gives Éowyn space to deal a finishing blow. ("No man" could kill the Lord of the Nazgûl. Thus he was done in by a Hobbit and a woman, for double anti-prophetic action.)

Pippin has a worse time of it, since his screwup with the palantir took a lot out of him. Of course, it also made him a nice foil for Denethor, who has also been having palantir issues.

More importantly, however, their most notable heroic moment isn't a moment. It's the fact that the two of them are willing to put themselves out in the middle of a war utterly beyond anything they have the context to deal with. They're a pair of Hobbits, accustomed to good food and warm fires, outclassed at all turns, and they willingly walk into the meat grinder because it's the right thing to do.

Tolkien fought in the Great War. He'd lived what Merry and Pippin were going through, and their presence is in no way accidental.

No way in hell are Merry and Pippin minor.

[Damien Neil]

I hate to say it, but to the extent Jackson made the Hobbits seem less heroic (an assertion I don't entirely agree with), it's because they represent the "common man" in both the books and the movies...and frankly it's difficult for modern audiences to believe that an average guy can heroically go to war, without self-doubt, without fear, and just go "do your duty" with honor, unlike the heroic ideal at the time Tolkien wrote the books.

Tolkien fought in World War I. He fought in the Somme, a battle which saw over a million casualties. He saw essentially everyone he knew that was his own age die. There's an old photo of his army company: every man in it but him was dead six months after it was taken. (The only reason that he made it out alive as that he got "lucky" and caught trench fever.)

The heroic ideals were broken up, piled in a heap, and set on fire before Tolkien ever began writing. He wasn't a starry-eyed idealist, and he wasn't writing for an audience of them.

And, I'll note, audiences today happily watch WW2 war movies awash in heroism. Not ones devoid of humanity--but that wasn't what Tolkien was writing either. There's a reason the hobbits are present in those books, and it isn't for comic relief.

[bigdruid]

Fuck Peter Jackson.

Backov, I tried, man, I really did. But you are determined to hate Jackson and these films, and I'm not gonna try to stop you anymore.

Damien puts forth a fairly thoughtful critique of why thematically he didn't like Jackson's treatment, and somehow he's able to do so without implying that Jackson is a hack, or that the LotR trilogy has been sacrificed on the altar of Hollywood avarice.

But by going off on your little tirade, you are blinding yourself to the obvious love that Jackson poured into this film. He took a story that conventional wisdom said was unfilmable, and turned it into an incredible series of movies that introduced millions of people around the globe to the world of Middle Earth.

If you watch any of the documentaries of making of the movies, you'll see that Jackson and Walsh lived, ate, and breathed Middle Earth for going on 5 years. He made the changes he did in an effort to turn the novel into a watchable movie - you may not have agreed with every one of his decisions (whether it's adding humor to the tale, or including an expanded role for Arwen, or whatever) but your petulant insistence that everything he added "SUCKED" and he only made changes for "Hollywood reasons" just undermines your credibility.

[Backov]

Holy shit man, stop already. It's not P&R. I'm not being petulant, I just don't like his changes. I've done everything I can to make that clear.

I don't need credibility to post my opinion on a movies scenes, script or characterization. I don't care what love Jackson put into the movie, since I don't give a shit about Jackson. I care that he butchered (IMO) the movies. My "little tirade" is my opinion on the movie. Conventional wisdom said it was unfilmable? What about the two previous movies? The cartoon version even covers the majority of the books, with all scenes intact and adds (awful, 60s) singing!

Is PJ your uncle or something?

[Andrew Mayer]

Well said.

Movies are process. Getting through that process with anything worthwhile intact is a minor miracle.

Doing it through three films and actually creating something that has relevance to the source material, and had major critical and mass-market acclaim is a major miracle.

You can call Jackson all the names you like, but he has done something that only a very few humans have ever been able to do.

[Moore]

Holy shit man, stop already. It's not P&R. I'm not being petulant, I just don't like his changes. I've done everything I can to make that clear.

I don't need credibility to post my opinion on a movies scenes, script or characterization. I don't care what love Jackson put into the movie, since I don't give a shit about Jackson. I care that he butchered (IMO) the movies. My "little tirade" is my opinion on the movie. Conventional wisdom said it was unfilmable? What about the two previous movies? The cartoon version even covers the majority of the books, with all scenes intact and adds (awful, 60s) singing!

Is PJ your uncle or something?

the bakshi stuff isnt from the 60s, and PJ couldnt have butchered the movies, they didnt exist till he made them.

He may well have butchered the books, but the books were as entertaining as a dead cow, so it's nice he made steak out of them. If anyone is really stupid enough to try the Simarillion or whatever the fuck that one is called, they deserve their fate. That'd be like making a good movie out of a 10,000 page nose hair trimmer advert, written in pig latin.

oh and I'm not related to PJ, but I am related by marriage to Bakshi.

[Backov]

Well said.

Movies are process. Getting through that process with anything worthwhile intact is a minor miracle.

Doing it through three films and actually creating something that has relevance to the source material, and had major critical and mass-market acclaim is a major miracle.

You can call Jackson all the names you like, but he has done something that only a very few humans have ever been able to do.

I absolutely agree with this. I just didn't like the result.

[Dave Markell]

Damien puts forth a fairly thoughtful critique of why thematically he didn't like Jackson's treatment, and somehow he's able to do so without implying that Jackson is a hack, or that the LotR trilogy has been sacrificed on the altar of Hollywood avarice.

Yup. I'm a major-league Tolkien purist, and I agree with just about every one of Damien's criticisms. Nonetheless, I like the films. Almost every time their characterizations or themes depart from the books, I wince because the changes are so glaringly wrong-headed, but they are still sufficiently faithful that the net result is positive. (As an aside, omissions like Bombadil, merging Glorfindel with Arwen, or the Barrow Wights don't bother me at all--cuts had to be made and I think Jackson picked good spots for them. It's his alterations to Faramir, Aragorn, and Gimli that anger me)

Oh, and Damien--Merry stabs the Lord of the Nazgul in the knee, not the head. Eowyn gets the head-shot in. :-)

[Damien Neil]

Oh, and Damien--Merry stabs the Lord of the Nazgul in the knee, not the head. Eowyn gets the head-shot in. :-)

Err, whups. I knew that, really I did. I'd just finished rereading the scene, even! :>

I'm now picturing Merry trying to figure out how to reach the guy's head.

[Lunch of Kong]

I was wondering why he added all that shit to LOTR.. It turns out it was because I was a cock!

ROFL ROFL

[John Reynolds]

I'm now picturing Merry trying to figure out how to reach the guy's head.

Dude, he was obviously tossed. :D

I'm a near 30-year Tolkien fanboy of the first-class (paging Jeff Green for the umpteenth time, fire your f'n copy editors for constantly allowing Tolkein to slip through, including your latest Games for Windows mag <which was otherwise an excellent first issue>), I like the Fellowship but hate the sequels for most of what Damien has pointed out. And I think Kong nicely illustrated that Tolkien's material saved Jackson's ass, rather than vice versa or any blather about meeting or exceeding "expectations" (an insipidly subjective standard. . .bad alliteration FTW!). From my understanding, following the critical and commercial success of the trilogy Jackson pretty much had free reign over Kong and look at how lousy that one turned out.

[Andrew Mayer]

From my understanding, following the critical and commercial success of the trilogy Jackson pretty much had free reign over Kong and look at how lousy that one turned out.

What's interesting is they basically threw out their original script and rewrote it using what they had learned from working with Tolkein's material.

Could it be that the long talky bits and excessive travelogues came from that?

[Sebmolo]

In no world that contains 'The Transporter 2' and the works of Uwe Boll can King Kong be called lousy.

For (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/kingkong?q=king%20kong) instance. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/)

[Desslock]

Tolkien fought in World War I. He fought in the Somme, a battle which saw over a million casualties. He saw essentially everyone he knew that was his own age die. There's an old photo of his army company: every man in it but him was dead six months after it was taken. (The only reason that he made it out alive as that he got "lucky" and caught trench fever.)

Not sure how this has anything whatsoever to do with my post.


And, I'll note, audiences today happily watch WW2 war movies awash in heroism.

There's tons of heroism displayed by all the fellowship characters in LotR, in both the movies and the books - it's nutty that you think there isn't.

But on the point I was making - to the extent you think certain changes made characters like Merry and Pippin seem less heroic because they were more contemplative or less decisive, those changes were likely made because modern audiences no longer find those sort of selfless, unquestioning sacrifices normal. So they made similar changes to the Narnia film, because it wouldn't make sense for "normal folk" to casually take up arms without any self-doubt or lack of reassurance -- and contrary to your assertion, they even do the same thing with WW2 movies these days, as Flags of our Fathers recently demonstrated.

[Desslock]

Yup. I'm a major-league Tolkien purist, and I agree with just about every one of Damien's criticisms. Nonetheless, I like the films. Almost every time their characterizations or themes depart from the books, I wince because the changes are so glaringly wrong-headed, but they are still sufficiently faithful that the net result is positive. (As an aside, omissions like Bombadil, merging Glorfindel with Arwen, or the Barrow Wights don't bother me at all--cuts had to be made and I think Jackson picked good spots for them. It's his alterations to Faramir, Aragorn, and Gimli that anger me)

I'm basically the same, and agree with all of that and virtually all of the criticisms of the movies, although I was probably more annoyed by his alterations to Denethor than any other character alterations, and think they really nailed Aragorn, although not in the way I expected. I also really hated changing the army of the dead into invinicible spirits and having them appear at Minis Tirith and basically render the rest of the battle moot -- for those reasons, I thought RotK was by far the worst of the trilogy, and if the other movies had changes that bothered me as much (as I guess Damien believes) then I'd like the movies a lot less.

But even then, I'd have a ton of respect for the accomplishment, and really appreciate the stuff that was nailed so well in the adaptation - just to see the world and certain scenes brought to life so faithfully and accurately, for instance. I really don't see how any big Tolkien fan wouldn't have the perspective to appreciate all of that.

[Desslock]

What's interesting is they basically threw out their original script and rewrote it using what they had learned from working with Tolkein's material.

Really? I never knew that. Is the original script they were going to use for Kong available anywhere online, or something that summarizes the differences?

[Desslock]

Sounds more and more like negotiating bs:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30806

[AaronSofaer]

Looks like I need to rent the extended version of all three of these movies and watch 'em again! Cause reading this thread reminded me of how much I liked seeing them in the first place.


As far as the movies go, I think a couple things really pissed me off... well, ok, maybe more than a couple ... but regardless they were incredible movies, some of the best I've seen.


And I'd love to see a series of movies done on the Silmarillion, but one movie on it? Impossible.


[Edit] Forgot. Gollum was fricken genius. Andy is my hero forever for that performance. The Smeagol/Gollum scene was incredible...

[Quitch]

While I'm sure we all have different views on how good the films were, how much they diverged from the books, whether that was for better, for worse, or a mix of the two, I will never, ever, understand how people could enjoy the new Boromir death scene.

It was just awful.

He's supposed to die a noble death against a horde of the new ultimate fighting machines, defeating them into someone points out that archery defeats the lone swordsmen. Instead we get some computer game RPG moment, where arrows don't kill they just reduce the HP bar. It was made worse by the fact that the whole thing was in slow-mo, and that back and forth swinging action made the Uruks look like idiots, and completely removed their threat factor.

Tolkien created a fantasy world, but one well grounded in real things. One of those things was that while one man could fight better than another man, he couldn't defeat an army, and he certainly wouldn't continue to defeat it with an arrow in his chest.

The reason book readers will get more annoyed at the films than those who haven't read the book isn't always because it diverges from "the vision", but because they can compare what one did against the other, and they may not always find the film version superior. In some cases the changes were just weird. I honestly couldn't understand why they changed the way the party reaches Moria, because the Jackson version doesn't actually make any sense. On the other hand cutting Tom Bombadil was something I think almost everyone was thankful for.

If there's one thing that can't be argued, it's that the films really got Middile-Earth spot on. That is what Middle-Earth should look like, no argument.

[Chris Nahr]

The reason book readers will get more annoyed at the films than those who haven't read the book isn't always because it diverges from "the vision", but because they can compare what one did against the other, and they may not always find the film version superior.

Bingo. I'm fine with what Jackson chose to cut from the books, but what he chose to add or change was far inferior to what Tolkien had written. Either Jackson himself, his scriptwriters or their corporate overlords felt obliged to dumb down the story, flatten the characters, and add random Hollywood moments. Sure, the result is still very good in comparison to most other movies, but this deliberate idiotification is so very annoying when you've read the books and know how good the trilogy could have been.

[Andrew Mayer]

but this deliberate idiotification is so very annoying when you've read the books and know how good the trilogy could have been.

And yet the movie made billions and won the Oscar for best picture...

You may not like the choices he made, but his investors certainly did.

[Quitch]

Me thinks there's a hole in your argument so big the Death Star could fly through.

[krayzkrok]

Me thinks there's a hole in your argument so big the Death Star could fly through.

But it would take an inexorably long time.

[Andrew Mayer]

Me thinks there's a hole in your argument so big the Death Star could fly through.

Is there? The recent Star Wars films made progressively less money for each movie.

No doubt you can coast on a good license, but starting one up is pretty tough.

[Robert Sharp]

I read the books and never even noticed the Boromir scene was different. I remember him kicking ass and then getting killed in the books. The movie did the same thing. I think some of you are Tolkien purists. That's cool. But many of us who read and greatly enjoyed the books don't remember every last detail. The movies captured the spirit of the books pretty well, IMO. It also made them interesting to a much wider audience than you could have captured by rendering the books faithfully (note that many people find Tolkien boring).

It's also interesting to note that a lot of people complained that the Harry Potter movies (especially the first one) were too close to the books, rendering them ineffective as movies. It's a different medium, after all.

[Desslock]

It didn't help that the first two Harry Potter movies were by Chris Columbus, a true hollywood hack if there's ever been one. He stuck with a very bland and generic by-the-numbers approach, and I have no doubt whatsoever that was the best tactic he could have taken given his own lack of talent.

[Destarius]

Okay, just a reality check for all the Peter Jackson haters. Tom Bombadil - in or out? Why?

[Rimbo]

i picked two massive boogers from my right nostril while reading this whole thread

just so you know that this discussion hasn't been completely unproductive

[Quitch]

I read the books and never even noticed the Boromir scene was different. I remember him kicking ass and then getting killed in the books. The movie did the same thing. I think some of you are Tolkien purists. That's cool. But many of us who read and greatly enjoyed the books don't remember every last detail. The movies captured the spirit of the books pretty well, IMO. It also made them interesting to a much wider audience than you could have captured by rendering the books faithfully (note that many people find Tolkien boring).

For me it's not that the scene didn't match the book (IIRC, Boromir's fight and mortal wound happen "off camera" in the book), it stuck out to me because it's one of those instances where I think Jackson misinterpreted what Tolkien was getting at. People didn't arrows to the chest and continue to kick ass in Tolkien's world, especially not a human. Hell, Gandalf was a wizard, but he wasn't casting magics every five seconds, because Tolkien wanted a grounded world.

Frankly, that I hate that bit so much is simply a credit to the rest of the film, which I thought was superb... okay, bar the new Moria explanation which I also hate because it makes no sense whatsoever.

I did go and see the film about five or six times at the cinema, the first time I'd ever seen a film more than once in fact.

[awdougherty]

So the complaint is that it's not realistic that Boromir took 5 to the chest and kept going? There are probably plenty of examples (in real life, not in the books) where people survived much worse wounds, realtively speaking, and kept going for a minute or two before falling over.

[Desslock]

You must of really hated the prior film adaptation then, since in that movie Boromir ripped the arrows right out, and continued to kick ass. Please now argue with Damien and/or Backov (to lazy to check) who previously argued how much more accurate that earlier movie adaptation was. Then this thread will be complete.

The Moria exploration is also one of my least favourite parts of the movies because, as you said, it makes no sense, even if it looks good (I think one of those guys also said that was one of the few parts they LIKED in the movies).

[Chris Nahr]

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the problem is with Boromir taking several arrows while he kept fighting. Realism aside, Tolkien definitely described his heroic fighters as being capable of superhuman feats -- just look at the pursuit of the orcs across the plains of Rohan.

What part of the Moria exploration made no sense?

[Enidigm]

okay, bar the new Moria explanation which I also hate because it makes no sense whatsoever.


What's the New Moria Explanation? The choice to go into Moria, the reason Moria is Moria today, the trip through Moria?

[Enidigm]

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the problem is with Boromir taking several arrows while he kept fighting. Realism aside, Tolkien definitely described his heroic fighters as being capable of superhuman feats -- just look at the pursuit of the orcs across the plains of Rohan.

What part of the Moria exploration made no sense?

My only problem with the Boromir scene is the question - why haven't they been shooting them with bows the whole time?

[Quitch]

Wow, I didn't realise it was a crime to dislike elements of the movies. Seesh, you really get your shit ripped out for that here. Sorry, I didn't realise 9/10 was a low score.

[Sebmolo]

Tolkien created a fantasy world, but one well grounded in real things. One of those things was that while one man could fight better than another man, he couldn't defeat an army, and he certainly wouldn't continue to defeat it with an arrow in his chest.


You have a sad shrivelled raisin for a soul if you didn't find that final scene moving, but that has no impact on my life and I'm prepared to ignore it. Your last sentence, though, is weird enough to make a bit queasy; steps must be taken.

You aver that, according to Tolkien, Boromir couldn't defeat an army, especially with an arrow in him. But in the movies he didn't defeat an army, because he had several arrows in him. You see?

[Quitch]

I couldn't find it moving because I found it so ridiculous. The death of Gandalf on the other hand, even though I knew it was coming AND that he survives, that had me fighting back the tears.

The Boromir death was just macho rubbish IMO. He had arrows in his chest, was on his knees, yet defeated several what were supposed to be incredibly dangerous killing machines. How can you find them threatening after a scene where some guy beats them, on his knees, swinging his sword back and forth? It just didn't work for me.

[Sebmolo]

I couldn't find it moving because I found it so ridiculous. The death of Gandalf on the other hand, even though I knew it was coming AND that he survives, that had me fighting back the tears.

The Boromir death was just macho rubbish IMO. He had arrows in his chest, was on his knees, yet defeated several what were supposed to be incredibly dangerous killing machines. How can you find them threatening after a scene where some guy beats them, on his knees, swinging his sword back and forth? It just didn't work for me.

Those six words make all the difference.

Works great for me and most other people. I even believe it's pretty much straight from the book - IIRC Pippin talks about seeing Boromir 'plucking arrows out of himself' which is pretty macho.

Also it's firmly in the superior action movie reality ('no way the Glock 17 holds 19 bullets that killed the movie stone dead for me RIGHT THERE') where the stupendous badass just keeps on keeping on. Why? Because he is a stupendous badass.

[Quitch]

Those six words make all the difference.

Well, no, they don't. I'm just one person, what the fuck else could I have meant? It irritates me that people waste their time constantly qualifying their remarks, and I'm sad that it was necessary in this case, especially as it doesn't alter my remarks in the slightest, nor the context in which they could be taken. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd declared myself to be speaking for all humanity, I'd still only be speaking for myself, which makes such qualifying remarks utterly pointless.

[garin]

How can you find them threatening after a scene where some guy beats them, on his knees, swinging his sword back and forth? It just didn't work for me.Because he's not just "some guy", he's Boromir- a great hero. It's certainly in the spirit of Tolkien to have a distinction between greater and lesser men. It doesn't diminish the prowess of the Uruk-hai to have (some of) them bested by someone even more dangerous.

[Sebmolo]

Well, no, they don't. I'm just one person, what the fuck else could I have meant? It irritates me that people waste their time constantly qualifying their remarks, and I'm sad that it was necessary in this case, especially as it doesn't alter my remarks in the slightest, nor the context in which they could be taken. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd declared myself to be speaking for all humanity, I'd still only be speaking for myself, which makes such qualifying remarks utterly pointless.

'It's shit' implies you are a fool for thinking otherwise and invites argument.

'It doesn't work for me' accepts the validity of the opinions of others, and does not.

Simple as that.

[Quitch]

Implies nothing, all it does is show YOUR view, not mine. Reading between the lines means that YOU have to do the reading.

[Kunikos]

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

Odds on new director being Brett Ratner: 3 to 1.

--- Alan

My money is on Michael Bay.

[Sebmolo]

Implies nothing, all it does is show YOUR view, not mine. Reading between the lines means that YOU have to do the reading.

Um, what? It's etiquette, dude. Same as you wouldn't scream 'BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT' into someone's face when you're having an argument in person, it's polite to acknowledge other views besides your own online.

Have said that I did call Backov a cock earlier in this thread - but, in my defense, he is one.

[Backov]

Um, what? It's etiquette, dude. Same as you wouldn't scream 'BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT' into someone's face when you're having an argument in person, it's polite to acknowledge other views besides your own online.

Have said that I did call Backov a cock earlier in this thread - but, in my defense, he is one.

Stop talking to my wife.

[Quitch]

Um, what? It's etiquette, dude. Same as you wouldn't scream 'BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT' into someone's face when you're having an argument in person, it's polite to acknowledge other views besides your own online.

Now we're entering a whole world of subjective. If someone feels the need to keep telling me, as they put their view forward, that it's their view, I'd find that an insult to my intelligence.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Um, what? It's etiquette, dude. Same as you wouldn't scream 'BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT' into someone's face when you're having an argument in person, it's polite to acknowledge other views besides your own online.

Have said that I did call Backov a cock earlier in this thread - but, in my defense, he is one.
Ha ha ha, etiquette. Get him. Whatever, Nancy.

[Alan Dunkin]

Now we're entering a whole world of subjective. If someone feels the need to keep telling me, as they put their view forward, that it's their view, I'd find that an insult to my intelligence.

Maybe they're doing it intentionally just to insult your intelligence. But that's my view.

--- Alan

[roguefrog]

The Boromir death scene in the films tells me that the home-brewed orcs are really shitty fighters, not that Boromir is good. Boromir on his knees, two arrows lodged in his chest, and orcs actively trying to impale themselves with his sword. None of them have the common sense to surround Boromir in force and chop off his fucking head. Which from the looks of it, should have happened in the film.

A really memorable part of the book, for the dialogue alone, was Eowyn's reply to the Lord of the Nazgul's devilish proclamation. The film version cut out the devilish parts and the wit of Eowyn's rebuttal.

[Damien Neil]

A really memorable part of the book, for the dialogue alone, was Eowyn's reply to the Lord of the Nazgul's devilish proclamation. The film version cut out the devilish parts and the wit of Eowyn's rebuttal.

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"

A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn am I, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

[Alan Dunkin]

Well I'm sure glad they cut all that down, this sequence alone would take forever.

Then again, frankly I liked this particular sequence better in the animated movie (and Aragon's speech before the Black Gate as well).

--- Alan

[bigdruid]

No, no, they should totally have stopped the action while the Nazgul prattles on about the houses of lamentation and the lidless eye. That would've been totally better. Thanks for pointing that out.

Edit: Eowyn's reply does still send shivers up my spine, though :)

[Destarius]

A really memorable part of the book, for the dialogue alone, was Eowyn's reply to the Lord of the Nazgul's devilish proclamation. The film version cut out the devilish parts and the wit of Eowyn's rebuttal.

Good move on SJ's part. That reply works in a book, not in a movie.

[Andrew Mayer]

Good move on SJ's part. That reply works in a book, not in a movie.

One of many many smart decisions.

It was a movie adaptation, not some kind of act of worship.

[Desslock]

This exchange just sums up this thread. I love Tolkien's books and that excerpt - hell, I think they're the greatest books in English literature - but if you can't see why that couldn't be transplanted, unedited, into a movie adaptation, then you really have no perspective. You don't want a movie - you want an audio-visual reading of the book.

Jackson's handling of this scene was actually one of only 2 scenes in RotK I thought he really nailed, by the way (the other being Theoden's speech prior to the Rohan charge - probably my favourite scene in the series).

[Chris Nahr]

Seriously? I thought that speech was ridiculous. The Eowyn actress looked as if she'd burst into laughter at any moment, and Merry wasn't any more believable, having been remade into a comic relief character.

[roguefrog]

The scene in the movie is fine, it's just no where near as cool. Anyone know if there was any word for word scenes other than the bridge of Khazad-dûm?

[John Reynolds]

This exchange just sums up this thread. I love Tolkien's books and that excerpt - hell, I think they're the greatest books in English literature - but if you can't see why that couldn't be transplanted, unedited, into a movie adaptation, then you really have no perspective.

And yet, "You cannot pass. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass," translated just fine in the theatrical release.

[Desslock]

And yet, "You cannot pass. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass," translated just fine in the theatrical release.

Yep, and there's a bunch of great quotes incorporated into the movie - my favourite is probably Theoden's from Two Towers (one of my favourite passages in the books):

"Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?"

Jackson did a great job of interspersing them where appropriate, and fitting (generally when theoden/Gandalf/Galadriel/Elrond were speaking).

[Damien Neil]

This exchange just sums up this thread. I love Tolkien's books and that excerpt - hell, I think they're the greatest books in English literature - but if you can't see why that couldn't be transplanted, unedited, into a movie adaptation, then you really have no perspective. You don't want a movie - you want an audio-visual reading of the book.

Yeah, that really sums up my descriptions of why I don't like the movies.

It really pisses me off that no matter how much effort someone puts into describing the changes in tone, characterization, and plot that occurred in the movies, it will inevitably be reduced to "you want an audio-visual recording of the book".

I could do it too: "You don't want the Lord of the Rings. You want a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick with big explosions and Viggo Mortensen's abs." Would that be a fair characterization of your views? Or would it be a facile and insulting putdown, clearly indicating that I didn't give a shit about what you said?

[John Reynolds]

Yeah, that really sums up my descriptions of why I don't like the movies.

It really pisses me off that no matter how much effort someone puts into describing the changes in tone, characterization, and plot that occurred in the movies, it will inevitably be reduced to "you want an audio-visual recording of the book".

I could do it too: "You don't want the Lord of the Rings. You want a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick with big explosions and Viggo Mortensen's abs." Would that be a fair characterization of your views? Or would it be a facile and insulting putdown, clearly indicating that I didn't give a shit about what you said?

Welcome to Qt3's knee-jerk defense of Jackson's Rings trilogy.

[roguefrog]

And yet, "You cannot pass. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass," translated just fine in the theatrical release.


And it continues further with: "The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go Back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." Was that speech too long for anyone?

[Moore]

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"

A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn am I, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."


Z.z..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....z.z...

[nijimeijer]

And it continues further with: "The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go Back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." Was that speech too long for anyone?

I just assumed that Jackson already had a film full of important characters speechifying left and right, and decided Eowyn likely didn't rate her own.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

This exchange just sums up this thread. I love Tolkien's books and that excerpt - hell, I think they're the greatest books in English literature - but if you can't see why that couldn't be transplanted, unedited, into a movie adaptation, then you really have no perspective. You don't want a movie - you want an audio-visual reading of the book.
I don't want to sound too arrogant here, but seriously -- if you think Lord of the Rings is the greatest piece of English literature ever, I suggest you go have a sitdown with Alexander Pope, Oscar Wilde and even good old Shakespeare. Tolkien has created a grand chronicle for a world that never was, and there's no way that accomplishment can be diminished, but at the end of the day, Lord of the Rings gives you very little. It's a masterpiece of imagination, but it's also a tragedy of lost opportunity. A thousand pages of storytelling, and very little to actually reflect upon and learn from.

It could also simply be a matter of taste. I like my literature to convey some ideas, to inspire reflection and force me to widen my perspective. Others might prefer entertainment.

[Bill]

I think the problem here is that the people complaining about the movie adaptation probably do believe that it is one of the best works of literature, and thus any deviation is blasphemy.

I don't think this is unique to Tolkien or fantasy fans in general, just to fanatics in general. I wonder how I would feel if Owen Meany were portrayed with a normal voice?

Fanatics. Go figure. Maybe this discussion should be in P&R.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

"What's your favourite book?"
"Oh, that's gotta be Lord of the Rings. Totally. That just blew me away."
"How many books have you read?"
"Oh, um, three."

[John Sansker]

Bwhahahahahahaha.


The Hobbit (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20061126)

[Chris Nahr]

I think the problem here is that the people complaining about the movie adaptation probably do believe that it is one of the best works of literature, and thus any deviation is blasphemy.

Hello? The one believing that is Desslock who thinks the movie adaptation is just fine. Please do try to read the thread before commenting.

[Chris Nahr]

A thousand pages of storytelling, and very little to actually reflect upon and learn from.

And what precisely did you learn from Shakespeare? That you can't trust witches and the state of Denmark? Get a grip. His dramatizations are as far removed from your reality as Tolkien's, and nearly as far from historical reality.

You also seem to discount the quality of writing entirely, unless that's what you regard as "entertainment".

[Desslock]

Yeah, that really sums up my descriptions of why I don't like the movies.

It really pisses me off that no matter how much effort someone puts into describing the changes in tone, characterization, and plot that occurred in the movies, it will inevitably be reduced to "you want an audio-visual recording of the book".?

Dude, I wasn't talking about your other criticisms of the movies at this point -- I was talking about your views towards that prolonged excerpt between the Witch King and Eowyn, and if you don't get why that wouldn't work in a movie, then I don't think any movie would satisfy you. If, instead, it's the tone/characterization/plot changes, etc., and the exclusion of this unusable piece of literature is not a factor, well, then we disagree for different reasons, as we've already hashed out.

You're the one who's simplifying the discussion.

[Desslock]

I don't want to sound too arrogant here, but seriously -- if you think Lord of the Rings is the greatest piece of English literature ever, I suggest you go have a sitdown with Alexander Pope, Oscar Wilde and even good old Shakespeare....It could also simply be a matter of taste. I like my literature to convey some ideas, to inspire reflection and force me to widen my perspective. Others might prefer entertainment.

...Or it could just be that I'm better read, far more knowledgeable about, and more capable of judging literature than you because I'm more intelligent, educated, creative and astute, if you really want to trade arrogant barbs. Yep, could be those things.

LOL, just joking! But it's not exactly a "novel" viewpoint, notwithstanding your condescending response.

[Timemaster Tim]

I read LOTR once. It wass a pretty good read. I skipped over all the elf songs. The end.

[Bill]

Hello? The one believing that is Desslock who thinks the movie adaptation is just fine. Please do try to read the thread before commenting.

Now, now don't be childish. I wasn't commenting on Desslock specifically, I was referring to anyone who is fanatically defending the books and arguing that the movie adaptation sucks. Do try to grow up ;)

And to comment on your second point, no I think Shakespeare's dramatizations are much easier to relate to than Tolkien's. It's a cute joke to talk about the witches, but King Lear features character studies that are much more relevant than Vanadu (sp?), immortal Elves, and fiery, disembodied eyes.

[Mark Crump]

While I really liked the Trilogy, it could have been two books and not lost a lot, when you count how much of ROTK is appendices.

[Hammet]

Some of the scenes in Lord of the Rings are among the most beautiful and moving scenes I've experienced, probably thanks to my garagantuan love, or should I say, memory of love, for the books. I used to play M.E.R.P for chrissakes, bought far more modules than I ever could hope to play and I've just started reading the new (and much improved) Swedish translation of Fellowship to my seven year old son.
That said, there's a few scenes that I found off-pissing in all the movies, a short list:

1. The Goblins of Moria are bugs, apparently. When they completely surround the Fellowship, after scurrying down the walls, only to be scared off by the arrival of the Balrog, that was a big meh-moment for me. There simply wasn't ANY point to that scene. Also the nintento platform-jumping of the stone bridge, not exciting, doesn't add anything a nice tight chase scene wouldn't have done better. This is nicely balanced with the beauty of the "Fly you fools!" scene though.

2. Something that doesn't go here is the fight against the Ringwraiths at the ruins. This is just completely implausible in the books too. Instead I kinda mildly disliked the cg in the Galadriel scene and the orc pits of Isengard.

Two Towers

1. A big hug for not going ahead with Arwen on the battlements of Helms Deep. Warg fight and Aragorn falling off a cliff - no no no. No.
2. Tricking the ents. Treebeard and Gimli voiced by same actor.
3. Dwarf-tossing and shield surfing. The Gollum scenes, OTOH, were magnificent as was the silent nighttime Rohan cavalry charge through the Uruk-Hai.
4. Helm's Deep lacked something. Not sure of what. Happy to discuss this.
5. Faramir didn't bother me actually but the logic of both having the Ringbearer confront a Ringwraith in Osgiliath AND having Pippin make The Eye believe that the Ring is in Isengard in the next movie ...

Return of the King. Extended version. Here's a lot of stupid alterations and simply too much love for cg objects thrown through the air.

1. Sam leaves Frodo. For no good reason.
2. Denethor as completely evil. With the ability to run 1000 meters while being on fire.
3. CG objects thrown through the air by fell beasts and oliphaunts. Screaming cg objects.
4. The Walls of Minas Tirith wrecked by catapults.
5. Oh no! We're about to be drowned by a billion human skulls!
6. Shield surfing on giant cg elephants.
7. After all the build up and battles Minas Tirith is saved, not on the field of battle and through great human sacrifice, but by a mass of yellow goo in two minutes. Hooray.
8. In a many ways beautiful scene we see heavy cavaly charging a fortified city. They should of course have charged a superior force on the field and met the same fate.

None of these couldn't easily have been done another way. The arrival and charge of the Rohirrim is a mother-beautiful scene though.

[John Many Jars]

Look, never mind all this. The point is that the animated Hobbit from the 70s cannot be surpassed and ought to be left unmolested. Would Peter Jackson's Goblins be heard singing "Ho Ho, My Lad" in basso profundo? No, they wouldn't.

[Quitch]

I have to admit, if I want accuracy I retreat to the BBC's audio adaption. Superb and sticks tightly to the books, though it fails to capture the true scale of the world's involvement in the fight, making it feel like it's nothing but Rohan and Gondor.

As Hammet points out though, there were some stupid moments. Jackson really failed on the Army of the Dead, which was a shame as he got everything else so right on the audio-visual front.

Actually, IMO the biggest failing was you came out of the movie wondering why Frodo was carrying the ring. Sam was shown to be better in every regards. At least in the books we see that Frodo is the one with the brains, while Sam is loyal but a little dumb and wouldn't make it far by himself.

[roguefrog]

The worst part of the films is dragging Frodo to Osgiliath where the entire plot is underminded by Frodo revealing and almost giving the ring to a friendly neighborhood Nazgul. Luckly a single arrow can send a Nazgul crying home thus persuading Sauron not to recover the one ring that currently sits on his border in a broken indefensible town.

[Kitsune]

It's a masterpiece of imagination, but it's also a tragedy of lost opportunity. A thousand pages of storytelling, and very little to actually reflect upon and learn from.

It could also simply be a matter of taste. I like my literature to convey some ideas, to inspire reflection and force me to widen my perspective. Others might prefer entertainment.

It is no such tragedy. Books are not we want them to be; they're what their authors want them to be and if they have achieved their goals, then that's all that's important. The criticism of others is fleeting compared to that.

In any event, as much as some people like to claim there is no literary merit in the Lord of the Rings, there is. I have read far and wide until my eyes have become blood shot and weary from the effort and I still read even then. I've dug into the past. I don't just say I've read the Inferno or Faust, I have. My favorite authors are Natsume Soseki, Sei Shonagon, Kenji Miyazaki, Nabokov and Jane Austen, so I tend to gravitate to the literary canon.

And none of this either impedes or strengthens my ability to appreciate The Lord of the Rings; I do not need that background to see there is plenty to take away from it. Indeed, I have seen many people take quite a bit away from it over the years, and it is always changing, one of the best signs of a literary classic. People compared it to World War II; now it gets compared to Iraq, others take Tolkien for this preposterous racial overtones they see in the Orcs, apparently hippie culture gravitated toward the Shire, and with the movies, Christians have found some sort of lodestone of its nature which they believe enforces their beliefs. But I really don't need any of that to tell me that different people will get different things out of different books, because we all don't live the same lives or we're not all made of the same magnetic mental material, so it's not like we're all drawn to the same things.

When I read and have read The Lord of the Rings, I am drawn to appreciate much more than mere entertainment. I get to consider the many, many scenes of classicist archetypes thrown into a more modern interpretation, yet still treated with much of the same reverence as they used to be, such as Aragorn and Arwen, the love of the people of Rohan and their horses (which is as pastoral as any old poem), Galadriel and Celeborn, Eowyn and the Witch King, Denethor, Faramir and Pippin. They jump out and are noticeable because these types of archetypes aren't treated with much anymore, and their application in the Lord of the Rings brings fresh new treats to the old haunts.

It has been laid out a thousand times, but it's worth repeating the sequence with the Old Forest is fantastic. Tolkien's appreciation of the Weird and the forest's role in medieval life is awesome here, and the idea of the forest not liking intruders and working against them is both inventive and fodder for a lot of thinking. Observe where it's talking about the forest appearing more tangled and harder to work through, as if it is working to consume human paths, like some sort of epic fight: entropy vs. humanity.

Then they come out in the hospice of Tom Bombadil, do I really need to explain how effortlessly wonderful this whole sequence is? Sure, people say Tom marching in the Gay Pride parade these days. But I think he's a wonderful phantasmagoric image in a literary industry that usually makes phantasamagoria dull and dusty. It's tremendously difficult to make phantasmagoria work, but when you do, it always rings with a truth just beyond the grasp of perception.

Then there's all those scenes that are simply fantastic pieces of simple writing that call back to simple truths, i.e. the Sackville-Bagginses, we've all had relatives like that (one would hope not, but it's usually the case), and there are no lack of literary precursors to them, but Tolkien gives us yet another nailed representation of the concept. Or the chapter A Shortcut to Mushrooms, which demonstrates aptly that very great truth that adults who looked completely different to you as a child, can change greatly once reaching adulthood. You might not want to build a whole book that consists entirely of great truths built into sharp anecdotes, but it helps if you can pack them into the corners of the narrative, and elevates it beyond mere entertainment.

Then there is how the invention of the world shows a great deal of parallels to issues in the modern world. When they refer to how the dwarves dug too far into Moria, their greed was too great and they awaked a great evil, it can obviously relate to the frightening corporate machine and all the problems it unearths today, though it is far the stronger for not exactly being made to demonstrate precisely that point and thrives on that general sort of applicability that Tolkien said was his preference over allegory.

Not to mention the invention of language. I'm not sure how best to describe it, but as someone who greatly enjoys the differences in language and the nuance and weight, shift and density of words, Tolkien's invented language and the names he gives things have so much more meaning and heft than the dime a dozen fantasy names you usually run into. And yes, there can much to be found in a name and how it relates to language and the wider plot.

As well, of course, there's the characters. Now, many people rail against, because they aren't your standard gray modern conflicted characters, but that's not the only standard there should be. Gandalf and Aragorn and Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Theodin and belong to a much older tradition, and it is astonishing that they can even come to match those figures, let alone even think about it.

Two, of course, tend to stand out, and everyone knows which two: the Ring and Gollum. That the Ring could be construed as a character is a literary feat in itself. It's not just sublime personification, it's a whole other level of it. Gollum needs no introduction. As someone who oftens interacts with people on the autism spectrum, I think it's scary that I have lately been able to compare Gollum's mannerisms and attitudes and the ways he got there to them, sixty years before knowledge of autism was mainstream or even evented (though Hans Asperger did live in that time). And it's not similarity to autism is the only thing Gollum has going for him.

And of course, you have the theme of the hobbits and their singular of unlikely and unlooked for heroism. It's extremely odd to think of people being heroes simply because they are wholesome and unspoiled and simple on the outside, but that's why it's a more challenging literary standard to the characters. Since Tolkien, there have been too many narratives to count of provincial farmland humans or fantasy creatures who are thrown out of their element and must put up with things they never dreamed of. It's a credit to Tolkien that his rendering is a thousand miles above those hacks. He draws the hobbits in lines where you can see and compare them to your life and how comfortable or made of true grit you have been when offered horrors like the Ringwraiths and Mordor. I know I work under a couple of Ringwraiths myself. Their breath is horrible. And the all go play golf at Mordor on the weekends.

Last, but not least, there is the weight of the history of the created world. It has much to say about the nature of history, how it is treated, revered, twisted, interpreted, forgotten, ignored, stretched and so on. I need say little about the impressive literary innovation of inventing a world as if it were history and not going with the common flow of inventing it as an alternate world that can be reached from ours, or as a dream, or having to explain it in some manner.

And I haven't even gotten to the many lines of considerably sharp prose that bites with applicability (there are two great quotes, the Theodin one and the conversation between Eowyn and the Witch King guy in this thread for that). I love it when people criticize Tolkien's treatment of Helm's Deep, because it was short and it wasn't exciting. That just shows it's less meant for entertainment and more for literature. Helm's Deep is about the history, the weight, the times when those types of sieges, real or imagined happen, then about elves doing acrobatics on shields and being "bad-ass". (I still like the movies a lot though, don't get me wrong.)

No, no. It doesn't take much to see The Lord of the Rings as true literature. I don't want to be forced to widen to perspective. I like it to happen naturally as I peak into the corners of things like music and literature out of pure curiosity, in response to excellence, and find when I look back at my own mid, that is has widened by itself.

-Kitsune

[MatthewF]

TL;DR

[Erlend Grefsrud]

...Or it could just be that I'm better read, far more knowledgeable about, and more capable of judging literature than you because I'm more intelligent, educated, creative and astute, if you really want to trade arrogant barbs. Yep, could be those things.

LOL, just joking! But it's not exactly a "novel" viewpoint, notwithstanding your condescending response.
You could do well to read the first line in my post for what it was: I stated that I knew this would sound arrogant. And it's an opinion, not an insult.

Either way, I am perfectly aware that I'm not exactly blazing trails by criticizing Tolkien, and I am not attempting to belittle anyone who enjoys his work. I know I enjoy them, otherwise I wouldn't have read the books seven times. But I only found truths in there, not challenges, and at the end of it all, I felt more in awe of Tolkien's craft and imagination than by the themes he explores. I'm sure that's an individual thing; something as huge and detailed as Lord of the Rings certainly lends itself well to personal interpretation.

And I still think you should read Alexander Pope if you haven't. :)


(...)
No, no. It doesn't take much to see The Lord of the Rings as true literature. I don't want to be forced to widen to perspective. I like it to happen naturally as I peak into the corners of things like music and literature out of pure curiosity, in response to excellence, and find when I look back at my own mid, that is has widened by itself.
My. God. I certainly can't hope to respond to that without tripping over myself a dozen times. I completely agree with your points, but I still feel my stand is justified: Tolkien presents truths, not challenges. There is very little ambiguity in Lord of the Rings and very little is left unresolved and open to the reader's interpretation. There are no real contrasts between what is told and how the reader is expected (or allowed) to read it.

I'm not saying that interpretation is necessarily central to appreciating literature (although I feel it is, and thus my personal preferences) and I agree that a story well told holds a lot of merit by itself. I like stories to allow me my own conclusions, however, and I feel that literature should strive not to instruct the reader as to its message, but present the opportunity to make the story your own. Tolkien's universe is left open to your imagination, but I never feel that his story and the themes he presents in it are.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I don't think The Lord of the Rings is the greatest novel in the English language - probably wouldn't make my top 50.

But much great literature presents "truths, not challenges", if by that you mean the author's presenting a tale and not a prelude to humanistic discussion. The Odyssey, Thomas Malory, Beowulf, Canterbury Tales... Malory's "Morte D'Arthur" is, in fact, a similar story to LotR in many ways. Just because Frodo succeeds and Lancelot fails doesn't change the nature of the story, IMO. Tolkien was writing in the mythic tradition, and myths aren't really about uncertainty. The Aeneid isn't. The Epic of Gilgamesh isn't. Genesis isn't.

And to hold Alexander Pope as a comparison...a fine epigrammist and wonderful poet, but poetry in rhyming couplets isn't a novel and neither The Dunciad nor The Rape of the Lock have a single character of note. The only person that comes through in Pope *is* Pope. He's more a wit than an author; he'd have made a kickass pundit. (I regularly dig out my works of Pope as light reading.)

Troy

[Kitsune]

I'm probably going to sound inscrutably Eastern here, but in order to be the truth, it must be challenging, there really isn't any such thing as a truth that isn't challenging.

And I don't understand what you're saying quite right. Are you saying that the books offer no interpretation to you or that they aren't open to interpretation or that there's only valid interpretation?

-Kitsune

[Erlend Grefsrud]

And to hold Alexander Pope as a comparison...a fine epigrammist and wonderful poet, but poetry in rhyming couplets isn't a novel and neither The Dunciad nor The Rape of the Lock have a single character of note. The only person that comes through in Pope *is* Pope. He's more a wit than an author; he'd have made a kickass pundit. (I regularly dig out my works of Pope as light reading.)

Troy
Not a comparison by a longshot. Just a fine example of English literature. And while I agree that his poems don't present particularly good characters (The characters in The Dunciad are means to an end, and little more. Pope even changed the main character between editions because he found an even more despicable dunce), but I'd say he does a fine job of commenting upon and exposing the shallowness of intellectual snobbery and the crassness of popular culture. Apt for this discussion too. I dare say the third edition of The Dunciad is something far more than poetry in rhyming couplets, however. Its structure and the extent to which it conveys a narrative sets it apart, and if its form is poetry, it's because it is supposed to be read like the greek epics.


I'm probably going to sound inscrutably Eastern here, but in order to be the truth, it must be challenging, there really isn't any such thing as a truth that isn't challenging.

And I don't understand what you're saying quite right. Are you saying that the books offer no interpretation to you or that they aren't open to interpretation or that there's only valid interpretation?
Truth can be challenging, yes, but I find the truths in Lord of the Rings to be very carefully explained (and sometimes even trivial).

A couple of quick examples: The Sackville-Bagginses are contrasted against Bilbos friendliness and quirkiness and the common generosity of the Hobbits. You recognize their type, and you realize that hobbits exhibit very human flaws despite their initial appearance, as do most people. Everyone is subject to egoism and opportunism, despite their best appearances. There's truth in there, but it's simple. The Sackville-Bagginses are presented fairly explicitly as unsympathetic people, and they are frowned upon by most of the other hobbits. Perhaps because they remind them of their own flaws.

Sarumann's speech after the fall of Isengard serves as a reminder that even though common folk may know and understand evil deeds, it falls to the few to see through rhetoric and false promises. The fact that Gandalf lets Sarumann go, and the consequences of that, shows that the intentions and hopes of the few, however merciful and just, tends to come back and bite the common folks' ass.

Boromir's betrayal and Denethor's stubborness again goes to show that despite the best intentions, people tend be to selfish and refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, because they are too blinded by potential personal gain. Galadriel's refusal to accept the Ring when Frodo offers it to her, shows that is nigh on inhuman to fully understand the consequences of your own intentions. Even someone who fully knows and understands the consequences of their choice, is tempted.

Of course, those are all my interpretations (and fairly simple ones, at that), so obviously the books offers room for personal interpretation. However, the examples I put forward are presented in a very singular way: Tolkien hardly infers, he explains. Other people may have different interpretations, but I think they would mostly be more nuanced versions of what I have suggested. There is no way I can say that there are no other valid interpretations, but those examples are fairly representative of the truths Tolkien presents. And he does just that: Present them as truths. He doesn't challenge you to understand the truths, he expects you to accept them.

Edit: Ninja editing of doom!

[Aeon221]

Tom Bombadil's part was the only one I managed to read without yawning. The rest of the books are so damn dry that they make Clauswitz look entertaining.

Honestly, its brief entertaining interlude about a crazy hippie singing in the woods with his hot hippie wife. What's not to love?

[Bill]

I hate hippies.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

And that's perfectly justified too, since hippies hate America.

[Damien Neil]

Of course, those are all my interpretations (and fairly simple ones, at that), so obviously the books offers room for personal interpretation. However, the examples I put forward are presented in a very singular way: Tolkien hardly infers, he explains. Other people may have different interpretations, but I think they would mostly be more nuanced versions of what I have suggested. There is no way I can say that there are no other valid interpretations, but those examples are fairly representative of the truths Tolkien presents. And he does just that: Present them as truths. He doesn't challenge you to understand the truths, he expects you to accept them.

Why are you ascribing these simplistic "interpretations" to events in the books? A book doesn't need to be a polemic in which every character and situation is the author's ham-fisted attempt at bludgeoning the reader with a message.

[Kunikos]

The final word:

Jackson brought Tolkien to the masses and made fantasy based movies more acceptable to the mainstream consciousness.

Getting your panties in a bunch because the dialogue wasn't exactly the same as the book, or there were scenes added or plot massaged, is about as childish as a 30 year old man whining for hours about how the latest Harry Potter movie had all the good parts missing.

Do you really think that Jackson had complete and total free reign over the project? Get a clue, this is the real world. I'm sure he had to capitulate to the studio on many aspects and didn't have final say on the edit. How many times do you think they screen tested it before the audience of average laymen could get into it?

[Backov]

The final word:

Nope.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Why are you ascribing these simplistic "interpretations" to events in the books? A book doesn't need to be a polemic in which every character and situation is the author's ham-fisted attempt at bludgeoning the reader with a message.
... Yeah, sure. And then who is the judge of that? Okay, let's say that I find the exploration of themes in Lolita, Heart of Darkness and The Process to be shallow and trivial, while I discern deep, fundamental truths through close reading of Lord of the Rings. A lot of people would roll their eyes. I'm sure a fair few professors of literature would nod condescendingly and swiftly change the subject. But, unless I'm really misunderstanding the tone so far in this discussion, my interpretation is perfectly valid, because my interpretation is related to my personal appreciation of the book. Which implies that academic work on literature is pure personal speculation which can be accepted or rejected with the flick of a wrist. Unless personal interpretation is only accepted when put forward by a respected member of the community, of course.

I'm "ascribing these simplistic 'interpretations' to events in the book" in order to make a point. I'm sure I could've made each of the observations into a little essay and thus proven that I am, in fact, capable of analysing literature according to academic standard (which I feel that I to some extent am, after having studied English literature at the university of Oslo, although I'm hardly a scholar of literature), but that would have been meaningless, because my point was that the themes and truths explored by Lord of the Rings are unchallenging and conveyed in a manner that suggests Tolkien didn't really intend them to be apparent through close reading and analysis, but rather as narrative devices in the story. Internal logic, so to say. However, I also mentioned that I accept that readers have their own interpretations of the stories, although I may not particularly agree. Reading is a personal experience. I find that the truths presented in Lord of the Rings does not particularly challenge me, because they are often truisms according to my experiences regarding human nature. Others may not.

A book does not have to be ham-fisted or blunt in order to be polemic. I suppose by that you suggest that works such as 1984 and Brave New World could be discounted or condescended upon for having too visible, constructed metaphors. And who's the judge of what's ham-fisted and blunt? Is that down to personal interpretations as well, which only goes to show that the challenging truths are those we find ourselves discounting because we refuse to acknowledge the form they are presented in?

I am perfectly open to the possibility of The Lord of the Rings being a central work in modern English literature. I can even accept that it is a central work in English literature, period, but I want more reasoning for it than the suggestion that it is constructed and told as a continuation of classical storytelling tradition. If anything, that suggestion implies that The Lord of the Rings is less of a work of art (seeing as the text is constructed to resemble a style, rather than being a vessel for the author's themes; the opposite point could of course be made, though, that the formal style of the books show that Tolkien was able to apply a spectacular amount of craft to present his themes. But then we're down to the nature of art, which is a slightly different discussion) than an exceptional piece of craftsmanship. I'm sure we can debate the relationship between craft and art till we all go blue, but it's totally besides the point in this discussion, which is about whether or not Tolkien's chronicle is open to multiple meaningful interpretations or not. I still don't think it is, and if you think so, then I'm not going to stop you. I was merely suggesting, in the first place, that having a fairly broad perspective on English literature would be a good idea if you were to make such a bold statement about The Lord of the Rings' significance in it.

[Destarius]

TL;DR

That applies to so many of Kitsune's posts. However, I think it's not a reflection of the quality of his posts, but simply how lazy most of us are. =D Keep right on, Kitsune!

[Kareem]

The worst part of the films is dragging Frodo to Osgiliath where the entire plot is underminded by Frodo revealing and almost giving the ring to a friendly neighborhood Nazgul. Luckly a single arrow can send a Nazgul crying home thus persuading Sauron not to recover the one ring that currently sits on his border in a broken indefensible town.

How do we actually know this? In the extended edition, right after Faramir shoots the Nazgul, which (inexplicably) retreats because of a single arrow, Sam gives his long gay speech because there aren't anymore orcs actually advancing in Osgiliath. After which Faramir sends Frodo, Sam, and Gollum through a sewer which leads them to an isolated forest where they will supposedly be hidden. Obviously there were no more orcs right there in Osgiliath at that point because the fighting stopped after the Nazgul retreated, so how do we know that the orcs didn't regroup and strike again to try and recover the ring but realised that Frodo and the ring were gone already? Or perhaps they realised it would be pointless to even go back since by the time they regrouped and attacked Osgiliath again the ring would already be gone?

EDIT: For me actually the most irritating plot aspect (I didn't read the books) was in Return of the King when Gandalf is racing up Minas Tirith to save Faramir from being burned and on his way up the Witch King arrives, then manages to shatter his staff and send him flying from his horse. AND THEN TOOK OFF AND LEFT HIM WITHOUT KILLING HIM because he heard the horn of the Rohirrim from far away. It was instinctively weird that the Witch King would actually win against Gandalf, but another thing entirely that he would have the most dangerous adversary for him at that point on the battlefield (Aragorn hadn't arrived yet) and he simply leaves him and takes off. Moreover, he didn't even go directly for the Rohirrim. He let Theoden and Eomer basically shatter the majority of the Orc army, send them fleeing, survive the Oliphaunt attack and kill 3-4 of them, and THEN he attacked Theoden. Why he couldn't take the time to kill Gandalf is beyond me.

[John Reynolds]

EDIT: For me actually the most irritating plot aspect (I didn't read the books) was in Return of the King when Gandalf is racing up Minas Tirith to save Faramir from being burned and on his way up the Witch King arrives, then manages to shatter his staff and send him flying from his horse. AND THEN TOOK OFF AND LEFT HIM WITHOUT KILLING HIM because he heard the horn of the Rohirrim from far away. It was instinctively weird that the Witch King would actually win against Gandalf, but another thing entirely that he would have the most dangerous adversary for him at that point on the battlefield (Aragorn hadn't arrived yet) and he simply leaves him and takes off.

Very annoying indeed, watching Jackson fuck up Gandalf the White's character like that. RotK was kinda amusing, watching Gandalf cower behind a door from the invaders, smacking around an old man driven mad by grappling with Sauron's will via a palantir, etc. Great stuff, that.

[Chris Nahr]

Clearly you are a blind Tolkien fanatic who wants a literal audio-visual rendition of the books, which is clearly impossible for a movie. Don't you see that the plot holes and idiotic characterization are absolutely necessary because otherwise the very celluloid would melt from the cameras? Everyone else was smart enough to realize that, why aren't you?

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Actually, even though I really loved the movies, I have to agree with this. Back then, I loved the movies more or less because, finally, they've made movies out of one of the greatest books I have ever read. In hindsight, I don't really see why I was excited about it, and I see that ... the movies weren't that great. Blinded by the hype. Aragorn was a pussy, Gandalf was hardly more than an old man, the hobbits were surprisingly gay little comic reliefs ... the representation of Middle Earth was great, which is kind of all I wanted anyway, but the adaptation ranges from acceptable (faithful to the tone of the book) to dreadful (Hi, I'm Denethor and I'm so fucking hardcore I run marathons on fire). Obviously, the book couldn't have been made into an entirily faithful movie, but I'm pretty sure it could have been made into a more faithful movie. What were the studio execs so worried about, anyway? Lord of the Rings is one of the best-selling books of all time, so they certainly had a big potential customer base. Many of whom would be disappointed if the movie strayed from the book.

It's kind of like Halo 2: "Hey, guys, Halo sold really well because of its unique setting, carefully designed enemy encounters and well-balanced arsenal of weapons. So why don't we just fuck that up? Move it to earth, make it a pseudo-tactical shooter without any of the freedom of the first game and let's make perfectly sure the weapon's balance is so off that dual sub-machineguns is one of the most powerful configurations in the game. Because ... that's what the fans would want, right?"

[John Reynolds]

Everyone else was smart enough to realize that, why aren't you?

:D

Thank god Pippin was there at Minas Tirith to save Gandalf the White's life. From an orc. With a sword. This after Gandalf in the previous film's beginning fell thousands of feet while wreathed in a demon's fire, fought said demon for days, then chased that very same demon up a staircase consisting of thousands upon thousands of steps, only to burst out of the side of a mountain and cast that towering demon down its side and subsequently causing a small avalanche.

I also liked watching Elrond smiling when giving his daughter away to certain death. To a man. You know, that race he sneeringly described as weak in the first film in a tone that screamed, "I'm a high-falutin' racist f'n elf." A few celluloid hours later and he's happy to pawn her off to some dude with a crown, only to know his otherwise immortal daughter is going to cough up her last breath a mere 100+ years later. Would put a twinkle in my eye, no doubt. But, c'mon, it was a *happy-happy joy-joy* moment, so who needs consistency? Certainly not a director of Jackson's limited talents.

[Robert Sharp]

Maybe Elrond is happy because his daughter is happy. He doesn't hate men, per se, or at least he didn't always. Isildur made him doubt man's will, but surely Aragorn restored that faith, at least to some degree. His daughter might die in 200 years? Oh noes!

[Quitch]

Yeah, as I recall Elrond's only stipulation was that she marry a king... wasn't the whole "men are weak" thing something added by the film? I don't see a problem with that. There's enough genuine problems not to worry about that.

[roguefrog]

How do we actually know this? In the extended edition, right after Faramir shoots the Nazgul, which (inexplicably) retreats because of a single arrow, Sam gives his long gay speech because there aren't anymore orcs actually advancing in Osgiliath. After which Faramir sends Frodo, Sam, and Gollum through a sewer which leads them to an isolated forest where they will supposedly be hidden. Obviously there were no more orcs right there in Osgiliath at that point because the fighting stopped after the Nazgul retreated, so how do we know that the orcs didn't regroup and strike again to try and recover the ring but realised that Frodo and the ring were gone already? Or perhaps they realised it would be pointless to even go back since by the time they regrouped and attacked Osgiliath again the ring would already be gone?

Part of the reason Frodo's quest succeeded was because the one ring was kept hidden. Revealing it's location so close to Mordor should have dire consequences. Double if the location is the fish-in-a-barrel town of Osgiliath.

Osiligath makes up a few chapters in the film - too long of a divergence without reason. The scenes are also crap in and of themselves. Unless you think Frodo should be mind-controlled when a Nazgul is near, a Nazgul should be thwarted by one arrow, and there should be a deus ex secret passage so the hobbits can get back on track instantly without repercussions.

Skipping the scenes works pretty good.

[John Reynolds]

I really liked the Toxic Avenger uber orc captain who was hanging out in Osgiliath and threatening to "break" Gandalf the White. That was about equal to a pissed off hobbit downing some suds in Green Dragon Inn and talkin' smack about travelling to Mordor and bitch-slapping Sauron around for his environmental policies.

And, yes, Quitch, Elrond's comments toward men were added in the first movie by Jackson & co. Which was my entire point about character inconsistencies within the films themselves.

[Kareem]

I really liked the Toxic Avenger uber orc captain who was hanging out in Osgiliath and threatening to "break" Gandalf the White.

That's not what actually happens. After the Witch King orders the captain to go on a blitzkrieg on Minas Tirith the orc captain asks him "What about the wizard?" It's the Witch King who says "I will break him," which he ultimately does.

[John Reynolds]

That's not what actually happens. After the Witch King orders the captain to go on a blitzkrieg on Minas Tirith the orc captain asks him "What about the wizard?" It's the Witch King who says "I will break him," which he ultimately does.

Oh, that's right. Never watched the RotK's extended version since the theatrical release was such crap, but I did misremember who spoke those lines.

[Kareem]

Part of the reason Frodo's quest succeeded was because the one ring was kept hidden. Revealing it's location so close to Mordor should have dire consequences. Double if the location is the fish-in-a-barrel town of Osgiliath.

The problem with that is discovering that the ring was in Osgiliath would probably indicate to Sauron that Gondor would try to use the ring against him, not to try and destroy it in Mordor. Gandalf says in Two Towers, in the extended edition, something akin to "the ring remains safe, and that we should seek to destroy it has not yet entered their wildest dreams." The humans using the ring would just make them even more self-destructive, which is fine by Sauron.


Skipping the scenes works pretty good.

Then you can't really set the stage for the conflict in Return of the King and introduce Faramir in a meaningful way. Some of you keep commenting on how he's an asshole or something in the movies so I assume in the books he just saw the hobbits in Ithilien and let them on their way? Either way by the end of the movie you're sympathetic towards him and he does redeem himself, and makes us like him even more in the third movie with his bravery (or foolishness) in going back to Osgiliath after retreating. Plus the scene in the extended edition of Two Towers where he's celebrating in Osgiliath with Boromir is a very touching scene.

What I'm trying to say is I think the whole sequence of Faramir trying to bring back the hobbits, capturing Gollum, flashbacks involving Boromir, and the Osgiliath scene establishes him as an influential and honorable character in the struggle, even if some aspects of the scenes are implausible.

[John Reynolds]

The humans using the ring would just make them even more self-destructive, which is fine by Sauron.

Depends on who's using the Ring. Sauron's greatest fear was that someone with the will to use the Ring's power would come against him, which is why when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron via a palantir he attacked Minas Tirith prematurely. At least in the books.

[Hammet]

This thread has reawakened my desire to make my own personal edited version of the movies and burn it to three discs for myself. IIRC Jackson even suggests that in one of the interviews on one of the dvd's. As roguefrog said, the films would work better by simply skipping most of the re-write scenes, yet keeping a lot of the extended material. For example, in the first movie just moving from the Chamber of Mazarbül (sp?) to the last flight to the bridge would be cool. Two Towers and especially Return of the King would benefit greatly from it. Battle of Pelennor would be hard to plausibly finish without Return of the Yellow Goo but I feel that anything that keeps screaming cg objects tossed through the air to a minimum would be a major improvement. It's a crazy plan but it just might work.

What kind of software would I need to do a decent job of that?

[Kareem]

Depends on who's using the Ring. Sauron's greatest fear was that someone with the will to use the Ring's power would come against him

I don't think that's an issue since essentially any human who wears the ring will bring destruction to his kin. Aragorn and Gandalf both stress this in the first movie in the meeting at Rivendell when Boromir suggests using the ring against Sauron. When Frodo holds out the ring to Aragorn at Amon Hen just before the Uruks arrive Aragorn barely manages to let Frodo keep the ring and let him go on his way. Even Gandalf fears trying to use the ring in the first movie, when he first explains to Frodo that what he has is the one ring. So I don't think there's a dispute at any point (outside of Boromir) within the fellowship that the ring would destroy anyone trying to wield it.


which is why when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron via a palantir he attacked Minas Tirith prematurely. At least in the books.

Not in the movies. Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron through the palantir after the battle of pelennor fields, just before they marched on the black gate. It was after the attack on Minas Tirith was repelled, so it certainly didn't spur it.

[Enidigm]

Not to be all Tolkien geek here, but Elrond is half-man anyway. And Aragorn is his distant direct relative (distant because of the generations of Men). So really, he's getting all hillbilly-happy because his daughter is marrying her distant cousin.

[Quitch]

I don't think that's an issue since essentially any human who wears the ring will bring destruction to his kin. Aragorn and Gandalf both stress this in the first movie in the meeting at Rivendell when Boromir suggests using the ring against Sauron. When Frodo holds out the ring to Aragorn at Amon Hen just before the Uruks arrive Aragorn barely manages to let Frodo keep the ring and let him go on his way. Even Gandalf fears trying to use the ring in the first movie, when he first explains to Frodo that what he has is the one ring. So I don't think there's a dispute at any point (outside of Boromir) within the fellowship that the ring would destroy anyone trying to wield it.

Destroy them as in they would no longer be themselves. They would bring destruction to all around them by becoming the new Sauron, rather like Sauron would definately bring destruction to all around him were he to get the one ring.

It's a reference to the power it grants the wielder. However, as we see, the ring is obviously designed to try to get back to Sauron, so it does take a certain will to wield effectively. Sauron's fear is that someone like Gandalf, Aragorn, or even Denathor, would take the ring and choose to wield it against him, which would lead to his certain defeat.

[John Sansker]

It's a reference to the power it grants the wielder. However, as we see, the ring is obviously designed to try to get back to Sauron, so it does take a certain will to wield effectively. Sauron's fear is that someone like Gandalf, Aragorn, or even Denathor, would take the ring and choose to wield it against him, which would lead to his certain defeat.

I was always under the impression that anyone who put on the ring would come under the influence of it, and by extension the influence of Sauron.
Hence Gandalf's reluctance (abject fear/terror) when Frodo offered him the ring. Gandalf was afraid of what would happen if Sauron had access to his power.

Each of the races was given a set of rings, humans,elves, dwarves.
Which is why the ring had such influence over all the other races, with the exception of hobbits.
The hobbit race wasn't given any rings so, therefore the ring had less influence over hobbits. It took the ring 500 years to turn Smeagol into Gollum.

As an aside, this is why the removal of Tom Bombadil might have angered some. Not that his hippie-ness was cool, but because he put the ring on, and nothing happened.
He didn't turn invisible, Sauron wasn't alerted, ect.
Meaning, that there were things/places even Sauron didn't have influence over.The hobbits suggest leaving the ring with Tom, and he says, in time, even Sauron would become powerful enough to come in here and take the ring and then all would be lost.
This was obviously insignificant, hence it's removal from the movie.

[Quitch]

No, Gandalf explicitly talks at one point of how such and such would become the new dark lord. I got the impression that the mighty beings of the world would defeat Sauron, only to become what he was afterwards, should they wield the ring.

[Backov]

was always under the impression that anyone who put on the ring would come under the influence of it, and by extension the influence of Sauron.
Hence Gandalf's reluctance (abject fear/terror) when Frodo offered him the ring. Gandalf was afraid of what would happen if Sauron had access to his power.


Nope, there's an extended passage in the books where Galadriel talks about what would happen if she took the ring from Frodo, and the gist of it is that she would become "Beautiful and terrible" and would cast down Sauron to take his place.

The Hobbits weren't given rings because Sauron didn't know they existed. And if he did, he probably wouldn't have found them a threat. He gave out the rings to the humans and dwarves as curses, and the Elves made their own.

Tom Bombadil didn't say that Sauron would become powerful enough to come and take it, he said that he would forget about it and leave it lying around and Sauron would get it.

[Enidigm]

Nope, there's an extended passage in the books where Galadriel talks about what would happen if she took the ring from Frodo, and the gist of it is that she would become "Beautiful and terrible" and would cast down Sauron to take his place.

The Hobbits weren't given rings because Sauron didn't know they existed. And if he did, he probably wouldn't have found them a threat. He gave out the rings to the humans and dwarves as curses, and the Elves made their own.

Tom Bombadil didn't say that Sauron would become powerful enough to come and take it, he said that he would forget about it and leave it lying around and Sauron would get it.

For more Tolkien geek (and in a bit of divergence from at least the implied history in the movies), Sauron didn't create any of the Rings except the One Ring. The Elves near Moria did during the Second Age after the fall of Morgoth (the name of whose kingdom escapes me); they forged the Three Elven Rings as well as many lesser rings as practice to hone their craft. When Sauron put his ring on the Elves became "aware" that they had been "deceived" and "hid" their rings from Sauron. Then Sauron waged war on them and destroyed their land and took most of the lesser rings, which he subsequently gave out to the Men and Dwarves. The Men turned into Wraiths; the Dwarves, "whose hearts are strange and hard to fathom" were too strong to "tame", but they became greedy and turned to brooding thoughts of gold and wealth; all of whose hordes were subsequently destroyed and plundered.

The idea i guess is that the Elven longing to heal the hurts of the world was mixed with a desire for immortality and to preserve the world unchanging, which was a "grief" to them. So the power of the Three Rings was only made available to the Elves because Sauron taught them how to make them with his Magic. According to Tolkien the Elven Rings were "untouched" by Sauron and made by the Elves' own imaginations, but that they were still "subject" to the One, which is something of a contradiction if you think about it too hard, so don't try.

[John Reynolds]

Speaking of geeky Tolkien stuff, I loved ICE's ME CCG that came out in the mid 90s. Great system, good artwork. In particular I really liked how putting an artifact on a character made them susceptible to corruption (removal from the game).

How many people know that Gandalf wears the elven ring of Fire (Narya? Vilya?) throughout the events of the trilogy?

[deccan]

Speaking of geeky Tolkien stuff, I loved ICE's ME CCG that came out in the mid 90s. Great system, good artwork. In particular I really liked how putting an artifact on a character made them susceptible to corruption (removal from the game).


I loved that CCG as well. I think quite a bit of the art was from ICE's MERPS though. I recently tried downloading the generic CCG computer game and the ME sets just to have a look at the cards again.

[Robert Sharp]

Not to be all Tolkien geek here, but Elrond is half-man anyway. And Aragorn is his distant direct relative (distant because of the generations of Men). So really, he's getting all hillbilly-happy because his daughter is marrying her distant cousin.

CounterGeek: Elrond is a half-elf, but at some point, a half-elf decides whether to be an elf or a man. Elrond has chosen to be an elf, and is therefor no longer a man at all.

[Dave Markell]

For more Tolkien geek (and in a bit of divergence from at least the implied history in the movies), Sauron didn't create any of the Rings except the One Ring. The Elves near Moria did during the Second Age after the fall of Morgoth (the name of whose kingdom escapes me); they forged the Three Elven Rings as well as many lesser rings as practice to hone their craft. When Sauron put his ring on the Elves became "aware" that they had been "deceived" and "hid" their rings from Sauron. Then Sauron waged war on them and destroyed their land and took most of the lesser rings, which he subsequently gave out to the Men and Dwarves. The Men turned into Wraiths; the Dwarves, "whose hearts are strange and hard to fathom" were too strong to "tame", but they became greedy and turned to brooding thoughts of gold and wealth; all of whose hordes were subsequently destroyed and plundered.

There's a bit more to it than that. The elves of Eregion, led by Celebrimbor (a descendent of Feanor with much of his skill) forged the rings with the aid of a being that called himself Annatar (literally "Lord of Gifts"). Eager for his knowledge, the elves convinced themselves that Annatar was a representative of the Valar, something he encouraged; in actual fact he was Sauron. The entire process of ring-forging was thus tainted from the very beginning--Sauron's knowledge made them possible, and even though he never touched or directly helped create the Three, they were based upon his principles and thus vulnerable to the One.

[Enidigm]

CounterGeek: Elrond is a half-elf, but at some point, a half-elf decides whether to be an elf or a man. Elrond has chosen to be an elf, and is therefor no longer a man at all.

I think you forgot the TOUCHE! :)


There's a bit more to it than that. The elves of Eregion, led by Celebrimbor (a descendent of Feanor with much of his skill) forged the rings with the aid of a being that called himself Annatar (literally "Lord of Gifts"). Eager for his knowledge, the elves convinced themselves that Annatar was a representative of the Valar, something he encouraged; in actual fact he was Sauron. The entire process of ring-forging was thus tainted from the very beginning--Sauron's knowledge made them possible, and even though he never touched or directly helped create the Three, they were based upon his principles and thus vulnerable to the One.

That's pretty much what i said, actually. I just left out the part about being Annatar because i didn't want to just start actually quoting the Silmarillion page, paragraph and line :).

[Dave Markell]

That's pretty much what i said, actually. I just left out the part about being Annatar because i didn't want to just start actually quoting the Silmarillion page, paragraph and line :).

The reason I added to what you said is your "Sauron didn't create any of the rings except the One" line. That's not really true. His knowledge was used in all of them. Beyond that, though, Tolkien explicitly states that Celebrimbor created the Three without Sauron's direct aid and that they were never sullied by his touch. The obvious corollary to this statement is that the Nine and the Seven were created with his aid and that he did assist in their forging. Thus, of the twenty great rings, he made one outright, helped with 16 more, and provided the knowledge needed for the last Three.

Hairsplitting, perhaps, but fun :-).

[Robert Sharp]

I think I need a shower.

[roguefrog]

The problem with that is discovering that the ring was in Osgiliath would probably indicate to Sauron that Gondor would try to use the ring against him, not to try and destroy it in Mordor. Gandalf says in Two Towers, in the extended edition, something akin to "the ring remains safe, and that we should seek to destroy it has not yet entered their wildest dreams." The humans using the ring would just make them even more self-destructive, which is fine by Sauron.


Sauron had that fear all along. He doesn't want to be supplanted by someone who uses the ring against him so he acts to reclaim the ring for himself by sending out his Ringwraiths. So again dangling the ring at his doorstep would definitely make him act to reclaim it. His undoing was never knowing they were planning to destroy it.

In the book, Sauron attacks Minas Tirith not only to destroy his biggest opposition, but to reclaim the ring. (he thinks it is there)

[roguefrog]

How many people know that Gandalf wears the elven ring of Fire (Narya? Vilya?) throughout the events of the trilogy?


Narya. It was given to Gandalf in secret by the oldest elf in Middle-earth, Círdan the Shipwright.

I'm sure it came in handy against the Balrog in Moria, for the fire resistance alone.

[Donald L.]

Jackson blacklisted by Rings studio (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)


Peter Jackson's long-cherished Hobbit movie appeared to be dead in the water after the director was effectively blacklisted by his former backers, New Line Cinema.

Robert Shaye, co-chairman of New Line, insisted that Jackson would never make another movie for New Line, following a fractious legal dispute over the profits from the Lord of the Rings trilogy.