Book vs. Movie characters [Archive] (2024)

Roccotari Eldandil

06-25-2003, 08:13 PM

Okay, maybe this belongs in the Movie forum but I want opinions and references mostly from the books. Which characters do you think they changed (i.e. messed with character or portrayed in a more/less flattering light) in the movie? I know about the obvious ones like Faramir and the Ents. But what about some of the less obvious ones. Like Legolas: In the beginning of the journey, he comes across as sort of an immature show-off to me, as opposed to the movie where he starts out wise and mature. Like the part on Caradhras (book) where he watches poor Aragorn and Boromir trying to dig thru the snow, then decides to go help out and states how much better Elves are suited for the task of anything snow-related--"...but choose an otter for swimming, and for running light over grass and leaf, or over snow- an Elf". But I do think he grows up considerably after the death of Gandalf. And it seems to me that "book Boromir" was a little nicer than he was in the movie. (I can't recall any specific instances, but it's just a general feeling.)

Any others anyone can think of?

Olorin

06-25-2003, 08:48 PM

In the movies, they left out the part about Gollum betraying Sam and Frodo to Shelob, so he seemed a lot nicer than he was in the book.

Also, Theoden seemed a lot nicer in the book than in the movies. I don't know, but in the book I got this feeling that he was really noble, but in the movies I didn't.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but if I think of more, I'll post again. smilies/smile.gif

Legolas

06-25-2003, 09:48 PM

Like Legolas: In the beginning of the journey, he comes across as sort of an immature show-off to me, as opposed to the movie where he starts out wise and mature.

Where was Legolas immature at? I must've missed that part.

Meneltarmacil

06-26-2003, 09:39 AM

Faramir Fan

06-26-2003, 09:49 AM

Yavanna228

06-26-2003, 10:00 AM

tinewelt

06-26-2003, 10:54 AM

Feared Half-Elf

06-26-2003, 11:46 AM

As much as I hate to say it, I think I agree about Legolas being a little immature at the begining. I think that in the movies he is portrayed better and worse than in the book on different occasions. He seems to be more of a prince in the movies, calmer and wiser. However, he does seem to come out with a few stupid comments in the movies, particulary in the second one. I think they've added a few good comments to the movies though...

'Would you like me to describe it to you? Or would you like me to get you a box?'

dancing spawn of ungoliant

06-26-2003, 01:17 PM

Yavanna228

06-26-2003, 01:36 PM

Duncariel

06-26-2003, 02:49 PM

Phoenix

06-26-2003, 03:08 PM

Gorwingel

06-26-2003, 03:23 PM

Sapphire_Flame

06-26-2003, 03:42 PM

I thought they changed Galadriel a bit in the movie. In the book, she didn't seem so aloof and, well, creepy as she did in the movie. I was thinking of the way Sam described her to Faramir (pardon my inability to remember the quote exactly) so that was what I was expecting. She was a bit unnerving; though this is amended slightly in the EV of Fellowship, where she actually acts (gasp) friendly.

Abedithon le!

Duncariel

06-26-2003, 03:57 PM

greyhavener

06-26-2003, 04:11 PM

In the movies, they left out the part about Gollum betraying Sam and Frodo to Shelob, so he seemed a lot nicer than he was in the book.

In TTT movie Gollum is leaning against a tree having one of his Gollum/Smeagol arguments and says something along the lines of "I could give them to her. I think this is referring to Shelob, which I suspect will show up in the ROTK movie, although it's part of TTT in the books.

I think the movie rendition presents Gollum as the pitable creature Gandalf wants Frodo to perceive him to be. His tortured, conflicted "possession" by the ring brings to the screen a picture of the evil power Tolkien took paragraphs of narrative to convey throughout the story. Movie Gollum works for me.

Just don't get me started on Faramir, Frodo, or Galadriel...

The Saucepan Man

06-26-2003, 05:49 PM

... it seems to me that "book Boromir" was a little nicer than he was in the movie.

It's funny, but my initial reaction to Boromir when I first read LotR (aged 11) was negative. The more subtle nuances in his character, the (in my view) noble motives that led to his being seduced by the Ring and his ultimate triumph in overcoming it all passed straight over my head. Of course, I have come to appreciate the more sympathetic aspects of his character in re-reading the book since.

But, I would not say that Boromir was necessarily "nicer" in the book than the film. I thought that Sean Bean played him incredibly sympathetically and captured the internal struggle marvellously. His interplay with Merry and Pippin in particular, his concern for the Hobbits on Caradhras and his eventual acceptance of Aragorn's inheritance all mark him out in the film as a very sympathetic character. I also think that his repentance following his attempt to seize the Ring was brought out very well in the film.

Indeed. Bean's performance was, for me, one of the best in the two films released to date, and also one of the truest to his character in the book.

Olorin

06-26-2003, 06:39 PM

I hope you guys are right about Gollum betraying Frodo and Sam to Shelob in the next movie. I wasn't happy that they left it out.

Also, I have to agree that Galadriel was portrayed as a little "creepy" in the movie. However I have not seen the extended version, so I wouldn't know from that.

Finwe

06-26-2003, 06:43 PM

I also think that Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir was one of the best characters in the entire movie. He had the perfect mixture of warmth, courage, and slightly sinister nobility. Even in the books, one of my favorite parts was his redemption, by trying to save Merry and Pippin. To some, the movie version of the death of Boromir was cheesy, but it was almost exactly like the vision that I had in my head as I read the book. Boromir finally accepted that the Ruling Stewards would rule no more, and that Aragorn would take the throne of Gondor. He realized that it was what was best for Gondor.

I also loved Gollum in the movie. I never really pitied him that much in the books, but when I saw him in the movies, then I instantly saw why Bilbo felt pity for him, and left him alive so long ago. It was almost as if I felt his obsession with the Ring myself, while watching him on-screen.

Lyta_Underhill

06-26-2003, 10:17 PM

I must agree with Finwe and The Saucepan Man about Boromir. I so did not like Boromir when I read the books 13 years ago. He seemed like a braggart and rather harsh in his demeanor, and I did not cry when he died in the books--not so the movies (as close as I get, anyway!). Sean Bean did wonders for my view of Boromir!

Don't get me into the Frodo/Arwen thing though! One of my absolute favorite scenes in the book is Frodo at the Ford, and Arwen's inclusion in this scene drains the power out of Frodo, making him more of a reactive victim type than the quietly strong character I know and love from the books. He has his moments, but he seems to need more rescuing in the movies than he does in the books. I know everyone has his or her favorite chapters/scenes, and I suppose it is inevitable that some will find their personal favorite parts butchered horribly or left out to their disappointment. I forgive that in a movie adaptation if the spirit is kept. I am eagerly awaiting ROTK to see if Faramir falls back into the mold Tolkien set for him long ago (he was, after all, the character who was most closely drawn to Tolkien himself!) I've heard some good arguments for why Faramir behaved as he did in TTT, and unfortunately, they all seem to make Frodo look really bad!

Well, enough of my complaining! Thanks for offering the soapbox! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

arianrod

06-26-2003, 10:52 PM

I completely agree with everyone that's complimented Sean Bean in his performance of Boromir. I think he was brilliant in the part and deffinatly enhanced the movie with his majesty and grace in such a difficult role.

One of my absolute favorite scenes in the book is Frodo at the Ford, and Arwen's inclusion in this scene drains the power out of Frodo, making him more of a reactive victim type than the quietly strong character I know and love from the books. He has his moments, but he seems to need more rescuing in the movies than he does in the books.

Well, Lyta_Underhill, you beat me to it and stole the thoughts right out of my head. I was fairly surprised to see no one mentioned that before. You seemed to cover it all, except that he seems to have a complete lack of balance in the movie... didn't know it was possible for hobbits to fall quite that much.

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: arianrod ]

Liriodendron

06-27-2003, 06:38 AM

Finwe

06-27-2003, 08:17 AM

Snowdog

06-27-2003, 09:37 AM

This is my opinion on how well the respective actors did in portraying the characters I saw in my mind when I read the books.

I would have to say that the portrayal of Boromir, Bilbo, and Grima, and to a lesser extent Sarumann, Merry, & Pippen, were excellent and even maybe increased their character traits over the books a little. Galadriel's portrayal, though fairly true to the books, diminished her character for Galadriel was not that 'creepy', and much prettier than Cate. Eowyn and Aragorn portray their book parts good, and in the case of Eowyn, it remains to be seen if Miranda increases the character traits. Gandalf is alright, and Gimli was done well. I don't see Frodo as the books portrayed, but I like the way Sam was portrayed. Elrond... Sorry, I see Agent Smith there, even though I thought his part was well represented. and don't get me started on Arwen.........

Finwe

06-27-2003, 10:14 AM

Haha! I'm with you there on Arwen! Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters in the book.

I also hated the way PJ made Frodo seem like a sissy who couldn't take two steps without Sam in some parts. The Weathertop scene is an excellent example. In the book, Frodo flings himself face forward, stabbing with his sword and crying out to Elbereth. In the movie, all he does is keel over backward and cry, not to mention he drops his sword. And I also hate that in every dangerous situation, just about every other line for him is "Oh Sam!" That is just so ANNOYING! I mean, get a spine man!

Lily

06-27-2003, 12:34 PM

Finwe

06-27-2003, 12:41 PM

dancing spawn of ungoliant

06-27-2003, 01:23 PM

Finwe

06-27-2003, 01:30 PM

greyhavener

06-27-2003, 03:02 PM

I wanted to see a wearier more ageless attitude in the elves. I'm not sure I'd fault the actors so much as the plot changes and dialog. I really hated the whole Elrond trying to send Arwen off to the Grey Havens thing. I do think the extended version with the gift-giving scene did Galadriel more justice.

Sean Bean performance captured Boromir perfectly for me. I'm trying to reserve judgement on Faramir and Eowyn but I left TTT very disappointed in both of them. Again, my problems were more with dialog and persona than the actors. I liked Viggo's Aragorn but I see Aragorn as a bit less conflicted. I think the book portrays him as more settled in his role as king and Arwen's mate.

Elijah Wood looks like a hobbit and he's a good actor, but I envision someone older for Frodo. Maybe they could have aged him so he looks older than Merry and Pippin. Also the victim image bothers me.

Merry should have been more complex and mature than Pippin not tweeledee and tweedledum. Though a bit of that came out with the Ents. I thought Sean Astin's performance as Sam was wonderful.

I was happy with both the wizards and with Gimli. Gollum was interesting enlightening but dragged on a bit for me in TTT.

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

Lyta_Underhill

06-27-2003, 11:43 PM

Elijah Wood looks like a hobbit and he's a good actor, but I envision someone older for Frodo. Maybe they could have aged him so he looks older than Merry and Pippin. Also the victim image bothers me.
I actually didn't have a problem with how young Elijah Wood made Frodo look. It was how young he ACTED, and also, the structure of the movie was such that he could not have possibly been much older than Merry and Pippin. I can understand why they had to condense things like that and intro Sam and Merry and Pippin at Bilbo's party, but, of necessity, it makes Frodo MUCH younger in fact, rather than only in appearance. I don't see a cinematic way around this, unfortunately, unless you cast an older actor for Frodo, so that he's obviously older than the others. Tolkien's Frodo, however, looked like a young hobbit "just out of his tweens," a good description of Elijah.

Merry should have been more complex and mature than Pippin not tweeledee and tweedledum. Though a bit of that came out with the Ents. I thought Sean Astin's performance as Sam was wonderful.

I did notice a few things with Merry that correlate well with his character. He does seem to know where he's going! I don't have a clear memory of TTT right now, having seen it only once last year, but Fellowship includes Merry guiding them in their mad flight out of the Shire to Bucklebury Ferry and away from the pursuing Ringwraiths. He was, after all, the instigator of the "conspiracy" to help Frodo out in the early parts of FOTR! It would have been interesting to have the part where Merry gets the black breath in Bree included, but of course, there's no good cinematic way to include it IMO. That would have given resonance to the upcoming ROTK encounter with the Witch King at Pelennor Fields, but, alas, resonance is most often in the mind and recollection in the film! I do agree that Sean Astin IS Sam! Sean Astin and Ian McKellen really embody their characters wonderfully!

As for Aragorn, I think there is a definite undercurrent of indecisiveness that I've detected upon repeated readings of LOTR. Perhaps it is just a foreknowledge now; Aragorn prefers to go to Minas Tirith when the Fellowship must choose between the East and West paths in FOTR, but he is conflicted, because he is determined to follow whereever Frodo goes. If Frodo says "I'm going to Mordor," then Aragorn is determined to go that way. He feels a responsibility to the Ringbearer and the Quest, and doesn't grasp the fullness of his own quest and his own responsibility to the line of Elendil and Isildur. If Aragorn had not done things the way he did; if he had taken the road with Frodo, he might have returned to the kingship of Gondor, but it is much less likely the people would have accepted him. Also it is very likely, Minas Tirith would have been in even worse shape and his coming too late and too little. So, yes, I can really see the conflict inherent in Aragorn's position, and it is beautiful the serendipitous way it works out. Aragorn's choice is made for him when Frodo leaves surrepitiously, and his path takes him to Minas Tirith by the Paths of the Dead and helps to drive off the force besieging Gondor. Who could have predicted it would work out that way?

Viggo does a wonderful job of portraying outwardly this conflict, but it is shown more obviously in the movie, as there is less time to unfold the story before the audience. I did wonder about the "I let Frodo go" part, since this was definitely not his spirit in the book and seems to imply more of a decisive attitude than he had at this point in the book. I must also say that Viggo has grown on me (not literally! smilies/wink.gif ) and I watch certain parts of FOTR over and over just to hear him talk!

OK, I suppose this post has turned into a short tome on Aragorn! There are no thoughts left in my head, so I will end the post and retire! Thanks for your indulgence!

Cheers,
Lyta

Aredhel Idril Telcontar

06-28-2003, 12:03 AM

Daisy Brambleburr

06-28-2003, 04:29 AM

Olorin

06-28-2003, 01:13 PM

Duncariel

06-28-2003, 02:52 PM

I was not at all happy at first with the way that Arwen was portrayed in the movies, but now that I think of it, it was almost necessary. How else would they have introduced her? In the books, Arwen is introduced at the banquet in Imladris, and that part was not put into the movie.

Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters in the book, and I was upset when they left him out. But I did come up with a reason for that too. Seeing as how the movie was super long anyway, and how difficult it was to get the characters developed, the extraction of Glorfindel gave them more time to dwell on the much more important original characters from the books.

I thought that Elijah Wood did an excelent job portraying Frodo, but the fact that I didn't like him in the first place didn't help much. Did you ever notice how his voice gets steadily higher the tenser the movie got?

I was reasonably happy with the portrayal of Merry and Pippin in the movie. I had always wondered how PJ was going to mature them enough for fighting, and I'm happy with it so far. Especially with Pippin ~ "Don't encourage it Merry!" ~ to ~ "The closer we are to danger, the farther we are from harm." ~ He matured rather quickly.

Tinuviel of Denton

06-28-2003, 04:18 PM

Ian McKellen was great, as was Christopher Lee. Two brilliant wizards!

Except for that whole "wizard's duel" thing...

I actually don't care for the portrayal of Theoden. In the books, he seems older, somehow. Less middle-aged and more venerable. And I almost screamed with fury when Gandalf "exorcised" Saruman out of him. (That sounds funny, but I'm unsure how to rephrase it.)

I do agree with whoever it was who said that Aragorn came out more indecisive than in the books. Not because he wanted to go to the White City vs. say going with Frodo, but because he didn't want to be king at all. In the books, I at least saw him as quite prepared to take up the burden (Not to mention the fact that Elrond sort of made that a condition for marrying Arwen...) Also, at the end of FotR, Aragorn lets Frodo leave. Alone. Frankly, I just don't see Aragorn letting him do that. He would go with him, to continue to protect him. (While I'm on the subject of that scene, the whole Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli fighting the Uruk-hai did NOT need to occur)

Also, I found the way Frodo was so--dare I say it?--immature annoyed me greatly. The hobbit was fifty something at this point. Come on, PJ.

At this point, I need to go dunk my head in cold water to cool my wrath so I don't say anything I will regret.

Lord of Angmar

06-28-2003, 07:48 PM

I have to say that the part I least enjoyed in the movies was that of Faramir. The fact that he was so similar in mood to his brother in the movie seemed to conflict with Tolkien's own view of the young Captain of Gondor. I think by far the best presences in the movie are Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Sean Bean as Boromir, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn.

The characters I think were the furthest from Tolkien's original intention were Legolas and Gimli. Legolas seems to be too two-dimensional and Gimli was obviously the comic relief throughout the entire second movie.

All in all, I have to say that I enjoyed the characters in the books much better. They seemed more well-rounded (except for Boromir) and I think that the greatest fault in the movie was the fact that Faramir was exactly the same as his brother, whereas in the book he was wiser, kinder, and had more of an Elvish quality.

As a side note (although this should be included in the movies section), I think that the scene in which Frodo offers the One Ring to the Winged Nazgul in the movie was highly implausible and would cause serious problems for Frodo and Sam. And why would Faramir have a change of heart (which he did in the movie) after he had just seen Frodo offer the Ring to the enemies?

~Lord of Angmar

Lobelia

06-28-2003, 09:02 PM

Just a few thoughts here. I've had a careful think about this whole Arwen business and come to the conclusion that PJ did the right thing. Glorfindel appears twice in the novel - and that's counting his brief appearance in the Council of Elrond. Arwen is the woman Aragorn loves and has waited 60 years for. Why waste a scene on a character who will never appear again when you can show a woman Aragorn might believably love? She may not be Tolkien's Arwen, but she *is* a lot like her much gutsier ancestress Luthien and from the scene around the fire where Aragorn sings the tale of Beren and Luthien, he's half in love with Luthien himself. I agree about the scene by the ford - oh, I did love the bit where Frodo turns around and defies the Ringwraiths! But you can't have it all. Faramir - I said, "Ouch!" when I saw TTT for the first time, but the book Faramir wouldn't have worked as well on screen. I sympathised with him, too - he was desperate, getting one bit of bad news after another, and even then didn't try to take the Ring for himself, only to send it to his father. When he saw what the Ring did to Frodo, he finally got the point and gave up the idea. I loved the portrayal of Eowyn - Miranda Otto convinced me she was a warrior just by the way she walked. Wormtongue was very much Anthony Sher's Richard III portrayal - anyone seen it? - except Eowyn was smarter than Lady Anne. Let's face it, if she'd been left as in the novel, she would have had two lines the entire film and how could anyone have felt for her by the time she does the rest of it? Tolkien could write in things that just can't be shown without giving Eowyn more to do. PJ was right here.

Plenty more to say, but I'll stop here for now, just asking if anyone has heard the BBC radio version? Ian Holm, who, I agree, IS Bilbo, played a wonderful Frodo.

Linteamarthwen

06-29-2003, 10:11 AM

Linteamarthwen

06-29-2003, 10:20 AM

Balin999

06-29-2003, 10:27 AM

Lord of Angmar

06-29-2003, 11:01 AM

Lord of Angmar

06-29-2003, 11:04 AM

Sorry I don't know what happened there it posted my message twice... my last post was a response to Linteamarthwen's post on page 1...

P.S. I also think Viggo mortensen has done an outstanding job on Aragorn, particularly in the second movie.

Hilde Bracegirdle

06-29-2003, 03:12 PM

Also in the books Aragorn was very troubled which way to go after Lothlorien. After Frodo and Sam go off, and Merry And Pippin get caught you actually see some self doubt there. That wasn’t brought into the movie at all. I really don’t remember him having any problem with becoming king.

I found it hard to swallow Grima in the movie as well. Not the acting of course but the way they made him up into such a green looking weasel. I mean would you trust that guy? Come on, Theoden wasn’t an idiot give him some credit you movie people you!

All in all the movies are of almost a completely different story to me, if I don’t think of it that way I become rather sad.

King_Elendil

06-30-2003, 06:50 AM

Lord of Angmar

06-30-2003, 11:44 AM

Elentári

06-30-2003, 12:43 PM

King_Elendil

06-30-2003, 01:48 PM

Finwe

06-30-2003, 02:45 PM

Tricia

06-30-2003, 08:46 PM

arianrod

07-01-2003, 12:55 AM

I've had a careful think about this whole Arwen business and come to the conclusion that PJ did the right thing. Glorfindel appears twice in the novel - and that's counting his brief appearance in the Council of Elrond.

You have a very good point, Lobelia. I agree that introducing a character for one or two scenes only would be confusing to the audience members who have not read the books. However, just because the change was sensible, doesn't mean we have to like Arwen. smilies/wink.gif She did do something Glorfindel did not: she had to carry Frodo across the Ford and defy the Nine for him, taking away some of the great strength of will and mind that Tolkien gave him.

And she's just really obnoxious.

Lalaith

07-01-2003, 06:15 AM

I'm glad so many people had issues about Theoden. That really annoyed me, he was about as different from the book as he could be. Theoden is supposed to be a kindly contrast in kingship to the coldly intellectual yet ultimately ineffectual Denethor. Instead, PJ just made him a Denethor mini-me.
Thumbs up to what Lyta and lots of others say about Elijah/Frodo. Too young, too one-dimensional.. Can you really see the Council of Elrond letting that quivering little puppydog loose in the Wild with the One Ring?
Tinuviel of Denton I also agree with your Pippin and Merry comments. I was really unhappy about them in FOTR, they became slightly less idiotic in TTT but even so...and ditto Gimli.
Legolas: lol at Yavanna228's "Captain Obvious." Not OB's fault, more the script, especially in FoTR. I like movie Legolas, actually.
Lobelia, absolutely agree on Arwen and the Luthien heritage. It's what I've been saying all along...I'm glad I've got an ally on the Barrowdowns! I think that the Arwen change could have been carried off better, though, with an older actress with more gravitas. Someone like Isabelle Adjani.
But I am all alone I think in not being a fan of the Miranda Otto Eowyn. Not Otto's fault at all, more a question of how the character was conceived. I wanted an ice maiden, and what I got was Meg Ryan lite.

Also would disagree about Boromir. Sean Bean is a great actor but this wasn't how I saw Boromir. I had visualised him as a bluff, barrel-chested soldier, loyal and slightly stupid. He wasn't clever enough to see why the Ring was dangerous. But Bean made him rather too intellectual and tortured. Still,movie Boromir was an interesting character.
I'm also coming slowly to terms with movie Aragorn, who I agree is fundamentally different from the book. Viggo is a bit too goodlooking (well, much too goodlooking really) to be Tolkien's Aragorn. Tolkien Aragorn was stern and I think rather bruised by his years of exile, he was tired of tramping through wilderness and longed to take his rightful place. Movie Aragorn LIKES being a freewheeling Ranger and sees kingship as a burden.
King-Elendil, agree about Eomer, Karl Urban gets it just right...
I like Cate Blanchett's Galadriel but could SO have done without the special effects during the "Instead of a Dark Lord" speech.
Also approve of movie Gandalf and movie Saruman (and agree about hating the wizard duel) and movie Bilbo. Class acting.

Liriodendron

07-01-2003, 06:21 AM

It's funny, but as it stands now (before the extended edition of TTT) PJ has managed to make me understand, and agree with Denethor "liking" Boromir better than Farmir! smilies/rolleyes.gif I know that's "all wrong"...but Boromir comes across as a likable, personable guy, and Faramir seems like a real "d**k"! I hope this gets corrected, to at least equal footing on the brothers likability scale! smilies/wink.gif Also, the movie ents (ok Treebeard) seem "dumb". In the book, the "age makes wisdom" was a little bit of a stretch for me. It still took them too long (IMO) to decide to do the right thing, but "fit" well in the end. Once again, at this point in the movies (without TTT ex ed) Treebeard just seems like a hot-headed, boastful treeman! smilies/rolleyes.gif Ok, maybe I'm being a bit cruel! smilies/tongue.gif

[ July 01, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

Darby

07-01-2003, 11:02 AM

King_Elendil

07-01-2003, 11:32 AM

Lord of Angmar

07-01-2003, 01:43 PM

peonydeepdelver

07-01-2003, 02:23 PM

The characters I had the biggest problems with were Haldir, Faramir, Treebeard, Arwen, and Nob (yes, Nob!).

Haldir: He was way too ticked off for anyone's good. Good thing he wasn't the Hulk, or Lothlorien would have been smashed to a pulp a long time ago. Also, in the theatrical version, he says, "You have entered the realm of the Lady of the Wood. You cannot go back." Then in the Extended Version he says, "You bring great evil here.... you can go no further." Will he make up his mind?

Faramir: One question. What ever happened to not touching the Ring if he found it on the highway? I am seriously going to write to Peter Jackson and ask why he changed Faramir from the noble son of the Steward to a hostage-taking jerk.

Treebeard: Need I explain?

Arwen: She cheated poor Glorfindel out of yet another movie. First 'twas Legolas, then Arwen. I feel bad for Glorfindel now. smilies/frown.gif

Nob: This is literally my favorite not-quite-as-important Hobbit character in the whole book, and they couldn't even show him running around in the background giving customers drinks...

Oh, and Happy Wightness to me! smilies/biggrin.gif

[ July 01, 2003: Message edited by: peonydeepdelver ]

King_Elendil

07-01-2003, 02:37 PM

Imladris

07-01-2003, 04:03 PM

I didn't like the movie Theoden either. I always pictured him as a kindly old man with long white hair and a long white beard. He's just too young in this movie. Good thing he didn't have too much screen time.

As for Frodo/Elijah being immature, I think that it was probably a good thing they had him so scared. As for falling down at Weathertop, he did become unconscience in the book. When he fell down in Moria, when he came to face to face with the cave troll, that was scary and rather a shock (even I jumped in my seat the first time I saw it in theatres). He's a hobbit less than a yard tall, and here is a cave troll who is 9 feet tall!!! And for falling down at the end off the watch tower, he was trying to get away from the eye. And Frodo had to look young because he got the Ring in his tweens, and the Ring kept him from aging.

Arwen's okay...not my favorite. Cate did a good job as Galadriel. I liked her.

Gorwingel

07-02-2003, 01:47 AM

Posted by King_Elendil

Elijah Wood as Frodo: Even though he is often seen as a frightened pretty boy and not an older Frodo, Wood captures the childlike Hobbit innocence of Frodo. Sure he seems afraid, but Frodo hasn't experienced anything like this before. He's a hobbit out of his element. So, you would probably be afraid, too.

I have to agree with about everything you say about Frodo. But I do disagree with one part. For me when I read the book Frodo did not seem totally innocent. He was actually rather educated about the rest of ME, compared to Sam of course. I wish they would have included more about how he did know a little Elvish. But maybe they did not include some of those things because of the short amount of time they had to tell the entire story. In the book I have always thought of Frodo as a gentlehobbit who was very polite and had a great "grownup" air to him and would always go through with something even though he really did not want to do it. I just didn't think that all of that came out on screen, part of it did, but not all. He did have an innocence to him, but still the inncence that was in him was less than the amount in Sam, and I don't think that comes out in the film.

King_Elendil

07-02-2003, 02:18 AM

Gwaihir the Windlord

07-02-2003, 03:30 AM

It was only, I think, in his looks that Elijah Wood may have appeared 'innocent' or 'childlike' (actually I think he was OK); in his manner, he was indeed much more aware and educated about the world than the other Hobbits in the films, and much more serious. But it is unfair to say that. Sam did not look anything like he should have (one of the least pleasing characters in the film, I found *grimace*). They are being played by humans, remember, not real Hobbits -- like the Elves, the actors are bound to be slightly ill-fitting in their roles.

Personally, I didn't like the movie (or at least the first one, because I didn't bother seeing the second and so my only reports on it are from hearsay and trailers). It wasn't because of the story that they missed, which is inevitable and I can live with (in fact they would have been really bad if they'd included it all -- it isn't a screenplay of the entire works of Tolkien) but the rubbish that they put in. Chiefly displeasing were Arwen's reformed 'warrior princess' character and Aragorn, most evident in the first film, who was transformed from the Estel, that had been preparing to be King all his life, to a mere vagabond who sort of decided to tag along with the Company at the last minute. Elrond was pretty bad as well. Totally changed the character. I hear there was a lot of that story-altering going on in the second one (which I'll probably watch soon on DVD -- not my own, someone else's smilies/smile.gif -- if only to validate my point of view on it) which is why I didn't see it.

Elentári

07-02-2003, 11:19 AM

Imladris

07-02-2003, 11:49 AM

The only real thing I missed in Fellowship of the Ring (the movie) was that they didn't show how resilient Hobbits are to the Morgul blade.

In Two Towers, I too could have screamed when they changed Faramir. I was thrilled in the book when he kept his promise to Frodo about not taking the Enemy's weapon. I heard somewhere that Two Towers is the movie that is changed the most, so I think that we shouldn't judge it too harshly until we see it in context. As for Arwen in Two Towers, what does she mean when she says to Aragorn, "You must go with Frodo." HUH? I hope in the third one they show Faramir and Eowyn getting married.

Even though P.J changed a few things, I think that he did a good job on both films for a few reasons: He kept the heart of the film. The selfless love, the loyalty, the nobility. Sam is clearly shown as the hopeful one, while Frodo is starting to loose hope, just like he did in the book. And it is true that Frodo would never have made it without Sam. As for Pippin and Merry, I think they are maturing nicely (as has been said before, I think). Though Eowyn was not quite the way I pictured her, I think she was great. Those are just my thoughts. The other changes I don't really mind, but I don't really care for the one with Faramir. I wonder what they are going to do with it.

Imladris

07-02-2003, 09:11 PM

Just one last thought...

I think that I remember somebody mentioning that in the movie TTT, they thought it was highly unlikely that Frodo would sort of just go up to the Nazgul and "give" him the Ring. Maybe that scene was was alluding to the Chapter VIII in Two Towers (The Stairs of Cirith Ungol) when Frodo, Sam, and Gollum were passing by the domains of the Wraith-lord and Frodo felt the almost irristable urging of the Ring...that would have been rather hard to portray on film.

Neferchoirwen

07-02-2003, 09:49 PM

Arwen vs. Glorfindel...if Glorfindel was given his own presence in the films, then post-readers (people like me, who read the books after watching the movies) may most likely scratch their heads and go "why didn't he get into the fellowship?" This is based on the premise that Glorfindel played a rather significant role in saving Frodo from the wraiths.

I can never say enough about Sean Bean...except that I cry every time it gets to his death scene.

Viggo grows in me, too. He is rather reserved, but proves strong in character as he fights will all his might!

Gimli's lines kinda messed it up for me. I was about to cry in awe when the wars build up, and *pffft* I loose momentum when he spills out a punchline smilies/frown.gif

Faramir...remember the close-up in TTT? If I remember right, that close up happened somewhere between Faramir planning for their next move and speaking with the Hobbits. That particular close-up showed a look on Faramir's face: he looked afraid, indecisive, and very vulnerable; even desperate. That close-up did it for me. The movie Faramir may have spoiled our expectations as readers, but the language of cinema portrayed him as raw as anyone in times of desperation.
Faramir had to be portrayed in contrast to Boromir, who was lofty, confident, and hasty (IMO), as opposed to Faramir, who was marginalized in his father's affections, at the frontlines of defense, and many other stressful things (the map is a telltale sign of the congestion that Faramir was facing).

Phew! that was a lot...

Lyta_Underhill

07-03-2003, 09:13 AM

Faramir...remember the close-up in TTT? If I remember right, that close up happened somewhere between Faramir planning for their next move and speaking with the Hobbits. That particular close-up showed a look on Faramir's face: he looked afraid, indecisive, and very vulnerable; even desperate. That close-up did it for me.
I shall have to watch it again sometime! I only got to see TTT once in theatres and I eagerly await its video release. I remember railing against the portrayal of Faramir in past times, but I've read a few analyses on the changes made to Faramir in the movie, and they all seem to hinge on the changes made in Frodo. Frodo's behavior at this point does not inspire confidence, nor show the quiet nobility of his character that is brought out in the book. Since Faramir cannot reasonably trust Frodo, he is forced to make hard decisions. I do think he is kind of nasty, but then again, Frodo and Sam are much more evasive and Frodo less stable than in the book. I am prepared to forgive Faramir once I see how all works out in the movie ROTK. In a perfect world, we would have had a quiet but charged sojourn in Henneth Annun, where the errand of the hobbits is slowly drawn out by Faramir's deft interrogation techniques and a pleasant realization that he is NOT like his brother Boromir. "Not if it lay by the side of the road would I take it," Faramir is moved to confidence in Frodo slowly in the book, but in the movie, it is clear that more rash methods must be used and someone is going to have to pull Elijah Wood off that scenery before he chews it to pieces! smilies/wink.gif

So, it is a double letdown regarding Frodo and Faramir but probably necessary to keep the parallel structure flowing with the events in Rohan and Fangorn. There's got to be some action and I guess it wasn't enough to have Faramir's men skirmishing with the Southrons.

Something totally different than above rant: I know it is probably nitpicking, but why is Grima Wormtongue the only man of Rohan with black hair? Or did I miss something? Maybe evil darkens your hair? smilies/wink.gif I can't say anything against Brad Dourif, though; he's always excellent in his roles!

Cheers,
Lyta

Neferchoirwen

07-07-2003, 01:57 AM

Actually, maintaining Faramir in the books into the films would cause the dynamic of his character to fail. Faramir is not really like his father, and is not really liked as much. So if the films show Faramir as he is in the books, then the audience would not get why his father does not love him as he loves Boromir. It also demonstrates the desperation for fatherly love from Denethor. So PJ maintained the desparation card on Faramir to underline not just the corruption of the city, or of the ring, but of the need to be fathered as well, which is fuelled by his father's loss of a favorite son. (And to faramir's chagrin, he isn't even the replacement of the lost favorite).

Hope I got that straight.

And yeah...why is Grima dark-haired? I guess it's just characterization and character, but perhaps Grima is not native to Rohan?

Neferchoirwen

07-16-2003, 01:54 AM

Aure

07-28-2003, 01:46 PM

Genevieve

07-28-2003, 11:24 PM

Genevieve

07-28-2003, 11:31 PM

WHoops, sorry. I was looking at the first page. smilies/frown.gif

Well, I do think that Arwen becomes a much bigger character in the movies, more than she should in my opinion. And Galadriel is just freaky in the movies. She was really neat in the books, one of my favorites. But the way she was depicted in the movies was kind of disturbing.

Lyta_Underhill

07-29-2003, 12:02 AM

And Galadriel is just freaky in the movies. She was really neat in the books, one of my favorites. But the way she was depicted in the movies was kind of disturbing.

I kind of liked the way they made Galadriel imposing and sort of creepy. It takes into account her Noldorin sensibilities and her tendency to embalm things, an unnatural tendency, even though the things she embalms are natural. There are some disturbing things about Galadriel, and the test Frodo put her through was made all the more poignant by a reading of the Silmarillion and UT, so that we know Galadriel's history and the true import of the final test of her will, the culmination of her fighting the "Long Defeat" in Middle Earth. The scary green thing was over the top, but it illustrated the great battle going on in her mind, which could probably not be shown effectively otherwise. It also does double duty by making it clear to Frodo just how the Ring can corrupt both high and low, strong and weak. It would strengthen his view that he was going to have to break away from the Fellowship.

The Extended version of FOTR does great things for Galadriel IMO, by showing her softer and more kindly side. I cannot stress how much more I like the Extended than the regular version of this film! Galadriel comes off better; Frodo comes off better, Merry and Pippin and Boromir too, if that is possible (he was already a phenomenon in that I liked him in the film and not in the book).

As for Aragorn, I think they do play up a reticence to be king that wasn't there; however, there was uncertainty as to his path. He could not see how he was to achieve what he knew was his destiny. But in the Extended FOTR, his telling Boromir he would not take the Ring within 100 leagues of "your city" was too much. Aragorn was actually leaning towards going to Minas Tirith in the book. There was much uncertainty in Aragorn's mind as to his path, not to his destiny to reclaim the throne of Gondor. The events at Parth Galen forced his hand, and he ended up going the right way. I like the thought that it was destiny guiding him here...OK, I've probably gone off track, so I'll end here. Bye now! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

P.S. by the way, Genevieve, I LOVE your sig! smilies/biggrin.gif

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

Neferchoirwen

07-29-2003, 12:21 AM

his telling Boromir he would not take the Ring within 100 leagues of "your city" was too much.

I think it was meant to sound that way. Gondor looked pretty much devastated...but then again, since he hasn't seen how Gondor's doing, it was like Aragorn was rejecting his birthright to the throne of Gondor. An inconsistency in the script, perhaps? Or a revelation in Aragorn's semi-reluctant character? Either way, it still sounds edgy...

I kind of liked the way they made Galadriel imposing and sort of creepy

That was my first impression as well; a bad one, since I had not read the books until about 5 or 6 months later. As a ring bearer, she ought to seem dangerous. Add a Noldori sensibility, and there you have that evervescence of creepiness about her.

I loved Galadirel in the extended version. She seemed more grandmotherly than motherly. Cate Blanchett's interpretation of Galadriel was indeed justified by differentiating a mother's concern from that of a grandmother's...and I always thought both sensibilities were the same smilies/eek.gif

Although:
her tendency to embalm things, an unnatural tendency, even though the things she embalms are natural

I find this interesting, though I can't seem to understand it. Care to explain, Lyta? smilies/biggrin.gif

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Neferchoirwen ]

Lyta_Underhill

07-29-2003, 12:50 AM

I find this interesting, though I can't seem to understand it. Care to explain, Lyta?

Sure, if I can! smilies/smile.gif It is actually an observation made by others than me; it has to do with Galadriel's use of Nenya to preserve Lothlorien. Time does not work there as it does outside the realm, and things do not decay. It is an inherent power of Nenya, but it is also unnatural, as evidenced by the fear shown by those who speak of the Lady of the Wood outside her realm. It is this "otherness" and odd preserved state that makes Lothlorien creepy in itself, although it is beautiful in an Elven and a Noldorin "creative" sense. It is beauty created of suspension of natural cycles of life, much as the Elves themselves exist outside the cycles of renewal in Middle Earth. They are fading, becoming irrelevant and alien, and this "embalmed" realm of Lothlorien is symptomatic of that. I think it is significant also that the Three Rings and their power are tied to the One, for they are the very thing that those who would have tried to use the One Ring would have argued for: a good use for an evil thing. Not that the Three Rings were evil; but that they were tied to it. The evil of Sauron was unnatural, but by the opposite but similar measure, so was the embalmed realm of Lothlorien and the Elves themselves, after the end of the Third Age.

Boy, I hope I made sense! Because I don't think I can get any more mileage out of my brain tonight! It is interesting to contemplate, though, isn't it, Neferchoirwen?

Cheers,
Lyta

Neferchoirwen

07-29-2003, 01:10 AM

w smilies/cool.gif w, Lyta! That did make sense!

And may I commend you for sparing extra mileage from your brain! I needed to contemplate on something, thank you very much...I needed something to "eat" on to get me going at work. smilies/smile.gif

...and so now I know why Lothlorien is errily bluish in color...But it seems like I remember what you've just explained from the dark, unconscious of my own mind...

Anyways...back to the topic!

HCIsland

07-29-2003, 08:59 AM

Okay, here I go.

Gandalf: Slightly warmer and more grandfatherly than in the books I think, but I liked that change. I think everyone agree's McKellen's performance was wonderful.

Bilbo: Ian Hom was absolutely brilliant. His scenes at Bag End with McKellen still remain some of my favourite. Of all the performances, this is the one that seems almost bang on to what's in the books.

Frodo: I think some of the nobility of this character was lost when Jackson decided to go for the deer-in-the-headlights look. I thought it worked well in the first film, but I began to get very tired of him in the second. Then again, I get very tired of Frodo at this stage in the book too. I'll forgive a lot and if PJ gives us a powerful Grey Havens with Frodo bearing the costs of war with courage and nobility, then I'll be happy.

Sam: As much as I like Sam in the book, I like Austin's Sam better with that edge of sycophancy not there. All the loyalty, courage, conviction and slow but cunning intelegence is there though and that can be tough to catch. It would have been to easy to make Sam Frodo's dopey lap-dog as he was in the animated film.

Pippin: I like Boyd's Pippin. I know some folks find him a bit too clueless, but those qualities where there to be found in the book. In a multi-cast film, you really have to streamline supporting characters more. You can see though an edge of wisdom beginning to creep in that will hopefully manifest itself more in RotK.

Merry: As has been mentioned, this one's tougher. I think the character of Merry is harder to nail down. More of a leader than Sam or Pippin but steadfast and fun loving at the same time. I'm not sure how well it's been captured and I'm reserving judgement.

Aragorn: Alright, here it comes. I really like Mortensen's Aragorn. Too often I found book Aragorn, stodgy and stiff. I like the conflict, especially his conflict over Arwen and whether he has the right to ask of her what he so deeply desires.

Arwen: I don't have a problem with Tyler's Arwen. If she had been swinging a sword at Helm's Deep (as I believe was originally envisioned) I would have been upset, but I think PJ has been restrained in her treatment. I think her replacing Glorfindel was appropriate and I enjoyed her stand at the fords, though I think I would have liked Frodo being given his moment to shine more.

Elrond: No issues with Weaving. There's a brooding wisdom that he carries very well. I like how they are exploring the conflict between him and Arwen.

Boromir: Along with Holm's Bilbo, I thought Bean's Boromir was one of the best things about Fellowship. Less egocentric and flawed than book Boromir but I think that even more underscored his tragedy. The right person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Legolas: Book Legolas never made an impression on me one way or the other and Bloom's Legolas is just fine with me. His lines are few but I think he captures the idea of a character learning more than he ever expected from this chaotic dwarf he's stuck with.

Gimli: Although I'm not as incensed as some, I would have liked to see one or two of Gimli's punchlines taken out of the second film. I think he is a suitable device for comedy though, and there is some material in the book like his axe falling out when he bows to Treebeard. I laughed at the dwarf tossing joke but rolled my eyes at his falling off the horse in front of Eowyn - mostly because I don't understand what he was doing on the horse to start with. I think his relationship with Legolas is developing well, which in my mind is the most important thing.

Galadriel: Once the extended edition scenes were added, I was very comfortable with Blanchett's Galadriel. This is a powerful person who has an edge to her. That edge has been slowly tempered by time and wisdom, but I think it would have been wrong not to have it still there underneath.

Saruman: I think Christopher Lee plays these fallen men of power so well it's tough to imagine anyone else playing the role. Certainly a cruel megalomaniac, but there is a touch of sadness that comes across in his performance. You can't help but feel a bit sorry for him.

Eomer: He was in the second film, right? I think I'll have to reserve judgement after I see him do a bit more.

I'm running out of time, so I'll have to continue in another post.

H.C.

HCIsland

07-29-2003, 02:56 PM

Okay, I'm back.

Eowyn: Otto's Eowyn doesn't feel quite right to me. I'm one of the ones that thinks her relationship with Aragorn is being handled well, so I don't think that's it. There's this terrible sadness about Eowyn in the books, like she's walking around with invisible weights on her or a she's draped in a tarp that no one can see, least of all herself. In the movie she's coming across as some kind of midevil feminist. Of course the real test for this character is coming so we'll have to see.

Theoden: Here I go getting myself in trouble again. I like movie Theoden better. It always bothered me how in the book, right after he stops listening to everything Wormtongue says, he begins listening to everything Gandalf says. It just seems like he switched from one person telling him what to do to another. The film seemed to go through efforts to show him making decisions. Going to Helm's Deep was his idea and against the advice of Gandalf and Aragorn and once at Helm's Deep he shone as a commander of his forces. It wasn't just the Aragorn show. Hill's performance was great, especially at Theodred's burial mound and his "Where is the horse ..." soliloquy.

Wormtongue: It was mentioned earlier that Wormtongue was too slimy in the movie but I disagree. I've always pictured him as hunched over, pale and greasy and I liked his look in the movie. It's like he is also paying a physical cost for his manipulations of Theoden and his association with Saruman. I really loved all the moments that Grima was on screen. Then again it seemed all the best lines were either spoken by him or at him, so that may have been it. "I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm." An amalgamation of Tolkien's words I know, but it works.

Faramir: Jackson's treatment of Faramir has become a major sore point for my wife that the kids and I sometime like to ride her about, but truth be told, if any of the character treatments deserve the word butchered, it's this one. My biggest problem with Jackson's Faramir (I'm refraining from saying Wenham's Faramir, putting blame where it belongs) is that his motivations for letting Frodo and company go never really come across. I never quite understood this character in the film. Reasons for keeping Frodo are obvious. Besides the pull of The Ring, there is simple mindless duty and certainly the vast majority of soldiers would simply pass the responsibility up the chain of command - in other words, take The Ring to Minas Tirith even if they felt no urge to take it for themselves. But ultimately Faramir lets them go. Why? In the book it is knowledge and wisdom (which are certainly not the same thing but powerful in combination) combined with an extrodinary ability to judge character that aid Faramir in his decision. In the movie, I don't know what it was about Sam's speech that got to Faramir. I have the feeling a piece of the puzzle is missing and I certainly hope the extended edition provides it.

Gollum: Technically the achievement is brilliant. The most fully realized digital character ever - by far. In his first schizophrenic conversation, I felt he edged too close to cute but overall I was very pleased with the treatment as Gollum bounced between threatening and lap-dog. I can't wait for Cirith Ungol.

I think that's it.

H.C.

Dancing_Hobbit

07-29-2003, 02:57 PM

I know this has already been touched on, but i need to vent somewhere. the Arwen parts of the movie made me so angry i wanted to cry. the bit in the first movie was particularly bad. Arwen is not like that!! she is not a strong warrior pricess! well, she's strong in spirit and all that, but she does NOT fight! having her ride Frodo to the ford detracted from Frodo, in that it made him look weaker than he should have been, completely removed Glorfindel, and undermines Eowyn's position as the strong warior princess. that is what bothers me the most. as far as i am concerned she was the best female character in the books (also the best developed one), but Arwen detracts from her. also, the way Eowyn was portrayed in the Two Towers movie makes her seem like a petulant little girl who thinks she can be as good a warior as a man, but can't be. the feeling i got from the book was that she WAS as good a warior as any man, and better than most.

a also think that the movies did not adequetly show Borimir as a good person who wants the best for the people he loves so much, but doesn't understand the danger of the ring, and is therefore corrupted by it. i got the sense that people who saw the movies without reading the books thought of him as weak-willed, or a bad person. my complaint is not at all with Sean Bean, who i thought did and excellent job. the problem was that too many scenes showed Borimir in a negative light and not enough showed him in a possitive one.

Sauron, was made to seem as if he had always been evil. while it is hard to explain his history and how he was corrupted in the movie, i think it could have been done, and would have produced a better character.

in general, i think almost all of the characters lost something to the movies. Frodo seemed like a weak tagalong, Pippin seemed uterly immature and helpless, and the relationship between Gimli and Legolas didn't get the same development and attention. however, it was a movie, and thus it is to be expected that it isn't as good as the books. standing alone, the movie was not as good. having read the books, i knew the background and was able to supply depth. this made the movie into and interesting and highly enjoyable story. only the a few of the character changes really bothered me.

Edit: erm...sorry about the book!

[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Dancing_Hobbit ]

Genevieve

07-29-2003, 04:40 PM

hobbit punk

07-29-2003, 11:37 PM

I agree that Faramir was just treated the worst out of all characters and I feel that Gimli was made out to be too much of a joke and not a great warrior. Frodo gets too sappy eyed too quickly in TTT and you feel like slapping him and telling him to snap out of it and stop being such a wuss. It didn't portray the ring taking power over him for me, I just found it argravating that he was so big eyed and helpless all the time. Theoden seemed too mean and Eowyn and Eomer were not developed enough. Especially Eomer. Merry, Pippin and Treebeard did not get any of the credit they deserved. Merry and Pippin are a lot less goofy at that point then portrayed in the film and I think that the non-book reading audience will find their "sudden" change in ROTK slightly confusing and implausible. And Treebeard did seem waaaay too simple for such an old and wise being. Gandalf and Aragorn were great, despite PJ trying to make Aragorn into the main hero of the story, and Grima was awesome and just how I pictured he would look and act. His scene with Eowyn was sad in many ways. I found Arwen's, Elrond's and Galadriel's scenes unecessary, especially Arwen's. She wasted screen time that could've been used on more important things i.e. Shelob and her scenes with Aragorn were more sappy than tragic. But what my point at the end of all this is, is the treatment of Gollum. I found book Gollum not cute. Not cuddly. Not funny. I felt that he was made a joke of in the film. His look was amazing but the audience saw him as a joke and not a serious threat to Frodo and Sam and the mission. People were made to think he was cute and to feel a bit too much pity for him. While he is tragic, I didn't feel as much pity for him in the books because he came off as a lot more evil. Also, in TTT the chapter where he is fighting between Smeagol and Gollum was SCARY! The movie TTT made it funny and a moment of comic relief almost. My point is, did anyone else notice this or feel this way?

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: hobbit punk ]

Neferchoirwen

07-30-2003, 02:08 AM

As a literature major beginning to lean towards pop culture studies (films genres and the like, for instance), this thread is literally feeding my brain.

Genevieve, you are so welcome!
*bows*

Jackson's treatment of Faramir has become a major sore point for my wife that the kids and I sometime like to ride her about, but truth be told, if any of the character treatments deserve the word butchered, it's this one
I may be the devil’s advocate for Faramir (had me a violent reaction somewhere about my stand, but I'm an open person...), as it seems. But my understanding of Faramir rests on the fact that he is pressured by a lot of things: the enemy closing in on all sides, the death of his brother, and in connection with that tragedy, facing his father with news that his favorite son is dead. As for Faramir, I am looking forward for him to be “redeemed” in some way in the next movie, now that Denethor will enter the scene.

I like movie Theoden better. He actually made me wish for a grandfather like him. My gramps is still alive, but I find myself asking: “Why can’t the senior citizens in the family be more like the people I read?” I even wished that I’d have Maya Angelou as a grandmother, but this is all OT…

Otto's Eowyn doesn't feel quite right to me. I'm one of the ones that thinks her relationship with Aragorn is being handled well, so I don't think that's it.
Same here. She seems too much like a child, IMO.

you feel like slapping him and telling him to snap out of it and stop being such a wuss
…except that slapping won’t snap him out of it…unless you be ringbearer.

I think it's true, though; that Frodo just seems all too desperate. A bit early for him to succumb to the Ring, but an epic won't have enough time to unfold on silver screen. smilies/smile.gif

His [Grima] scene with Eowyn was sad in many ways.
It kinda made me feel for Grima…only for a few minutes. I felt for the man in Grima, for a while back there. Then when Eowyn was left by the door, I suddenly felt like yelling “you go, girl!”

She [Arwen] wasted screen time that could've been used on more important things.
Which made me ask: do the audience (non-readers at this point) need to know the events in the appendixes? I mean, I’m SURE that they will get married in the movies, one way or another…Are the appendixes necessary to include in the movie? A great point, though, Hobbit Punk smilies/smile.gif

in general, i think almost all of the characters lost something to the movies.
Movies are bound to be that way…once, or even twice removed from the reality as originally intended in the books(twice because the reality is interpreted differently by the script writers, and is conveyed differently in the finished film; but then again, who knows how many times the "reality" has been removed, considering the dailyrevisions ). Movies are a different kind of literature altogether, and is a separate language as well, and so these things are quite unavoidable.

~forgive the devil's advocate mode...

The Elusive Spirit

07-30-2003, 03:35 PM

TheSquireof Aragorn

08-01-2003, 07:05 PM

King_Elendil

08-12-2003, 08:48 AM

Neferchoirwen

08-13-2003, 01:59 AM

That makes a lot of sense, King Elendil.

Everyone has to know that. smilies/smile.gif

Gwaihir the Windlord

08-13-2003, 02:37 AM

Personally, I though they messed Arwen up totally. Others too... Aragorn, for instance.

As I've said before, it isn't what they left out that I dislike about the movies -- but what they changed in those they left in. As a true Tolkienist should. =] It wasn't too bad, but enough to take away any attraction that LotR the Movie(s) could hold for me.

Firnantoonion

08-13-2003, 09:21 AM

Mariska Greenleaf

08-13-2003, 09:25 AM

I think they screwed Gimli at some places too

Yeah, Gimli is supposed to be this great ferocious warrior who had no fear and was serious in bringing the quest to a good end. But they turned him into a standup comedian or something...
I must confess that I had a laugh with it when I went to see the movie, but it didn't feel right. smilies/frown.gif

King_Elendil

08-13-2003, 03:16 PM

TheSquireof Aragorn

08-13-2003, 06:06 PM

Neferchoirwen

08-13-2003, 08:53 PM

I have to say that I agree with The Squire. Although I also agree with Gwaihir. Movies are movies. They incidentally take away the reality of the books even up to more than twice over. In light of that, they are just interpretations that do not give an exact rendition of the original found in the books. All we are to do is to acknowledge the presence of these (as flaws or whatnot). It's pretty much like evil. It exists; denying it is futile, and it is, needless to say, necessary.

Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes there.

Gwaihir the Windlord

08-14-2003, 01:57 AM

Yes, but unlike evil it is not better to have been. =/

Some people may not mind that the movies mess around far too much with the real story and characters, smilies/wink.gif, but I easily mind it enough for it to put me off them completely. Anyway. The transposition to a film of an incredible book like LotR unavoidably produces a stuffed-up movie; the real LotR can not be a film. They have to movie-ise it, which, to my dislike, distances it from the book and thus wrecks it.

You're right, King, I have been into Tolkien in depth for years before the movies. When you consider Tolkien's work, the whole mythology... when you are in love with that, the film is nothing more than a cheap imitation.
(Accept no imitations. smilies/smile.gif)

Firnantoonion

08-14-2003, 08:13 AM

I disagree, I think that Gimli was made into a pretty tough warrior look at FOTR

at FotR, yes, but at TTT they messed things up, I mean just look at the lines when he, Legolas and aragorn are chasing the orcs, it made me laugh to, but indeed, it doesn't feel right... smilies/frown.gif

Maéglin

08-15-2003, 10:50 PM

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more. In the movie, he seems to do so little in terms of helping the fellowship compared to Legolas who has that uncanny ever-regenerating arrows smilies/smile.gif

Also I didnt like how the Elves were represented in battle at Helms Deep (despite the fact that they should NOT have been there). I mean, the Uruk-hai, unexperienced orcs in battle that they are, are hacking the Elves left, right and center. Seriously, these Elves are hardened warriors that have seen conflict over an age.

I thought Theoden's character was a bit too harsh, and we didn't get to see Eomer's relationship with Gimli at all, an incident i thought would have been better comic relief in the film.

Elentári

08-16-2003, 07:53 AM

I couldn't stand Faramir, I agree that Pippin and Merry have been turned into jokes, so has Gimli...and Legolas, well in the book he didn't say much, but when he did it was more than that sappy rubbish like 'a red sun rises, blood has been spilt this night', he talked about what time is like for the the Elves and stuff. Yeah, Gollum in the book was SCARY!!!!!!!!! But everyone thinks he's cute because of the films grrrr. Eowyn was good I thought, I was never able to understand her or relate to her in the book for some reason. Theoden was a bit annoying in some parts. The way the Ents had to be tricked......AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eomer (why did they give him accents over both the 'e's???) was ok, but they got lots of his story wrong. stuff like he was 'banished when he wasnt' and they were riding south, not north...can't remember now...
Arwen was sap and a waste of space...shame that, I really liked her in the book.

Maybe the stuff in the appendices should have been included.

Neferchoirwen

08-16-2003, 08:55 AM

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more.

I thought I forgot that he was a dwarf in the whole thing. Comic relief is an important thing, especially for a sequel, but I just wish that they limited its use. Legolas telling Aragorn how funny he smells is more endearing to me than any of Gimli's side comments...okay. The "toss me" thing was alright, but "the box" was just too obvious.

Speaking of the Ents...I appreciated it that NOT ONE ENT DIED. smilies/smile.gif

Neferchoirwen

08-16-2003, 08:56 AM

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more.

I thought I forgot that he was a dwarf in the whole thing. Comic relief is an important thing, especially for a sequel, but I just wish that they limited its use. Legolas telling Aragorn how funny he smells is more endearing to me than any of Gimli's side comments...okay. The "toss me" thing was alright, but "the box" was just too obvious.

Speaking of the Ents...I appreciated it that NOT ONE ENT DIED. smilies/smile.gif

Ughósh the Abominable

08-26-2003, 02:52 AM

Among the characters I thought were portrayed quite well were Aragorn, Boromir, Gollum, Saruman, Sam, and Elrond; though I'd have to say that the one character that was absolutely spot-on was Gandalf. Ian McKellen is amazing. However you spell his name. smilies/tongue.gif (Haha, I said "spell"...never mind). Sure, each of the above (expect Gandalf, in my opinion) suffered some from the fact that they're characters in a movie, not a book; therefore they can't be fleshed out as much as they might be, etc. And there are one or two changes that make me grumble, like Aragorn being so unwilling to take up his inheritance (he struck me as much more noble and responsible in the books).

There are no characters in the movies that I think were portrayed horribly, except perhaps Faramir who really wasn't portrayed at all (though I'm hoping PJ will redeem himself on this point in RotK). But there are several that I think could use some work. Eowyn seemed too much the starry-eyed little girl in TTT. In the books she always struck me as a bit more crazed, a bit more tomboyish, a bit more hard-edged and serious; in the movie she seems to be all sighs and swoons.

Eomer simply didn't get enough screen time and dialogue. In the books he seemed something of a younger Theoden, or an echo of Theoden in his hale youth; in the movie he simply didn't get the chance to be portrayed as...anything, except a guy on a horse with a cool helmet that likes to insult Dwarves.

Legolas is played by Orlando Bloom, a young and inexperienced teen idol...I mean, actor. Therein lie most of his problems in the movie. He spends most of his time pouting, the better to attract swooning teenaged girls to the theatre who otherwise wouldn't see a movie like this in a million years. He does have his moments, though; he seemed to get quite a shot in the arm after the Moria scenes in FotR, and after that did quite well for the rest of the movie. However, he goes back to pouting in TTT. And anyone remember that scene where he starts yelling at Aragorn about how they're all going to die? Sheesh. A. That came out of nowhere; wasn't he making jokes about Aragorn's B.O. just before that? B. His expression didn't change a bit throughout the delivery of those lines. Orlando Bloom strikes again, and according to the umpire, he's out of there.

I have similar reservations when it comes to Gimli. Gimli in the movies is a bit of a paradox. Jon Rhys-Davis seems at the same time the best and worst possible choice for the role. I love the way he delivers his lines; the way he speaks fits very well the way I always imagined a Dwarf speaking. However, the actual lines that he speaks leave me a bit worried. "Nobody tosses a Dwarf"? "Ach, you could have picked a better spot"? "We Dwarves are natural sprinters, very dangerous over short distances"? No, no, no. Gimli in the books was always...the Dwarf. That's just it. He wasn't the silly lawn gnome that rears its ugly head so often in the films; he was a Dwarf, child of a race whose history is the very definition of sorrow and tragedy and painful defiance in the face of great evil. He had his mirth; after all, if one whose quest was so perilous didn't indulge in a bit of laughter once in a while, he'd probably just cry the whole way. But mirth did not define his character; often he was sort of a pessimist, or a superstitious paranoiac. In battle he was a combat machine (42 kills at Helm's Deep; 42!!); I think that, at least, has been adequately portrayed, especially in TTT where him and Aragorn get to defend the gates by themselves against the charging Uruk-hai.

Theoden in the movie troubled me. He went from a puppet of sorcery to a mean old man, then through a phase of senility before he finally showed something of the Theoden I remember from the books (charging fey down the ramp from the Keep and into the black throng). Of course this is all wound up with my sense of annoyance at PJ's alteration of the whole Helm's Deep plot element. In the books, they had to go to the Deep because a huge force of orcs and Dunlendings was charging across the plain, and Theoden's force could not hope to defeat them in a pitched battle. In the movie, Gimli and Gandalf start moaning about Theoden's...cowardice?...in not charging off immediately to get slaughtered. ***?

And yes, I would like to put in my two cents about the elves at Helm's Deep. I have but one question to PJ: why? I couldn't help chuckling behind my hand when I saw Haldir, who we'd just seen in the Lorien scenes near the end of FotR, saying he and his force came on the behalf of Elrond of Rivendell. ?????

No, that's not the worst part of it. The worst part is that A. This never happened in the books, and B. It never would have, because it doesn't make any sense. LOTR is not about Elves coming in and saving the day for everybody; it's more about everybody saving the day for themselves, for the first time, and in doing so starting a new age where much that has been for ages will now pass away (including, I add pointedly, the dominion of the Elves). But no, PJ has to inject his precious Elves into everything, because all the Elf fan-boys in the audience will wet their pants in glee when they see the pointy-eared freaks marching onto the screen. Elves, elves, elves, elves, ELVES!!!!! *twitch*

In conclusion, I have one more beef with the portrayal of a character in the film: Glorfindel. My beef is simply this: he's not in the films at all. His glory was totally usurped by Arwen in the first film. And PJ wasn't finished with that: he proceeded to rub Arwen in our faces constantly throughout the rest of FotR and again in TTT. No doubt the rubbing will continue in RotK. *sigh*

[ August 26, 2003: Message edited by: Ughósh the Abominable ]

[ August 26, 2003: Message edited by: Ughósh the Abominable ]

Corwyn Celesil

08-30-2003, 09:56 PM

Gwaihir the Windlord

08-30-2003, 11:21 PM

Corwyn Celesil

09-01-2003, 08:53 PM

THE Ka

09-01-2003, 09:11 PM

Oh here we go agian, smilies/wink.gif well i thikn one character the treated with no respect was that of Faramir.... i mean come on, in the movie they portray him like he was in boromir's boots in fotr, as if he had already been posessed by the ring... anyd i did find a flaw in the movie that was an important part of the book... in the movie when faramir says " an opportunity for faramir captian of gondor to show his quality" when he says this in the book however he sees frodo and sam tense up and get ready to defend themselves and he laughs at himself because of what he just said... then he says it was a shame that boromir died because of the ring.... smilies/wink.gif smilies/smile.gif in the book he very well knows what will happen if he trys to take the ring from what frodo and sam tell him when he asks about his brother... in the movie this some what happend but, not enough to show that he didn't want it.... smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/smile.gif

well, i think i have covered my problem... smilies/biggrin.gif

"Well that really takes the cream filling out of the hoastess"

Lyta_Underhill

09-03-2003, 10:57 AM

in the movie this some what happend but, not enough to show that he (Faramir) didn't want it....

Upon rewatching TTT, I find that it appears that Faramir doesn't so much want the Ring for himself, but he wants something powerful to show Denethor, something to prove himself worthy in his father's eyes. I have a feeling there are some cut scenes that will reinforce this view, but I still cannot forgive Faramir for putting his personal agenda above the universal problem of the Ring of Power and the consequences of its being found again and sought by Sauron. It makes Faramir seem short-sighted and I didn't even get the feeling he really understands the nature of the Ring when he finally lets Frodo go...it seems arbitrary. He is not only a duplicate of Boromir in the film, he seems a bad carbon copy! I imagine he will fight his way back to Minas Tirith from Osgiliath and redeem himself and seem the hero in all but Denethor's eyes but he doesn't seem to have the background knowledge that he does in the book, and Boromir seemed to know more than he did about history in the movie, although he discounted it...I can see how the view of Faramir as somewhat harsh due to being on the front lines of conflict with Mordor might come into play, but I never get the feeling that he understands what the Ring of Power is, unless there is supposed to be one of those "flashes of light" right before he tells Frodo "we understand each other" and lets him go. Maybe it is an editing flaw, who knows? Looking forward to ROTK and the extended TTT to fix Faramir!

Cheers,
Lyta

GreyIstar

09-04-2003, 01:48 PM

Here is a link of a very good discussion on a movie message board over at IMDB. Very compelling arguments either way.

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/board/thread/3074037)

I tend to think that Faramir of the movies is much more human than he is in the book. In the book he is more of a representation.

Anyways its pointless to get upset about this stuff. Can't change it. All you can do is not watch if it wounds you so deeply.

Elentári

09-07-2003, 09:31 AM

Arothir

09-07-2003, 12:25 PM

Failivrin

09-07-2003, 02:19 PM

Theoric Windcaller

09-07-2003, 08:09 PM

In the books I imagined Eomer looking the "movie version of Theodin" but younger and I imagine Theodin as having a sort of "movie version of Isildur" look. But all the same, even though I've seen the Liv Tyler Arwen and the Cate Blanchett Galadriel, no one compares to the beauty of the two Elven females I have pictured in my mind.

I imagine them more beautiful than a blaze of purple in the nighttime sky, more beautiful than the whistling of the bird in the dawn of a new day, or more beautiful than the snow crested peaks of the Misty Mountains.

...SOrry, got carried away. smilies/rolleyes.gif

Elentári

09-08-2003, 11:16 AM

Failivrin

09-08-2003, 02:29 PM

well i didn't have much time last so let go over ALL the characters i can remember AND what annoyed me smilies/biggrin.gif :

frodo: good in FOTR, crappy in TTT. sounded american, looked am dram, couldn't cope with the weight of such a role. too young.
sam: annoyed me. too, i can't describe it. just genreally stupid and annoying.
merry: big nose. sorry; that's all i see when i see dominic monaghan. don't think he's a very good actor either though alright
pippin: annoying. why didn't he to change the scottish accent? the maericans changed there? scotland isn't the england tolkien set LOTR in.
gandalf: pretty good. mckellen is a wonderful actor (saw him o nstage)
aragorn: liked him actually.
boromir: love sean bean so can't say. another wodnerful stage actor.
gimli: odd accent. pretty good. bad comic relief
legolas: hard to say
elrond: good
arwen: what can i say
galadriel: not pretty enough
celeborn: hmmmmmmmmm
bilbo: good
faramir: don't start
eowyn: didn't like her
eomer: failed to make an impression but good i think
theoden: too young looking. bad exorcising
grima: wonderful. looked totally wrong but performed so well i didn't think of that til afterwards
saruman: what can i say? christopher lee is the master. all bow down to him NOW!
glorfindel: where was he?
haldir: why did he die?
hama: not how i imagined him
treebead: f**k off, that's not an ent. his size changed! he was tricked for god's sake. they aren't tricked, they are the oldest living things in ME!

crazy...they should have had boromir in TTT like i nteh book. faramir was better in teh book. i mean, they couldn't even get his hair colour right. he is the complete opposite of what he is in the book. i nthe book he is inspirational, here he is stupid.

i don't care if the characters in the movies are more human. HELLO: LOTR IS A FANTASY! do wizards exist in real life? do ents? do hobbits? so why can we not make the humans glorious and wise if we can have all of these diffierent races of people? human isn't a particularly good thing anyway; look what we are doing to the world.

well i forgot the rest and i have to go anyway smilies/frown.gif

Lord of Angmar

09-08-2003, 03:24 PM

Failivrin, when you just use vague descriptions like someone was "good", "stupid" or you "didn't like" someone, we don't get the impression of why you feel this way.

gimli: odd accent. pretty good. bad comic relief

I loved the accent, but I did not enjoy his overused part as the comic relief in the Two Towers, especially not at Helm's Deep, where the tension had truly reached grandiose proportions before Legolas made the "box" crack about Gimli's height.

Why the ragging on Merry and Pippin? I thought Dominic and Billy were great choices (especially Billy, Scottish accent and all).

Ainaserkewen

09-08-2003, 05:06 PM

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

09-09-2003, 06:44 AM

I find myself in agreement with most of the complaints voiced thus far, but I shall set them aside so that I can concentrate on Gimli. One point about this character appears to have been left out of the preceding discussion (it goes without saying that it was absent from the films), and I should like to address it.

When Gimli is speaking to Galadriel at the giving of gifts and asks only for a single lock of her hair, he is revealed as a courtly hero in the tradition of the medieval romance. He chooses a lady to champion (Galadriel), whose favour he carries (a lock of hair is reasonably typical). Like the courtly knight, he entertains no romantic aspirations towards this lady, whom he keeps in mind as a spur to noble behaviour and a picture of the feminine ideal. To this end he defends her reputation for virtue and beauty even in the face of insurmountable odds (witness his defiance of Éomer before his entire éored), and will challenge the placing of any woman higher in others' estimation.

This attitude towards Galadriel is indicative of a general sensitivity towards beauty that is also shown in his reaction to the Glittering Caves. It sets him closer to the Elves, perhaps, than the rest of his race, but it is also possible that here we have the epitome of Dwarvishness, showing us that there is more to them than axes, beards and a love of smithying, another thing that the films have utterly failed to achieve. It is hardly surprising that this fundamental element of his character was dropped for the film, though, since it precludes his use as a bumbling clown. Also Tolkien plays with the image of the knight in shining armour by setting in his place one of the squat and solid Dwarves, perhaps showing us that it is not necessary to be a dashing Sir Lancelot in order to have the soul of a knight. Film-makers are notoriously afraid of taking risks like this, so a more conventional (and consequently less engaging) image for Gimli must be found.

As for comic relief, I do agree that it is necessary in a story such as The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien thought so too, and included it. The problem is that Tolkien's idea of a good joke and that of the average film-maker are not the same thing. They are looking for obvious humour to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that means having someone clown about. Since Merry and Pippin can't be everywhere, and Aragorn and Legolas clearly can't be portrayed in this light, poor Gimli must trip over and talk like an idiot so that the real morons (hypothetical members of the audience, whose existence I doubt) may be sufficiently entertained by a story that is in every way above them (it is a fact universally acknowledged that nobody can be entertained by something that challenges them). I can guarantee that Tolkien would not be impressed.

Estelyn Telcontar

09-09-2003, 06:53 AM

Failivrin

09-09-2003, 02:24 PM

i am sorry lord of angmar, it appeared that i had less time than i thought on the internet. so let me concentrate on the characters you mentioned and the ones i can remember saying were 'good' etc.

elrond: i thought he was good. i like hugo weaving as an actor because he is so varied. his performance of elrond is one of the ones i liked best in the whole movies (i actually thought he got it spot on) but the problem was the script. i really liked him FOTR but then the whole grey havens thing ruined it for me. that's why he was just 'good'.

aragorn: i tried to read LOTR when i was about 9, got bored and failed at the barrow downs. when the film came out i was die hard HP (oh the shame) and decided that i had better read LOTR all the same. the first thing i read was the children's movie guide so i could kind of associate it with teh book. i saw viggo mortensen an i thought he was pretty. then i read the book and his image seemed to fit that of aragorn in the book. that's why i liked him. i don't think he was 'amazing' because of that stupid accent that verges on english, american and danish much of the time.

eowyn: i didn't like her because i don't think miranda otto is a particularly good actress for this kind of film. like elijah wood, i don't think she has the depth to draw on for such a character. i always imagined eowyn as quitely suffering, whereas her performance seemed more obvious to me. i don't know, she just didn't click for me...

bilbo: many of you have expressed how delighted you were with ian holm's bilbo but he was another character that i just didn't find quite right. i can't quite put my finger on it, but i think it was the 'dramaticness' of his performance if you get my point. i don't know. i thought he was perfectly competent but he's not my kind of actor.

eomer: to be honest i wasn't that impressed with any of the new additions apart from wormtongue. i thought they were fine but they failed to make an impression. he was alright i suppose, but he wasn't EOMER.

i rag on merry and pippin because i don't like them. my point about mr boyd's scottish accent is that hobbits are menat to be from around warwickshire if we compare middle earth to the world. that is in england and they have an english accent there, not a scottish one. scottish is just as foreign as american. i just was not impressed with them. they weren't merry and pippin. they didn't impress me. they seemed to be there merely for comic relief. i DON'T think they're maturing nicely. they don't have that offhand, light tolkien humour of the two hobbits in flotsam and jetsam, they have stupid blockbuster slapstick humour. like the apple incident. it is irritating because i am a major tolkien purist and i can't cope with things being messed with. gimli's accent annoyed me because i couldn't decide whether it was welsh or scottish and he can't be from two places.

something i don't believe has been mentioned is the NAZGUL. what was with them? i mean the winged nazgul. i was always under the impression that they rode huge, contorted, grotesque bird like things, not dinosaurs. those things were DINOSAURS. there were no dinosaurs in middle earth. the other day i saw something the looked extremely like a pterodactyl in a film, but that might not have been TTT...

Lyta_Underhill

09-12-2003, 12:29 AM

i rag on merry and pippin because i don't like them. my point about mr boyd's scottish accent is that hobbits are menat to be from around warwickshire if we compare middle earth to the world. that is in england and they have an english accent there, not a scottish one. scottish is just as foreign as american.
Certainly an inconsistency, but one I am willing to allow. And I think Scotland is a little bit closer than America! smilies/wink.gif I suppose, if you looked at it that way, we Americans would all speak with the language and accent of Aman! smilies/biggrin.gif But, I could hold with the theory that the Tooks were more adventurous than your average run-of-the-Shire hobbit and thus their stock would come from all over.

i DON'T think they're maturing nicely. they don't have that offhand, light tolkien humour of the two hobbits in flotsam and jetsam, they have stupid blockbuster slapstick humour.
Such is ever the case with a movie translation, but I rather think the portrayal of Merry and Pippin in TTT showed the proper spirit of "lighthearted hobbits in trouble" that I got from the book. I especially thought Billy's intonations when Treebeard first has him speak more than they say, so to speak. "And whose side are you on?" has that childlike wonder to it, while being to the point. I do find the subtleties lost in the movie, but the spirit is mostly maintained. The initiative is taken from Merry and Pippin by bringing them together with Gandalf at this point, but they still, all by themselves, manage to stir the Ents to war and thus fulfill their place as the "small stones" that begin an avalanche. I realize the methods are different, but this is of necessity.

The closeness of Merry to the lore of the trees and Pippin's quick thinking and acting are maintained in a different way but they are there. This is just like what I remember from Fellowship, when I bemoaned the loss of the Ford of Bruinen scene with Frodo defying the Nazgul all by his lonesome hobbit self, but still the spirit was kept later with his quiet challenge to Galadriel at her mirror. We still understand that Frodo has quiet strength but does not show it ostentatiously. Just so, I believe, with Merry and Pippin in TTT. I can't keep anyone from their opinions, but I enjoyed Billy and Dom's portrayals quite a lot!

Cheers,
Lyta

Failivrin

09-14-2003, 09:30 AM

Alaksoron

09-17-2003, 05:05 PM

Alaksoron

09-17-2003, 07:05 PM

Alaksoron

09-17-2003, 07:11 PM

Arvedui24

09-17-2003, 07:18 PM

Tinuviel of Denton

09-17-2003, 08:24 PM

Alaksoron, Galadriel's husband was indeed Celeborn. Haldir was just a border scout, along with his brothers.

I think that Elrond did indeed have some major issues in both of the movies, and I thought that by the time of the Trilogy he was resigned to the fact that Arwen and Aragorn were in love and planned to marry. I may just be imagining that, though.

Ainaserkewen

09-17-2003, 08:41 PM

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

09-18-2003, 01:36 AM

Alaksoron

09-20-2003, 03:29 PM

Alaksoron

09-20-2003, 03:37 PM

The Saucepan Man

09-21-2003, 12:11 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Alaksoron. Have fun posting here. smilies/smile.gif

I disagree with you about the films, but that discussion is best left for another thread (and it is one that has been had many times on the Movies forum smilies/wink.gif ). One point though:

the books didn't glorify any particular orc.

I would say that Ugluk (and, to a lesser extent, Shagrat and Gorbag) are "glorified" in the Books at least to the same extent that Lurtz is "glorified" in the first film, if not moreso. They are given personalities - indeed they are characterised to a greater extent than any Orc in the films. Ugluk, for his many failings, is portrayed in the Book as an effective Orcish leader who is doing his best to carry out his orders. Lurtz is portrayed in much the same way. In fact, if anything, he is less "human" than Ugluk in that he seems incapable of forming anything that the most basic of sentences. smilies/wink.gif

Frodo2968thewhite

09-21-2003, 12:28 PM

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

09-22-2003, 12:54 PM

Arvedui24

09-26-2003, 07:54 AM

To be honest they had to make the most of any female characters they could in the Films...not saying it was right by any means but they had to open the films more to a female audience. While Arwen is confined mainly to the ROTK and the appendices especially, the films certainly increase her status. I was so upset not to see Glorfindel at the Fords of Bruinen, and they cut him out completely just to add a slice of Liv Tyler galloping on a horse...come on Peter what are u playing at!!!!

And another thing, Elves in Helm's Deep, whatever next, one of the better touches i believe but i was so sad when one of them died! Almost cried.

This should really be in the Movies bit shouldnt it but good question all the same! smilies/biggrin.gif

Tegarend

09-26-2003, 06:12 PM

Mmm ... let's first post about the looks and then the actions they perform.

Gandalf : looks great, acts like the books

Saruman : looks are only so-so (I wouldn't be enthralled by him - shouldn't he look friendly at least?); too much a servant of Sauron compared to the books (e.g. when he asks Sauron what he wants). In the books, he thought of himself as a serious contender 'allied' to Mordor.

Elrond : looks : awful! Agent Smith. Acts : not wise and omniscient enough. The entire elf exodus is wrong to me. The flashback in TTT doesn't help.

Arwen : looks : great! That is Arwen Undomiel! Acts : Aaargh. Why? Oh good lord, why? She was perfect in the books (i.e. absent).

Glorfindel : why was he cut? Such a great character?

Aragorn : looks : great! Acts : great, except on some occasions. The fall over cliff & flashback sucked, and his 'evil' approach against Frodo on Amon Hen wasn't good either. One of the two characters in the movies that are as good or better than the book version.

Boromir : Wonderful. My favourite character from the books (because he's really believable as getting corrupted by the ring to save his city and then getting redeemed again). I cried in the books when he died, cried in the movie when he died. His death was the one scene that was BETTER in the movie than in the book. I loved it & him.

Legolas : looks : well, an elf smilies/smile.gif. Acts : well, legolas is the blandest member of the fellowship. Does nothing, has no real lines (except the Balrog one) ... and here even his meaningfull friendship with Gimli is reduced to stupid one-liners ... I wonder howPJ is gonna screw up the Gulls & the Sea.

Gimli : nice looks but the dwarf=short jokes are getting old. Where's the end of the Helm's Deep game with legolas?

Faramir : looks : ok. Acts : Biggest PJ mistake as yet. No gonna elaborate.

Frodo : immature as said before. When I first looked at him I thought : oh no, 9 MORE hours of looking at this guy???

Sam : good. Same chap as in the books

Pippin : too stupid.

Merry : really good actually. Rascal but more grown up than Pip.

Ents : didn't look entish to me.

Grishnack : Please! Why didn't he go for the ring when pursuing the hobbits but did hepursue them for eating them? Where's the point in changing that? Books tell about the intrigues between three orc kindreds (Mountain, Isengard, Red Eye). Movies give us hungry orcs. Weeha.

Grima : as good as the book. But why didn't Theodred die at the Ford?

Theoden & the Riders : about what I expected ,except that Theo changed compared to the book.

Eowyn : Cool character. hope PJ doesn't screw the Dernhelm part.

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

09-27-2003, 07:17 AM

Theron Bugtussle

11-14-2003, 03:18 PM

(Sorry, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but have read most of them. I hope to contribute more later, but I want to start with: )

Aragorn - I agree with despising the movies' reluctant character. I have other issues with movie-gorn.

The books portray him as dark and grim. Wise in old lore, strong in character, thinking, meditating. Crafty in woodcraft, knowing trails, knowing very well the movements, techniques, and thinking of any and all of his enemies at all times. In command! Confident, yet humble.

In the movie version, I do not get the confidence or grimness. Nor the strength. Especially Mortenson's voice. It is too weak and thin to me. Where are the broad shoulders?

The actor who portrayed Aragorn in the BBC Radio Adaptation of LotR, Robert Stephens, had an excellent voice conveying the depth of wisdom, character, and strength of Tolkien's Aragorn.

(I wish I could do justice to my opinion with book quotes, etc., but no time.)

[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: Theron Bugtussle ]

Theron Bugtussle

11-14-2003, 08:56 PM

Vardalithiel

11-15-2003, 04:10 PM

I think that in the movie, Aragorn was one of the ones that was portrayed the best. He had the authority and kindness that I saw in the book. Viggo Mortensen is a phenominal actor, and I was very pleased with his acting.

Elijah Wood was spectacular as Frodo in the movie. Even though he was a lot older in the book, they wouldn't have gotten the same response if they would have casted someone that age. People could relate to him because of his age in the movie. Elijah brought the intensity and determination that I saw in Frodo in LotR.

Galadriel had the same essence in the book as in the movie. She was wise and powerful, and that power could be a little scary. There are moments in Aragorn and Gandalf where their power comes out frightening, too. But that is just a part of being so powerful. I know I am using powerful a lot, I just can't think of a better word. smilies/smile.gif

Gandalf was beautifully portrayed in the movie. The characters (book and movie) were not different to me. When I think of Gandalf, I see Ian McKellen.

Saruman was amazing in the movie. In the books his desperation to have power was overwhelming and I think that was portrayed in the movies.

Hugo Weaving had another performance I admired. His portrayal of Elrond was very good. If you recall in the books, Elrond knew what had to be done, and he tried to make it happen. The movie showed that to me as well.

I loved Glorfindel in the books, so I was very upset when they replaced him with Arwen in the movies. Glorfindel had so much history in LotR, it was a shame to exclude him from the movie.

I was also extremely disheartened when Tom Bombadil was excluded from the movie. Tom Bombadil showed the vastness of the characters in Middle-earth and was a very loveable character. He also brought out how insignificant the tiny hobbits really were (not that they were unimportant, just a small number in the hugeness of the world). I missed Tom Bombadil in the movie. smilies/frown.gif

That is my opinion on the matter, agree or disagree. Until next time

Theron Bugtussle

11-17-2003, 02:55 PM

(My response here may not be so much on a single character as on the movie's (TTT) treatment of Theoden and how he was 'liberated' by Gandalf. -T. Bugtussle)

1. Movie: Gandalf and the three hunters stride into the Golden hall. The three hunters (Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli) smack Theoden's guard around while Gandalf speaks to Theoden and Wormtongue.

Book: They may get a cold reception, but no fisticuffs. smilies/tongue.gif

2. Movie: Gandalf more-or-less "exorcises" the spirit of Saruman from Theoden. Uses mind or spirit power, brandishes his wizard's staff several times, overcoming the possession spell. Very "Dungeons and Dragons!" smilies/mad.gif Not at all the spirit of Tolkien...

Book: Gandalf has brief words with Wormtongue, then speaks gently to Theoden, helps him out to the open and encourages him to breathe the fresh air, feel the sun, feel strength from his sword, etc. Through good counsel and speaking the truth, he counters the foul lies and whisperings that have held Theoden under the spell of the "propagandist's grip." smilies/cool.gif More subtle, less flashy. More in tune with Animal Farm and 1984 than D&D and fantasy video games.

3. Movie: Once freed from Saruman's spell, Theoden remains a fatalistic, near-craven pessimist, who runs from a fight with Saruman's forces, fleeing straight to Helm's Deep. Both Gandalf and Aragorn see this as cowardice and stubbornness, with a near-hopeless outcome.

Book: Theoden himself proposes he lead his army against Saruman. Goes to Helm's Deep when he finds the Ford of Isen has been lost already. Hopes to rescue Erkenbrand's remaining forces. Both Gandalf and Aragorn are proudly willing to stand with this magnificent leader. Gandalf, in his own way, seeking additional aid, and Aragorn, willing to put his future kingship on the line in a fight for moral support of his allies.

Overall, a very frustrating deviation by PJ from the wonderful JRRT!

Jessy

12-05-2003, 06:26 PM

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

12-07-2003, 10:36 AM

Overall, a very frustrating deviation by PJ from the wonderful JRRT!

My thoughts precisely. In fact most of the major deviations look to me like the sort of misrepresentations that one might expect from inept fan-fiction, in which what the writer wishes had happened is played out in place of Tolkien's invariably subtler approach. For strangers to come with arrogant force into a king's hall and fight his trusted house-carles before his very throne undermines his authority and alienates the loyal members of his household at a time when his authority is already at a low ebb. In the scenes in Rohan, Théoden is cast almost in the role of a vassal king. This is not how Tolkien envisaged him, and it is certainly not how Aragorn saw him, particularly since Aragorn holds no official title at the time when these events take place.

Moreover, Aragorn's deference to Théoden in the book underlines both his humility and his respect for Rohan as an independent kingdom (which incidentally offers a stark contrast to Denethor's haughty dismissal of other peoples). Although not yet a king, he is laying the foundations of diplomacy and making it easier for Théoden to accept his status. This purpose would not be served by barging into Meduseld, shouting the odds and overruling the king in front of his thegns. This is just awful diplomacy and it would set up severe problems for the future, but it is also completely out of character for Aragorn, who is Tolkien's model of a good king. In joining in this farce, Gandalf can only appear as a meddler and a usurper of authority, so he, too, is undermined as a character. As for the scene in which Gríma is kicked out of Meduseld: it misses the entire point of his departure in the books, which shows him to be a traitor and coward and Théoden, Éomer, Aragorn et al to be noble and merciful. This scene was a sop to the writers' desire to see 'justice' (read punishment) done, and it lessens everyone involved apart from Gríma himself. The scene as written by Tolkien has Wormtongue choosing exile over redemption and loyalty, which increases the bitterness of his later suffering in Saruman's presence. Of course, we know now that we are not to see this in the next film, but since it was an important theme in the books, and will probably be replaced with more gratuitous fighting scenes, this is yet another example of clumsy adaptation.

I'm afraid that I can never accept the explanation that all of these changes were necessary. Too many of them seem to exhibit an arrogant belief that the script-writers are better at characterisation and storytelling than the man who wrote the story that they are adapting. Even if this were true, the aim of an adaptation is to capture the spirit of the story in a different medium, not to adapt the themes and spirit to suit what the writers would rather they had been. Where the changes made are clearly imposed by want of space I have no objections (although if space is at such a premium then writing new scenes and extending minor battles into huge set-pieces is even more deplorable), but this is not why the scenes in Rohan were re-written. If the authors of the screenplay really were better storytellers than Tolkien I might still be able to forgive their butchery, but clearly they are not. Therefore they only lessen the impact of their material, whilst simultaneously revealing their own lack of understanding.

pandora

12-07-2003, 11:22 AM

Essentially every character with the possible exceptions of Boromir, Pippin and Sam have been totally undermined by the movies. Gandalf is half-mad in the first film. I mean, jumping out from behind a door in the middle of a storm and screaming "Is it safe?" at the top of his voice? Catch a grip! He's lucky poor Frodo didn't drop dead of fright on the spot.

Boromir of course was an annoying little tick in the book as well as the film and actually seemed slightly better in the film. Although, this may have been the casting; Sean Bean has more charisma in his little finger than Figgy Mountainback has in his whole body.

Frodo is constantly let down in the first film by having other characters interfere in his story (both Arwin and Aragorn) leaving it as a mystery why anyone would have as much faith in him as Gandalf seems to. In TTT he makes it even worse by acting like an idiot and showing the Ring to the Nazgul. Luckily, the Nazgul and Faramir are idiots too and let him wander off into Mordor without any further ado.

Aragorn just seems a bit of a drip; Logolas has the magical ability to transform himself into a CGI effect at will and Gimli has some sort of masturbation fetish.

Saruman's character, apart from becoming a class-A breakdancer, is sidelined to the point of wondering why he was in either of the first two films at all.

Galadriel suffers from whatever disease Legolas has, but at even less quality so she can only manipulate her own colour palette under stress.

Elrond has spent 8000+ years waiting for the chance to destroy Sauron and now that the chance has come he's utterly depressed and wants to run away. So much for the host of the last homely house and the last of the great lore-masters.

Gollum looks and sounds too much like Peter Lorrie and is generally not quite nasty seeming enough. Generally, though, he's not done too badly.

The first two films are utter, utter rubbish except visually. As a slideshow of Middle Earth's tourist attractions I can't imagine them being bettered. As a representation of the story they are worse than worthless. The thought that millions of people will think that this load of tripe was what JRRT wrote is an insult to his memory.

The worst thing is that all Jackson had to do was film the damn books. It was all there: he just had to compress and maybe re-order some events to make it filmable. But instead he started adding extra bits. And for every minute of new material we lost a minute of original material. The whole side-trip to Osgiliath was wasted time and budget; it advanced the plot not one iota while at the same time makeing Frodo, Faramir, and the Enemy look stupid. Likewise the embarrassing fight between Gandalf and Sauron and the tragicly unfeasible ending to the Seige of Helm's Deep which actually prompted some laughter in the cinema I saw it in.

Over and over again changes that achieved nothing were introduced and so we lost the Old Forest and the Dismissal of Saurman, the full Mirror of Galadriel, the Black Breath, the Ent's revenge on the Orcs, the Scouring of the Shire, not to mention some interesting material from UT that could have been included (eg, the Lord of the Nazgul's dealings with Wormtounge and Saruman).

In a word: "Bah!"

Faenaduial

12-11-2003, 02:40 PM

Okay, I’m re-reading the books right now in anticipation of the RotK movie (I read them every year anyway). I love the movies if I forget everything I ever read from Tolkien because when I compare the characters I get a little crazy.

Let me say first that this has nothing to do with the actor’s performances. I think the performances have been amazing. It is the material they have been given that I have a problem with.

These are the changes that make me nuts:

Frodo – Tolkien repeatedly indicated through other characters that Frodo was thought to be the best Hobbit. In the book although he is scared, he still shows great courage and although the ring is trying to corrupt him he struggles to resist it until the very end. In the movie Frodo is scared but shows almost no courage. Where is his stand against the Nazgul both at Weathertop and at the Ford. All he does is whine. Also they are showing him be corrupted much to quickly. They could have shown the interior struggle through more physical changes without making him seem weak willed.

Sam – In the book Sam appears on the surface to be a little backward and shy, however he shows many times how sensible and resourceful he can be when tested. In the book Sam is Frodo’s loyal companion until close to the end when he must become even more. In the movie he comes across a bit of a bully and there is a tension between him and Frodo, and the choices Frodo is making, that you rarely felt in the book.

Theoden (and most of Rohan) – They have taken a kindly king of a powerful realm and made him a pompous, ineffectual ruler of a small, backward people.

Aragorn – In the book Aragorn may be torn between going with Frodo to Mordor or going to Gondor but he knows exactly who he is and has never turned from his true path. In actuality he has shown great fortitude in waiting for his time to claim his kingship. They portray Aragorn in the movie as turning from and not wanting to claim the thrown. Also in the book there is no relationship between Aragorn and Eowyn. Eowyn is enamored of Aragorn and wishes to love him as he is a king and is a way out of what she considers a lowly existence. He never turns from loving Arwen. The movie is playing up this relationship between two characters who hardly knew each other in the book.

Gollum – A great work of technology. However I never felt sorry for Gollum in the book. I did in the movie. I had to keep reminding myself that all he really wanted was the ring.

Faramir – He is never tempted by the ring in the book. What were they thinking of in the movie? They totally changed the essential make-up of his personality and character.

Although the movie takes liberties with other characters and makes many changes in what we have read, it is the changes to these characters which I object to the most strongly. I don’t think the changes were for the better.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 6:48 PM December 11, 2003: Message edited by: Faenaduial ]