Dumbing it down

[The Saucepan Man]

Please maintain the civility that has characterised this thread to date despite the great variation of views.

[lord of dor-lomin]

you've moved into the realms of sarcasm, which dosen't suit anyone here
Oh, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who loves sarcasm. But if it bugs you that much I suppose I could cut back a bit. :rolleyes:
I stated 'as much as possible'
Yes, and the Merry/WK incident is not possible, just as the illustrations I gave.
You would rather Merry did NOT help defeat the witch king because PJ hadn't explained about the sword of westernesse??
Possibly. I rather would've seen TWK killed by a stray arrow than doing what he did- fall to his knees and wait to be stabbed in the face. I cannot stress enough how totally stupid his movie death was. Eowyn's cool line and her big "Aargh!!" as she stabs him doesn't make up for it.
You can't take things explained in the book, that weren't shown in the movie, and say "it doesn't work in the movie." If you want to explain how something doesn't work in the movie, then stay within the movie's context.
Nice to see that point made, Boro. You are exactly right! You can't say that a movie scene works unless it works entirely within the movie itself, with no supplemental information from outside sources.

Within the movie we have these facts-
1) TWK is very powerful
2) Merry's sword is ordinary
3) Merry stabs TWK in the leg
4) TWK falls to his knees and takes no action to stop himself from being stabbed

Doesn't work. No way.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who loves sarcasm. But if it bugs you that much I suppose I could cut back a bit. It is not the sarcasm itself, but the implication behind the sarcasm which I consider to be verging on the uncivil. Notwithstanding the differences of opinion on the issues covered by this thread, it should be (and indeed has been) perfectly possible to carry on the discussion without resorting to personal comments.

I will delete any posts which I consider fall on the wrong side of the line.

[davem]

In other words, you would have rathered Merry not attacking the Witch king at all? I really don't give a monkey if a non-book reader doesn't understand why Merry hit the WitchKing with such a savage blow. Read the books if you want to know. But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I've said countless times I wanted the sword from the Downs to be included, but I have to live with it. The scene, other than this, worked superbly.

The point is the movies are not internally coherent, which makes acceptance of the secondary world they depict more difficult than it should be & at times simply impossible. Every time you are confronted by something like Merry's stabbing of the WK the 'spell' is broken because it simply doesn't make sense that Merry (or anyone else) could cripple the WK with an ordinary blade. As I said, the radio series made it clear tha merry's blow did no more than distract the WK's attention, giving Eowyn the opportunity to strike the death blow. This made Merry's action a contributory factor in the WK's fall (less so than in the book, admittedly) but avoids 'breaking the spell' by not having Merry be able to bring one of the most powerful beings in Me with an ordinary sword. We are, after all, talking about the equivalent of bringing down a Balrog by stabbing it in the big toe with a toasting fork.

The whole point is that these movies don't work for book or non book fans & the reason for that is that Jackson & the writers couldn't decide who they were making the movie for.

Actually, there were original scenes in the movies which I think worked - some of the Aragorn/Arwen stuff, Theodred's Funeral. Other things weren't bad in themselves, they simply weren't integrated into the storyline properly & so irritated. I wish they had gone ahead & written their own fantasy story & filmed that, because I suspect they might have made a fair fist of it. But, to repeat an earlier point, it seems that they set out with a whole bunch of scenes from the book which they wanted to put on screen, but then came up with lots of stuff of their own which they also wanted to do. They clearly struggled to produce a script which could include both, & in the end they failed.

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, it seems to me that you are all thinking about this far too much. ;)

Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Why is this? Are they somehow less intelligent or less discerning than those for whom these inconsistencies cause irritation or anger?

No, of course not. The reason for the different approach is, I think, mainly because such issues go largely unnoticed by the majority of viewers, or are just not considered sufficiently important by them to warrant any major concern.

To take the much-discussed Merry v Witch King scene as an example, I was obviously aware of the “barrow blade” issue having read the book (although I was more disappointed that more was not made of Merry’s role in the WK’s demise – we only got a fleeting glimpse of his contribution). But despite having read the book, it did not at that point occur to me to think “Oh, that makes the Witch King look weak” or “Oh, how come Merry’s sword was able to do that”. I was simply carried along with the scene.

I have mentioned before the immediacy of films, compared with books. Films (or films of this genre, at least) do not put great demands on their audience. They do not demand, or require, in-depth analysis while they are being watched. So relatively minor inconsistencies do not really spoil a film for most viewers, simply because they either do not notice them or because they are of little concern to them at the time. Of course, if they stick out like a sore thumb they can destroy a film, but I do not think that we are talking about that degree of inconsistency here.

Books on the other hand put great demands on the reader, who is required to visualise the story and construct it in his or her head. This requires thought and will often lead to deeper analysis. And books take time to read – there is much more time for inconsistencies to occur to the reader as he or she reads. One is not “carried along” with the action to quite the same degree as one is with a film, and there is much more opportunity, while reading, to pause, think and analyse.

Does that make those to whom films of this genre appeal any less intelligent or discerning? No, I don’t think so. I certainly hope not, as I am a great fan of such films. Of course, the genre is not to everyone’s taste. There are those who prefer more thought-provoking films (and there are those who like both). But that (in my view) is a matter of taste, not intelligence or discernment.

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.

And, finally, perhaps it is fair to say that (by virtue of the immediacy of one and the demands of the other) one can get away with more errors in a film that one can in a book. Although I would come back to my point that there are very few authors writing today, let alone scriptwriters, who pay the same painstaking and time-consuming attention to detail that Tolkien did when writing LotR. Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Should they have made them better? Perhaps. But they were the ones making the films and so the decisions on how to do so were theirs to take. And those decisions were not (as has been suggested) taken with the intention of “improving on Tolkien” or winding up the fans. Nor were the changes that were made randomly picked out of the air. They were, in my view, made in a genuine effort to broaden the appeal of the films and render them suitable for the big sceeen screen. And that being so, I am prepared to accept the changes (albeit not without the occasional comment ;) ) and simply get on with enjoying the films for what they are.

[mark12_30]

Perhaps davem and others are right when they say that it was misconceived to try and turn such a complex and detailed work of literature into a film. But had Jackson and co not done so, then we would not have the films. And that, to my mind, would be a shame.

Had Jackson and Co not made these films, the Barrow-Downs would be comprised of those folk who were here before the films came out and the occasional Ranger. Nor would the Trilogy have been available on supermarket shelves and news-stands. A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs, and none of these movie-discussions would be taking place.

[Boromir88]

Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made.
I'd say that's most likely the circumstances. I think it also takes a bit of time. When I first saw TTT in the theatre, I'm like elves at Helm's Deep? Faramir taking the ring to Osgiliath? Gah!!!! Then after watching the director's commentaries, and rewatching the movies, again, and again, I've learned to come to terms with those changes, and realize "heck, it's not so bad." Same instance when first watching ROTK. The way they portrayed Denethor and the Green Slime both got me irked. I've come to terms about Denethor, since it would be time consuming to show before his mind was broken, and it dramaticized Aragorn's return, I'm ok with Denethor looking crappy. Some things just take time, and reviewing to sort of come to your senses and cool down. (I'm sure the screaming Orli fans were a big contribution to my hot-temperedness in the first viewing of the films).

A very large percentage of us would never have come to the Downs,
I must say mark, I wouldn't even be here at the downs. I probably wouldn't have picked up Tolkien's book ever again, or bought the Sil, or the Hobbit. The movies got me back into the mood. I had read the books long before, sure it was good, but it was something that I forgot. Then after watching FOTR in the theatres, I got to rereading, and rereading...and um...rereading, and now I admit, I'm just another nut. I thank Jackson for bringing back the "Middle-earth" spirit in me, and opening Tolkien's world to a wide range of people who never heard of Tolkien before the movies.

[Bêthberry]

by SaucepanMan

So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.



You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies, SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone. For instance, I am not one who approaches Tolkien as a sacred text, much as I greatly admire his work on fantasy and story telling. (Please, no rotten tomatoes from the groundlings.)

And I am a fan of action/fantasy flicks. At least, I love the original Star Wars. As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.

Now, this is not to ridicule those who weren't bothered by ill-timed humour or inconsistent characterisation. I simply demure and say my objections to the films are not explained by your very interesting theory.

I will run off now and attempt to calculate a standard deviation coefficient for your theory, to determine the standard error and mean and mode so as to know where I fall. :D

[Lalwendë]

The reason for the different approach is, I think, mainly because such issues go largely unnoticed by the majority of viewers, or are just not considered sufficiently important by them to warrant any major concern.

That doesn't hold true in my experience. I've had so many people ask me about incidents in the films which they did not understand or which they saw as inconsistencies and time and again I have to explain to them what the meaning of particular scenes was. There are a large number of people out there who are, for want of a better word, geeky, and who notice tiny details, and a significant number of them have not read LotR (shock! ;) ), and this is the audience which Jackson hoped to reel in, I'm sure, as they are more likely to spend vast sums on repeat viewings and collectable merchandise.

But about my own objections to the films... I do not watch the films with my lips pursed in a sour expression, pen poised in my hand as I write a letter of complaint to New Line. I watch the films and enjoy them. I collect the memorabilia, in fact the mathoms have taken over a large part of my house, and I can say they are big favourites with me. But it is those few sticking points which spoil it for me. And the more I hear grumbles from those who have not read the books, the more those sticking points are reinforced.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Yes, there are inconsistencies within the films – things which (without further explanation, at least) don’t quite work or don’t quite make sense. I fully accept that. As a perusal of some of my comments elsewhere in the Movies Forum will quite clearly suggest, there are a number of areas in which I think that they could have been improved. But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).


Clearly, there is some truth in this. The films are quite popular.

However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?

I ask because, quite frankly, I don't much care what other people think of them (whether ordinary film-goers, reviewers, or members of the film community). The complaints I have about the movies are, necessarily, based entirely on my appraisal of them. Certain things about the movies didn't make sense to me; certain things bothered me. And it doesn't improve my esteem of these points in the slightest to know that others were not bothered by them.

Of course, if someone gives me a valid argument for why such and such a perceived flaw is not really a flaw - then my evaluation of the point may change. But if millions of people say "Oh, I wasn't bothered by X", that is completely irrelevant to my appraisal of the films.

Bethberry wrote:
As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.


This is a good point, and I quite agree. I don't buy the "they were only movies, so you can't expect too much" line for the simple reason that, as you say, there are such things as great movies. There are movies that are internally consistent, believable, and so forth. There are movies that stand up quite well to endless study. I would agree that Lucas did better with regard to these things than did Jackson, and I think that the Star Wars saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that movies can be just as coherent, as well-constructed, and as powerful as can books.

[davem]

I must say mark, I wouldn't even be here at the downs. I probably wouldn't have picked up Tolkien's book ever again, or bought the Sil, or the Hobbit. The movies got me back into the mood. I had read the books long before, sure it was good, but it was something that I forgot. Then after watching FOTR in the theatres, I got to rereading, and rereading...and um...rereading, and now I admit, I'm just another nut. I thank Jackson for bringing back the "Middle-earth" spirit in me, and opening Tolkien's world to a wide range of people who never heard of Tolkien before the movies.

This kind of puts me in a difficult position. For many years I had simply re-read TH, LotR, The Sil & listened to the radion series of LotR & my interest in (though not my love of ) Middle earth had faded into the background.

Then I realised the movies were coming out, & I looked forward to them with a mixture of trepidation & hope. I bought 'Author of the Century' & was fascinated. In the bibliography to that book I saw mention of Verlyn Fleiger. My interest in Tolkien was re-invigorated. I rejoined the Tolkien Society, began working my way through HoME, joined the Downs & became the man I am today :D

Now, I too must thank PJ for that. Also for the fact that after joining the Tolkien Society again I have visited Tolkien's grave three times at our annual Oxonmoot. As far as having joined the Downs goes - I can only say that it has absolutely changed my personal life in ways I could never have expected ([b]Esty[/i] at least knows how much, but I won't go into detail for fear of being reprimanded for being 'off-topic' ;) )

But - this is perhaps the cause of my problem with the movies. They sparked such a deep fascination with Tolkien's works that I came to find an incredible depth of meaning in the books as I studied them. Fellowship I quite liked, but by the time TT came out I was too aware of what Tolkien was doing. It made it virtually impossible to simply watch the movie as a movie. I had become too immersed in Tolkien's thought by them.

I do find myself wondering what my reaction to the movies would have been if all the secondary literature hadn't been available, if I'd only had my Hobbit, LotR, Sil & BBC tapes. Alas, I'll never know.

[alatar]

But - this is perhaps the cause of my problem with the movies. They sparked such a deep fascination with Tolkien's works that I came to find an incredible depth of meaning in the books as I studied them. Fellowship I quite liked, but by the time TT came out I was too aware of what Tolkien was doing. It made it virtually impossible to simply watch the movie as a movie. I had become too immersed in Tolkien's thought by them.

I do find myself wondering what my reaction to the movies would have been if all the secondary literature hadn't been available, if I'd only had my Hobbit, LotR, Sil & BBC tapes. Alas, I'll never know.

Much agreed. Wish that I could somehow have watched the movies without all of the books inside my head so that I could see and judge just what was on the screen. Problem is that you can't go backwards.

I appreciate PJ et al's work, and I'm sure that it was an immense task and that the writers in no way were looking to personally aggravate me with certain scenes, but the fact is that they did. What I've found interesting in regards to the movies and this forum is that you'd think that presented with the same data (books, movies) we'd be all of one opinion with maybe a few minor dissensions. I could understand arguing with those who don't share our passion and with those whose only exposure to JRRT was from one viewing of the movies (and that could have been a 'date' night, meaning that the viewer's brain could have been a bit addled ;) ), but I never would have guess that we here could be (at times) in such discordance.

But that's what all of this so much fun and of immense interest.

[lord of dor-lomin]

But clearly (given their critical and popular success) these things did not greatly impair the films for the vast majority of “ordinary film-goers”, for (professional) reviewers, or for members of the “film” community (who were primarily responsible for the awards which it received).

Why is this? Are they somehow less intelligent or less discerning than those for whom these inconsistencies cause irritation or anger?
Obviously, yes, in some ways that must be true. If inconsistency exists but is not noticed by someone then that person is definitely less... what should I say... observant. There's no denying that. It's true by definition.

Remember, WE are the Tolkien fanatics. WE, here on this site, are the Albert Einsteins of all things related to Tolkien. We are the experts. We are the ones who notice the most. We are the ones who see inconsistencies where others don't.

The fact is, when we are talking about Middle Earth related things, "ordinary film goers" and "profesional reviewers" ARE, in a way, inferior to us. The fact that they can't see things that are there is proof of this inequity.
However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?
I'd like to ask the same question.

[Formendacil]

I think that SpM is arguing a slightly lopsided case in saying that it is possible to enjoy the movie as separate from the book, when you know the book with a strong degree of familiarity. Those who have not read the book MIGHT not be troubled by inconsistencies in the movies, but then again, maybe they are. My mom, for example, has not yet read the books, and had to ask for some considerable explanation at times. In those situations, I found it necessary to return to the BOOKS to answer them.

I'm going to make something a comparisom with another big movie of the past year, The Passion. Like the LotR, it is a major work based on a very well-known story (in this case, the real-life passion and death of Jesus, as depicted in the four Gospels). Like the LotR, how is received and how popular it is depends on how faithfully it adheres to the original work. The proportion of pre-existing "fans" (people who knew the original work) is perhaps somewhat disparate, but the parallels are certainly there.

The Passion is considered to be a great piece of cinematic achievement. It is visually compelling, well-acted, and tells its story concisely. Nonetheless, do you think that it would have achieved the same sort of media hype, controversy, and number of viewers had it not been based on a pre-existing work? Of course not! It wouldn't even have existed.

In the same way that practising Christians, and others familiar with the story of Christ's passion, attended the movie expecting to see the story depicted as accurately as possible, so too did all those generations of Tolkien fans attend the movie, knowing that their judgement would be based on how well it adhered to the original story.

Now, The Passion tells a story much shorter, and less complicated, and so easier to translate to film. I am not suggesting that PJ and Co didn't have a more difficult task when adapting the story. What I AM saying is that the job they did was NOT as good as it should have been, and because we already knew and cared for the story, it was inevitable that our judgements on it would be based on our reading knowledge.

While I was watching the movies for example (RotK in particular), I was, like SpM, carried away with the movie-presented storyline. At the same time, however, I was groaning over every unnecessary change, and LITERALLY smacking myself on the forehead in the case of some, to the extreme annoyance of my friends sitting around me. Nor would I say that this was limited to crazy, multi-book-reading fans like myself. While they didn't go to the extremes of head-smacking, some of my one-or-two-time reading friends came out of the theatre with questions beginning or ending with "I don't think they did it that way in the book..."

[Essex]

1) TWK is very powerful
2) Merry's sword is ordinary
3) Merry stabs TWK in the leg
4) TWK falls to his knees and takes no action to stop himself from being stabbed
3 of the above lines are exactly the same as the book. Why can't you take a leap of faith and have the sword as magic? Why couldn't it be the blade of numenour that was given to Merry by Galadriel (which was an obvious play on the blade of westernesse that he gets from Tom)? Just use a bit of lateral thinking and the scene will be OK for you.

If you must see the sword as 'ordinary' then what's that line that Pippin says in the movie that the Mightiest warrior can be felled by one arrow? David slew goliath didn't he? You are viewing things in a very black and white way with no shades of grey. Movie WK is powerful, so therefore can't be hurt by an ordinary sword. Why? Where is this rule written down?

The main premise of the Book (and film) is about the 'weak' defying the odds and saving the day. Why CAN'T the WK be hurt by a blade to his body inflicted by a small, insignificant hobbit?

PS Just HOW do you show cinematically without a narrator that the sword unknit the witch king's spirt/sinews anyway? Who in Middle-earth knew this sword could do this? And we couldn't have gandalf or someone inspect the sword afterwards as it was destroyed in the undoing of the witch king anyway. If a character looked at the blade beforehand and said, wow I bet you could kill the witch king with that magic blade, it would've no doubt given the game away to a few million movie goers.....

[Lathriel]

Formendacil I think it depends on the person; because I like Spm can enjoy the movies appart from the book. The first time I watched FOTR,TTT,ROTK I did have the book in mind but after that when I saw the movies again, I was able to enjoy them appart from the books.

I would also like the point out that Star Wars was always a movie and that all those books came after. Lucas made up the story himself. PJ didn't have that option because he was basing it on an already written book. Whereas Lucas was able to start from scratch and could change anything if he had to since he was the creator to begin with.

As for the issue with Merry and the witchking. I had never thought of the sword issue. However, I had been dissapointed with the film's lack of emphasis on Merry's side of the story. Luckily this was slighlty fixed by the EE where there is an extended scene with Merry and Pippin on the Pellenor fields.

[The Saucepan Man]

You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies, SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone.Well, of course everyone approaches both books and films differently. We are all, after all, unique. But I think that, as a general rule, it is fair to say that the immediacy of films allows for a certain degree of leeway in the detail, whereas the opportunity for reflection allowed by the literary medium means that authors don’t necessarily have this luxury.


As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did.Well I am not going to sit here and say that the (original) Star Wars films are not classics. I would put the LotR films on a par with them. I think it is probably right that they are more coherent and consistent, but the basic plotlines in the Star Wars films are far simpler. Jackson was dealing (and by necessity trying to simplify) some pretty complex source material. And you have to admit that the Ewoks were a mistake … :rolleyes:

Also, the latest two instalments of Star Wars are a lot less smooth and do have a number of inconsistencies, which suggests to me that Lucas is not necessarily a better director than Jackson. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. But perhaps it is just a sign of the times, in that Lucas felt that, with the times-a-changin', more was expected of him and that he had to alter his approach to suit a more modern audience. (It is, after all, primarily only the Star Wars fanatics who have been up in arms about the recent films. Hmm, is there maybe a parallel here? ;) )


That doesn't hold true in my experience. I've had so many people ask me about incidents in the films which they did not understand or which they saw as inconsistencies and time and again I have to explain to them what the meaning of particular scenes was.I do still doubt that this is an issue with a majority of viewers. It is certainly not my experience. But I would be interested to know whether they still enjoyed the films and whether they felt that these incidents impaired their enjoyment in any way. Were they particularly bothered by them? Might the fact that they noticed them have been because they felt particularly engaged by the films?


However, I don't think I understand the point of appealing to their popularity. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this? The films are popular, therefore ________?My point is that these inconsistencies don’t seem to have greatly affected the popularity of the films. Nor were they picked up in the many reviews that I have read, which I would expect if they were major issues to anyone but Tolkien fans. It just seems to me that the vast majority of people were not really bothered by them.


The complaints I have about the movies are, necessarily, based entirely on my appraisal of them. Certain things about the movies didn't make sense to me; certain things bothered me. And it doesn't improve my esteem of these points in the slightest to know that others were not bothered by them.Well, as I have said may times, the view one takes of the films is necessarily a subjective matter. I am most certainly not trying to tell you that these things shouldn’t bother you because they did not bother other people. But I am interested in trying to understand why you (and the majority of other contributors to this thread) were bothered, irritated or angered (as the case may be) by them and why many others were not.


I would agree that Lucas did better with regard to these things than did Jackson, and I think that the Star Wars saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that movies can be just as coherent, as well-constructed, and as powerful as can books.I remain highly doubtful that an entirely consistent film version of a book as complex and intricate as LotR could be made unless it duplicated virtually every scene and every line of dialogue from the book. Every omitted or attenuated scene or change made for filmic purposes has a knock on effect which has to be addressed in some way or other. And every director will emphasise his or her own themes and place his or her own interpretations on what is important, which will again have knock on effects. The whole Faramir/Osgiliath issue arose because Jackson and co did not want to lessen the power of the Ring in the minds of audiences and because they felt that some tension in the journey of Frodo and Sam was necessary at this point to counterbalance the action in Rohan. That seems a perfectly justifiable decision to me. Although it may not be one that you agree with, there was a filmic reason behind it. But in consequence of this change, they had to come up with a reason to have Faramir let Frodo and Sam go. Hence Frodo’s encounter with the Nazgul (which is my only real issue with the whole sequence of events). I tend to think that they could have come up with a better way of doing this. But the fact remains that it is a knock on effect from the changes they made earlier for what I see as perfectly valid filmic reasons and in those circumstances I think that (whatever the quality of the director, scriptwriters and film crew) inconsistencies will arise when the source material is so finely wrought.


Obviously, yes, in some ways that must be true. If inconsistency exists but is not noticed by someone then that person is definitely less... what should I say... observant.I disagree. If a person is less inclined to be bothered by an inconsistency, then they are less likely to notice it. That does not necessarily make them any less intelligent or observant than someone to whom the inconsistency is a major issue. As you said yourself:


Remember, WE are the Tolkien fanatics. WE, here on this site, are the Albert Einsteins of all things related to Tolkien. We are the experts. We are the ones who notice the most. We are the ones who see inconsistencies where others don't.I entirely agree with this. It does not make the “Tolkien fanatic” any more discerning on a general level. Just more discerning on this particular subject. And, the way I see it, the films are not just for the Tolkien fanatics.


I think that SpM is arguing a slightly lopsided case in saying that it is possible to enjoy the movie as separate from the book, when you know the book with a strong degree of familiarity.I don’t see the “lopsidedness” here, when that is precisely what I am able to do. What I really want to understand is why others here cannot do so, and what factors are involved in this. Certainly, close familiarity with, and emotional attachment to, the book is a factor. But I am not sure that it provides the entire answer, as I am clearly not the only Tolkien fan who is able to enjoy the films without letting the many issues that have been brought up on this thread significantly impair my enjoyment of them. And I trust that my "Tolkien fan" credentials, and those of others who have the same approach, are not in question. ;)

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Also, the latest two instalments of Star Wars are a lot less smooth and do have a number of inconsistencies, which suggests to me that Lucas is not necessarily a better director than Jackson. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. But perhaps it is just a sign of the times, in that Lucas felt that, with the times-a-changin', more was expected of him and that he had to alter his approach to suit a more modern audience. (It is, after all, primarily only the Star Wars fanatics who have been up in arms about the recent films. Hmm, is there maybe a parallel here?

If I can say so without taking the thread off topic, I disagree. I am, it seems, one of the minority of serious Star Wars fans who consider the prequels to be on the same level as the originals. This gives us an interesting counter-example to LotR, for our appraisals of the new Star Wars movies seem to be precisely the opposite of our appraisals of LotR. I was disappointed with Jackson's films; you were disappointed with Lucas's. Perhaps this may allow each of us to better understand the other's opinion; the way you feel about certain points in the new Star Wars movies is probably quite similar to the way I (and many others) feel about perceived flaws in LotR. And just as you point to the popularity of Jackson's movies, I admit I am tempted to point to the box office success of Episodes I and II as an indication that their most vocal bashers do not in fact represent the majority view.

My point is that these inconsistencies don’t seem to have greatly affected the popularity of the films. Nor were they picked up in the many reviews that I have read, which I would expect if they were major issues to anyone but Tolkien fans. It just seems to me that the vast majority of people were not really bothered by them.


But I don't think that this point is in dispute. It seems to me that much of the argument here is at cross purposes.

I didn't like the films.

But look, they were popular.

But I think that this and that are grave flaws.

Well, other people don't seem to think so.

But I'm telling you, I do think so.

This, as you can see, is not really a disagreement at all.

[Neurion]

3 of the above lines are exactly the same as the book. Why can't you take a leap of faith and have the sword as magic? Why couldn't it be the blade of numenour that was given to Merry by Galadriel (which was an obvious play on the blade of westernesse that he gets from Tom)? Just use a bit of lateral thinking and the scene will be OK for you.You can't, in all honesty do that. Merry quite obviously uses the sword Theoden gives him at Edoras.

[Formendacil]

For all that the movies were popular, there were those (non-Tolkien fans, some cinema fans, and some ordinary joes) who went to the movie, not having read the book, who didn't like it. This happens, quite naturally, with EVERY piece of art created. In the case of the movies, I have met a few myself.

It is a faulty argument to say that the popularity of the movies shows the inconsistency is the noisemaking of irate fans, simply because it is impossible for us to present the general public with a fully (or at least, nearer fully) coherent version, and ask which they like better. And since that cannot be done, to present popularity as a sign of success is a somewhat misleading argument.

How do we know that they wouldn't have been MORE popular if they had been internally coherent?

[Essex]

Neurion,You can't, in all honesty do that. Merry quite obviously uses the sword Theoden gives him at Edoras.re Merry's sword perhaps being the one he got from galadriel. This is why there are so many disagreements on this site. People only sseem to see things in black and white. Why is it so obvious that the sword he uses is theoden's? Why can't you take the leap of faith and see it as the sword galadriel has given him? Why does it HAVE to be theoden's? I cannot understand this.

[davem]

Why can't you take the leap of faith and see it as the sword galadriel has given him?

Well, its partly because the sword given by Galadriel in the movie came from the 'Gondolindrim' - & so was not a Numenorean sword.

But mostly its because that there 'sword' she gave him was actually a dagger ;)

(... & no, the scale thing, a la Sting, won't work because when M&P handle the blades in the movie its clear they're not much more than 'dagger' sized to them. Sting was originally a long fighting knife.)

[alatar]

Neurion,re Merry's sword perhaps being the one he got from galadriel. This is why there are so many disagreements on this site. People only sseem to see things in black and white. Why is it so obvious that the sword he uses is theoden's? Why can't you take the leap of faith and see it as the sword galadriel has given him? Why does it HAVE to be theoden's? I cannot understand this.

Note that someone (maybe even me ;) ) could walk through the DVD frame by frame and identify the sword.

Essex, why is it in these movie threads that you (and others) refer back to the books? Is it because you assume that we are all have read the books (which I'm sure that we all have at least once)? Sometimes I think that the misunderstandings come from a poster making a point using *only* the movies as the source material, yet we all have this background knowledge that fills in the gaps.

For example (and I hope that this works as it's all from memory, and I can't remember the theatrical version at all!), assume that I never read the books nor saw the EE version of FOTR. Now in ROTK just where did Frodo that cordless light bulb thing with which he holds Shelob at bay?

We all know where he got it as do the EE DVD viewers. Assume a poster thinks that Bilbo or Gandalf slipped it to him, or that he carried it with him from Bag End, as this poster is 'filling in'. Also assume that the poster asks to limit the discussion to the theatrical versions of the movies. How then would one respond to his/her comments regarding 'inconsistencies, etc?'

See my point (no, not the one on the top of my head)? Now, it's obvious that the poster could pick up the FOTR or EE and find an answer - plus we'd all jump on a reply with information, links, pictures, whatever.

Now, for this example, switch Merry for Frodo and the WK-bane sword for the phial. Limit information to the EE DVDs. There can be only one answer, and this wil be determined after someone does the work above.

There are some possibilities for 'knee biter':
the Weathertop 'wrapped in burlap' sword - never stated as magical
the Lothlorien sword - made by elves, possibly magical
the Rohan sword - no clue
the Pelennor fields 'found on the ground' sword - no clue

If it proves that Merry's WK-bane is not elvish, why do we assume that it can be magical (yes, I know that the Barrowdowns' sword is, but I'm in PJ world)? Now, if you're full of vinegar like me, you start thinking that if the sword has no chance of being magical, yet puts the WK on his knees, this lessens the WK 'mystique' and starts making you question why Balrog-slaying Gandalf got owned by the same (which, as you well know, everything always comes back to with me :) )

Surely a knee shot hurts, but why couldn't someone have shot this guy with an arrow at sometime in the same location? Or encircle him with spears? Etc?

You start down a road that ends up here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11508).

Anyway, forgive the long post - too much coffee, sunlight and Oreo's.

[Essex]

ok, let's go down the film only route.

as I said before, pippin states that the mightiest warrior can be felled by one arrow.

No one gets near the witch king to fight him. if you've got a fell beast to attack with, I can see why he hasn't been felled by an arrow!

the WK is powerful yes, and can use his 'magic' to break gandalf's staff. But is he invincible? I put it to you that he is not.

Just because the WK is mighty, why can't he be felled by a sword? If gandalf got stabbed with a sword, wouldn't it have hurt him as well? no matter how mighty or who ever gandalf may have slayed beforehand, including the Balrog, he is still able to be killed by a sword. If pippin hadn't stabbed the orc in minas tirith, don't you think that gandalf would have died? Ok, he can deflect a blast from Saruman, but that's, how can I put it, magic deflecting magic. Didn;t saruman die from a stab to the back (proceded by a lovely somersault onto a nasty loking wheel)

Also remember that Merry crept up on him from behind, unseen. Perhaps comparible to a flank attack or the like in battle. He was OVERLOOKED. That is one of the reasons why the witch king was defeated.

So again, I ask why can't the witch king be killed with a sword (or dagger) to the back of the leg to down him, and a blow to the head with a sword? Just because he is powerful does not mean he is invincible.

NO ONE is invincible in middle-earth, even Sauron. Haven't we learnt that much from the movies?

[Formendacil]

You can't, in all honesty do that. Merry quite obviously uses the sword Theoden gives him at Edoras.

Okay...

Just to muddy the sword waters a little bit more, here's what I thought when I saw the movie:

Theoden was using Merry's own sword, just as in the book. The same sword that Merry lost at Parth Galen, had returned to him by Aragorn at Isengard, and then proceeded to break behind the Witch-king's kneecap.

It never occurred to me that dagger given to him by Galadriel is ever seen again (sure, they use it against the uruks, but after that I don't recall seeing it, and it's too short to be confused with his "sword").

I was, after reflecting, a bit perplexed by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any sign of of Merry's old sword from Parth Galen to his knighting. This is another instance of inconsistency.

I didn't notice it during the movie the first couple times because I was too busy being irritated by Elrond, Arwen, Aragorn's crown, Sam, and other big things. I simply assumed that I was forgetting some small thing from the previous movies. After all, the exact path taken by a sword is a pretty small thing.

But wait! They make a HUGE fuss about Anduril. And it doesn't even take out someone like the Witch-king. You'd think that they'd at least make it clear where Merry's sword came from. Wouldn't they?

[alatar]

Essex,

Wonderful reply. You've made a compelling argument using what PJ has given us. I can actually accept the 'Gandalf gets owned by the WK who gets owned by Merry' logic much easier now (again, I still don't like the G-WK scene, but you've made it make much more sense).

Hopefully others will follow your example.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Essex has proved that it is somewhat understandable for TWK to fall down. I'm perfectly willing to accept that.

But what I don't think anyone can explain is the complete helplessness of TWK after he hit his knees. It's as if getting a leg wound renders his motionless. Does his spine run through his knee? Cause he certainly looked as if he'd been paralyzed.

A more realistic scene would've had TWK stumble down and then swing his weapon around behind him and kill the little gnat that just bit him.

He most certainly wouldn't have sat there looking straight at Eowyn as she took off her helmet, said "I am no man", and stabbed him. No way. He could've easily killed her while she was doing all that.

[alatar]

But what I don't think anyone can explain is the complete helplessness of TWK after he hit his knees. It's as if getting a leg wound renders his motionless. Does his spine run through his knee? Cause he certainly looked as if he'd been paralyzed.

A more realistic scene would've had TWK stumble down and then swing his weapon around behind him and kill the little gnat that just bit him.

Could he have been stunned as he never even saw an enemy at his back, let alone being stabbed by the same? And I'm willing to allow a little 'smudging' of time in regards to movies as an 'instantaneous' event sometimes drags out a bit as the camera has to render other POV.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Could he have been stunned as he never even saw an enemy at his back, let alone being stabbed by the same?
Who in the world on a battlefield reacts to getting attacked by being "stunned"? Who's going to have that reaction?

I have a little something to say about this, because a while ago I got bit by a dog on the back of my leg. I wasn't expecting it but all of a sudden he up and bit me. Did I fall to my knees and sit there? No! Duh. That's the last thing your survival instinct tells you to do. Nobody would do that. Upon being bitten, I immediately whirled around and clubbed the dog with my fist, before I even knew what I was doing.

That's how people react to being attacked from behind (unless the attack is vicious enough to physically damage their brain or spine or something).

TWK's reaction is how people react from being stabbed at the base of the neck or hit in the head with a sludgehammer, which did not happen to him. There's no way you explain his reaction without a magical weapon.

[davem]

So again, I ask why can't the witch king be killed with a sword (or dagger) to the back of the leg to down him, and a blow to the head with a sword? Just because he is powerful does not mean he is invincible.

Aragorn atBree(in the movie) 'They are the Nazgul, neither living nor dead.' This is the point. The Nazgul are not simply very powerful mortal foes. They are supernatural beings. Therefore only supernatural means may defeat them. In the book it is Merry's barrow blade which 'unknits' the WK's magically knitted together sinews,which breaks the spell & makes it possible for Eowyn's sword to destroy him. It is the fact that the blade, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor, strikes him, that enables Eowyn to dispatch him.

The WK can be 'killed' - though only in a very specific way. As I said, in the radio series the writers had to change the story to account for Merry only having a standard sword. It doesn't really work if you think about it, but at least the writers made an attempt to account for it. In short, Merry's blow with the barrow blade is vital. If we just go with the movie, why have Merry there at all? Anyone could have struck the WK an unexpected blow to distract him.

The movie spends a lot of screen time building up the WK as an overwhelmingly powerful supernatural force & then prceeds to have him 'killed' by a couple of people with normal weapons. It simply doesn't make sense. Why the build up if he can be brought down by an unexpected blow & killed by any woman who just happens to be on the field?

What this does is lessen the 'magic' & hence the significance, of the event, as well as making the WK into no more than a big powerful mortal enemy. You might as well have replaced him with a troll - in fact that would have made more sense & served the purpose of the event - to show Merry's & Eowyn's desperate act of courage. If you introduce a supremely, supernaturally, powerful foe you have to account for his destruction in a believable & convincing way.

[alatar]

The movie spends a lot of screen time building up the WK as an overwhelmingly powerful supernatural force & then prceeds to have him 'killed' by a couple of people with normal weapons. It simply doesn't make sense. Why the build up if he can be brought down by an unexpected blow & killed by any woman who just happens to be on the field?

... If you introduce a supremely, supernaturally, powerful foe you have to account for his destruction in a believable & convincing way.

Which is why I consider this an inconsistency on PJ's part.

However, again assume non-reading viewer - how was the mightly Sauron brought down? A seemingly normal blade, broken at that, cut his ringed finger off. Seemingly the sword could have dismembered him too, given the chance (I have visions of Sauron ala the armless, legless knight of Grail fame :D ). His underling, WK, could be dealt a similar blow as he had a ring too.

And in regards to the flight/fight comment, I hide behind the fact that the WK was undead, meaning that obviously knee stabs and dog bites would freeze him. Note that one of the Nazgul does not attack the hobbit with the dogs (though the dogs cowered, it was just to set up a sneak attack). And Farmer Maggot is the example from the books.

If only the Rohirrim had ridden dogs...big dogs...with lasers... ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

I am somewhat mystified as to why I am continually being pulled up on this thread for my references to the popularity of the films. I thought that I had made by position perfectly clear.

I am not saying that anyone’s (adverse) opinion on the films is wrong simply by virtue of the fact that they are popular. I fully respect that everyone has, and is entitled to, his or her own opinion. Nor am I saying that anyone should like them because they are popular. And I am most definitely not saying that the fact that they are popular means that they could not have been better. My opinion is that they could have been better and remained just as popular, if not more so. But, as I have said, you could say that about just about anything.

I do think that they would not have been as popular if some of the changes made to the story and the characters, with a view to (necessarily) simplifying the films and broadening their appeal, had not been made. In other words, I think that many (although not all) of the decisions taken with a view to achieving this goal were good ones. That is purely my opinion, although it is based on my own perceptions and experiences. I have no problem if people choose to take a different view, based on their own perceptions and experiences.

But I do firmly believe that, when we are discussing the merits of the films and considering the extent to which they have been (to use that expression that I dislike so much in this context) “dumbed down” and why the story and the characters were changed in the ways that they were, then their popularity is a relevant factor. In seeking (as far as we are able) to establish on an objective basis the merits of the films as films, their (popular and critical) appeal must surely be a factor. If they are popular and successful, then they must be doing something right (and all the more so if their popularity acquires a lasting quality, although we can only speculate on that at this stage). I am not seeking to suggest that this is the only factor in determining their quality, and there have been some compelling critiques on this thread of certain aspects of the films which do, to my mind, speak to their quality. But it is a factor nevertheless.

Moreover, almost without exception, the changes that were made were made with the aim of enhancing their success as films. Why else would they make them? They wanted the films to succeed as films and to appeal to as many people as possible. And the popularity of the films, to my mind, suggests that they succeeded in this aim. In all likelihood, they could have achieved greater success by making different choices. But, the way I see it, the fact is that they made the choices that they did and those choices were (broadly) successful ones in the context of what they were trying to achieve. The fact that inconsistencies were introduced as a result does not change that, although I fully accept that it is a relevant factor when considering their quality (provided that one takes into account the incredible difficulty involved in adapting such a complex and carefully crafted book to the screen).

In addition, given that this thread has, at certain points during its history, become rather a cosy film “hate-in”, I thought it worth pointing out that the majority view here is not the only view, in order to bring a bit of persepctive to the discussion. There are many many people out there that consider these films to be great films. Whether you agree with them or not, that is, in my view, a relevant factor in this discussion.

And finally, in view of some of the contemptuous terms used to describe these films and the oft prevailing opinion that Jackson and co “messed up big time”, I regard it as appropriate to point out that there are many respects in which they did not “mess up” at all, but rather succeeded wildly.

Again, I am not suggesting that anyone should alter their views on these films simply because they are popular. Neither am I suggesting that their popularity alone establishes their quality as films. I am merely raising it as a factor relevant to this discussion.

[alatar]

I do think that they would not have been as popular if some of the changes made to the story and the characters, with a view to (necessarily) simplifying the films and broadening their appeal, had not been made.

That's speculation. We have no way of knowing how popular the films may have been if certain changes were made; we just know that in their present form that they were successful. Of course if PJ would have listened to me... ;)


If they are popular and successful, then they must be doing something right (and all the more so if their popularity acquires a lasting quality, although we can only speculate on that at this stage).

Much agreed. Let's see where the films are twenty years from now. Note that (an assumption, as I'm a bit out of her demographic) Britney Spears is wildly popular now, but will she become a true classic such as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin? <shudder>. And unlike LOTR, I have never reread a Wheel of Time book, yet I assume that they too are popular. <more shuddering>


Moreover, almost without exception, the changes that were made were made with the aim of enhancing their success as films. Why else would they make them?

Didn't someone post that certain changes were made to 'shock' the likes of us readers? And my gripe (admittedly I have more than one) is that the EE DVDs progressed from 'made for the Tolkien nut' (FOTR EE) to 'heck, let's try this as it would be so cool/funny/etc' (ROTK EE). I do appreciate PJ's work, as without him we would have nothing.



In addition, given that this thread has, at certain points during its history, become rather a cosy film “hate-in”, I thought it worth pointing out that the majority view here is not the only view, in order to bring a bit of persepctive to the discussion.

And finally, in view of some of the contemptuous terms used to describe these films and the oft prevailing opinion that Jackson and co “messed up big time”, I regard it as appropriate to point out that there are many respects in which they did not “mess up” at all, but rather succeeded wildly.


Agreed. Yet it may be that we are pointing out what we do not like (10%) and have forgotten to mention the other 90% as it's not that fun or interesting. Think that this all was discussed here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=9561).

[Essex]

Davem, sorry but your point re the NazgulTherefore only supernatural means may defeat them.Why? Is there a Fantasy Equation out there that specifies this? ;)

Let's forget the books for a second, again.

Movie wise, Saruman was killed by a blade and falling onto a Spike. He, being a Wizard, shows to the average non book reading movie goer that 'higher' beings can be killed by conventional means. Therefore the moive Witch King can also be killed this way. So, to me, there is no problem in Merry / Eowyn killing him with conventional weapons.

[davem]

Movie wise, Saruman was killed by a blade and falling onto a Spike. He, being a Wizard, shows to the average non book reading movie goer that 'higher' beings can be killed by conventional means. Therefore the moive Witch King can also be killed this way. So, to me, there is no problem in Merry / Eowyn killing him with conventional weapons.

After he had been defeated by Gandalf & his staff had been broken. The WK, on the other hand, was at the height of his powers on the battlefield & had just cast down Gandalf & broken his staff. Also, Saruman, like all the Istari, had a physical body, somewhat akin the the Elves in that if it aged at all it was only incredibly slowly. The exact nature of the WK's physical presence is not the same.

[Boromir88]

Movies today in general, are dumbed down...the average known vocabulary for a highschool student today is 10,000 words. In 1985 it was 25,000. I guess directors just don't think they can introduce a complicated film to our audience today, without attracting the teenage goers who are the ones who make up a lot of the audience in the theatres. I know before I watched FOTR at the theatres, I hadn't seen a movie there for about 3 years. After ROTK the only movie I've seen that the theatres was "National Treasure." Directors have gone away from some of the old days with multiple sub-plots, character changes, camera technology/moviement, and have replaced it with SFX and young studs.

[Essex]

davem, Also, Saruman, like all the Istari, had a physical body, somewhat akin the the Elves in that if it aged at all it was only incredibly slowly. The exact nature of the WK's physical presence is not the sameYes, but we're talking MOVIE WISE here. No non lotr reading average movie goes knows what you're on about there.

Also, didn't Aragorn manage to waylay the nazgul using Fire and his Sword? and that wasn't a magic sword in the movie either!

Does it matter how powerful the Witch King was? You stil haven't explained why a 'higher' being CANNOT be mamied / killed by conventional weapons.

But that's where we differ. You think he can't be killed by a standard weapon, but average movie goers might not think this.

For the last few posts I've been looking at it solely from a movie point of view, as brought to my mind by Alatar, as this is what is annoying a lot of people on this thread - the consistency of the MOVIE.

Therefore, as examples in the movie:

Wizard killed by a blade
other wizard saved from probable death from a blade
Nazgul waylaid by fire and an ordinary sword
balrog defeated by a blade (which in the movie we have no knowledge is 'special')

why can't the Witch King be defeated by conventional means? Why make him invincible to these means?

Sorry to keep repeating myself. As you may have seen in other posts, when I watch this scene as a book reader I see Merry unkitting the witch king's sinews with the blade he got from the barrow. I can do this.

But my views above are contending against people's views on this thread that the scene doesn't work for the average movie goer. I say it does. You say it doesn't. We'll probably never see eye to eye on this.......

[Lalwendë]

I think that there is one major difference between the Istari and the WK which explains why the latter cannot be despatched (I prefer to say despatched, as I'm not sure 'killed' is the right word) by any conventional weapon. The difference is that the WK is already effectively dead. He has no body, he is a wraith, and this is made clear in the film. I would expect anyone who watches attentively, book reader or no, to notice this fact, and so they might reasonably ask questions. As to how Aragorn chases the wraiths in the film, they are presented as being afraid of fire and he drives them back while the Hobbits make a run for it. I'd presume by this logic that this is why WK wants to break Gandalf's staff, after all, he's a;ready used it to drive off the fell beasts on the Pelennor Fields. I'll not get into the whole Istari thing though, not yet anyway... ;)

[Essex]

no, not dead, but as davem points out, they are neither dead nor living.

what's this then. Undead?

Hmm, what other major character do we have in literature (and movies) that was undead?

Dracula.

A supernatural being you might say. he could change his form into all sorts of things.

Now, how was he killed, in the book as well as in the movies? Ah yes, with a wooden stake to the heart.

Very conventional!

PSHe has no body, he is a wraith, and this is made clear in the film.it's made clear they have no bodies? not to me it isn't. ok, so you can;t see their faces behind the masks, but would the average movie goer think that they don't have bodies?

Again, I'm taking this perspective from the movies alone. It's quite fun working it out and arguing the points from a different perspective. thanks for the heads up, alatar!

[The Saucepan Man]

I suspect that the "average movie-goer" would not give the matter quite the same degree of thought as is being exhibited here. :p ;)

[alatar]

I suspect that the "average movie-goer" would not give the matter quite the same degree of thought as is being exhibited here. :p ;)

You'd be very right - they 'moved on' before the credits started to scroll.

When I refer to an 'AMG,' what I am trying to do is focus a point on what is presented in the movies.

I noted that my sister, who is an AMG non-reader, had questions when she left theater, though I don't think that any of them were in regards to Merry's WK-bane :) .

[davem]

Hmm, what other major character do we have in literature (and movies) that was undead?

Dracula.

A supernatural being you might say. he could change his form into all sorts of things.

Now, how was he killed, in the book as well as in the movies? Ah yes, with a wooden stake to the heart.

Very conventional!

I'm not sure about this argument - Dracula is vampire & only certain things will kill a vampire - wooden stakes, running water, sunlight, etc. In the same way only the Barrow sword could make the invulnerable WK vulnerable to Eowyn's sword strike.

The point is, the WK should be difficult to kill, just as Dracula is. His death requires the right kind of weapon, employed by the right person, in the right circumstances ...

[Essex]

Yep, totally agree that the WK needs to be defeated with a 'magical' sword IN A BOOK SENSE.

For Mr Average Movie Goer they do not need this. As in the films of Dracula, sunlight can kill a vampire, but for those that have read Dracula know this is not the case, it just diminishes his powers. The same for the sword, for us book readers, the sword HAS to be the one picked from the barrow, but this is not needed for film goers.

Fair point about the stake having to be wooden. It's funny really, but this is the other way around for Dracula. The films have made the wooden stake important, whilst the novel itself ends dracula's life as: But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathon's great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat; whilst at the same moment Mr Morris' bowie knife plunged in the heart.(sorry got this wrong on my last post)

I wonder if the internet had been around in the time of the hammer horror movies and boris karloff, whether there would have been the same arguments over the book / film differences.

PS I recommend Dracula as a read. Great story, great characters, and the Count himself. What an amazing character - give it a go if you get the chance.

[mark12_30]

...when Aragorn's horse nuzzles him awake from the dream of Arwen. Haha, sure, funny, but how does that develop Aragorn's character or depict this supposedly iconic love and romance? It doesn't. It is just a but of cheap humour thrown in.

That didn't strike me as funny at all-- because horses do that. I can't be the only person who's had affectionate horse slobber on my face, or grass-stains on my shirt.

When two horses meet, they sniff noses, and then if they are friends, they each dig their chin into the other horse's crest (arch of the neck.) Watch two horses greet in a field, you'll see it. And if you walk up to a horse and sniff, his eyes will light up, and he will put his nose up to yours with great, deep snufflings. You have just spoken his language. If he likes you, he will try to dig his chin into your shoulder (or sometimes the top of your head-- ouch.)

Be cautious, because if he decides he doesn't like you, he may strike at you.

Aragorn, in the barn at Edoras, was speaking in both a tone ('horse-whispering', if you like) and a language (elvish) that Brego understood. And, he brought his face close to Brego's as he spoke it; good equine body-language. You could see Brego respond. I thought this was brilliant script-writing, because it was a blend of Tolkien's elf-to-horse communication-- that readers understand-- and 'horse-whispering', that horsemasters understand. Blend them together, and the most obvious thing for Brego to do when he finds Aragorn is nuzzle and sniff noses.

It's a pity that horse-greetings aren't more widely understood. That moment was, to me, anything but cheap humor; it was a tribute to Aragorn's bond with Brego, and Brego's friendly and trusting response.

[mark12_30]

it's made clear they have no bodies? not to me it isn't. ok, so you can;t see their faces behind the masks, but would the average movie goer think that they don't have bodies?

Something holds up those clothes. The black robes are in this world; their armor and other clothing is in the wraith-world. You see when Frodo puts the ring on that they do have bodies... nasty shrivelled ones.

(Edit: the word 'mummified' comes to mind...)

[The Saucepan Man]

Warning: This post is incredibly long and contains links to lengthy reviews. Please feel free to skip it if you have no interest whatsoever in what reviewers have said about the films.

A central theme in this thread is how the changes made to the story and characters as part of the process of simplifying them and broadening their appeal (my preferred expression to “dumbing them down”) might affect the “average moviegoer”. To what extent are the “inconsistencies” and “plot-holes” that have been raised on this thread likely to confuse them and thereby impair their enjoyment of the films?

There is also an underlying theme concerning the quality of the films in which the majority, while accepting that they are popular and, in many respects, well-made, do not regard these films as classics.

So I thought that I would do a little research. Now, clearly I couldn’t go out and conduct my own survey of “average moviegoers”. But I thought that it might be worth looking at some of the reviews of the films from those whose job or hobby it is to review films. My own perceptions of the critical acclaim which the films received had been based on UK press reviews, so I thought that I would cast my net (if you’ll pardon the pun) a bit wider. So I did a Google search on “Lord Rings Review” and looked at some of the sites that came up. I have posted links to some of the sites that I looked at below.

Note:
These are broadly representative of all the sites that I looked at. I have not merely selected positive reviews.
Many of these reviews are by those whose hobby it is to write reviews for internet sites – just the kind of people who would pick up on inconsistencies and plot-holes.
Some of these reviewers had clearly read the book before seeing the films. Others clearly had not. But none of them seem to be “Tolkien fanatics”.
So … You Wanna Sell A Script? (http://www.soyouwannasellascript.com/index.cfm?CFID=13443683&CFTOKEN=70166764)

This seems to be a website for aspiring scriptwriters, and so I thought that it would be interesting to see whether they might be alert to the kinds of issue raised as concerns on this thread (inconsistent characters, plot-holes etc).

Link to various reviews of all three films. (http://www.soyouwannasellascript.com/source/filmreviews.cfm?mode=normal&reviewsection=ijkl)

(Warning – you might find one or two of them rather offensive.)

Well they are a mixed bag, but nevertheless mainly appreciative. Dr Scott in particular is wildly enthusiasticabout the films, which he regards as certain to become enduring classics. The main criticisms are the length of the films (including the “multiple endings” in RotK), too much dialogue/exposition at the expense of the action, bad dialogue (it’s not clear whether these comments refer to Tolkien’s original lines or those written by Jackson, Boyens and Walsh – but the archaic style is criticised) and the feeling (in one review) that the special effects took over in RotK.

Moving on to the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/) , this provides some statistics (http://www.imdb.com/Top/) which confirm the mass appeal of the films.

RotK was the highest grossing film of 2003. TTT and FotR were the second highest grossing films of 2002 and 2001 respectively. Their positions in the all-time highest grossing films are as follows:

US: RotK - seventh, TTT - eleventh, FotR – sixteenth.
Non-US: RotK - second, TTT - fifth, FotR - seventh.
Worldwide: RotK - second, TTT - fifth, FotR -tenth.

Note - most of the films on these lists are action films, so this is clearly a desirable niche to be in.

The reviews included with the individual entries for the films are pretty disparaging. FotR is described as a “video game version of book” that translates badly to film. The reviewer asserts that the story feels rushed and that it is impossible to care about characters unless one has read book. He sees it as a film by fans of the book for fans of the book (!), and yet considers the book to have been “butchered” to an unsuitable format. The review of TTT claims that the special effects could not save the film because the story is boring (!), while the review of RotK refers to bad acting, clichéd and melodramatic moments and a boring final 30 minutes.

These comments are not, however, representative of the views of the members of IMDB as a whole, who have rated the films very highly. In the IMDb All Time Top 250, RotK is third, TTT eighth and FotR thirteenth. It will be interesting to see the extent to which they will be able to maintain their positions on this list (which looks pretty sensible to me), but given the quality of the films throughout the Top 100, they will be doing very well indeed even if they slip down a fair few places.

ReelViews (http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/master.html)

This provides glowing reviews of the film trilogy from someone who read the book twice as a child. He clearly sees the films as defining the fantasy film genre and a milestone in film-making. Of course this is one person’s view, but I have included it because I find many of the comments that he makes interesting, particularly as they reflect my own views very closely (except for the bit about "stodgy" Tolkien purists). I thought it worth quoting a few (in parts provocative) extracts.

On the trilogy as a whole:


But, in bringing J.R.R. Tolkien's milestone trilogy to the screen, Peter Jackson has finally given fantasy aficionados something to cheer about. I went into this movie with a mixture of excitement and trepidation, but left it exhilarated. Although it had been 20 years since I had last opened the books (I read them twice, at ages 12 and 14), many images remained fresh in my mind, and The Lord of the Rings matched them all. Almost everyone I have talked to, regardless of whether they have read the books or not, enjoyed the films. And, as the years go by, I expect that their importance will only grow.

Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within. In the final analysis, this movie stands as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen. Combined, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King represent one of the most engrossing and engaging nine-hour segments of cinema I have ever enjoyed. This series seems poised to go down as one of the crowning achievements of cinema.On FotR:


Lord of the Rings devotees will be delighted to learn that the motion picture adaptation is as faithful as one could imagine possible (and, consequently, is nearly three hours in length). Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens) do an excellent job condensing more than five hundred pages of text into a script that never feels choppy, uneven, or rushed.On TTT:


Stodgy Tolkien purists who disliked some of the changes Jackson made to The Fellowship of the Ring may be outraged by what he and his screenwriters have done here. The Two Towers differs much more from its written inspiration than the first movie. Yet, in tone and spirit, this remains very much Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, although altered in a manner that makes it more of a living, breathing cinematic endeavor rather than a point-by-point regurgitation (like the Harry Potter films).

Jackson has added dashes of mirth and romance to the film – two elements in short supply in the novel.On RotK:


Tolkien purists will be as disgruntled with The Return of the King as they were with The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, but this isn't made for them. This is Tolkien's saga as filtered through Jackson's fertile imagination, not some dry, slavishly faithful adaptation (although it is probably as true to the books in both spirit and narrative as any movie version could be).

Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/)

The LotR films don’t make their top 100, but that seems to be rated by the number of reviews a particular film has received as well as the degree to which it found favour, and there are some pretty odd choices there. But the films are highly rated in their review section, which is particularly interesting because the entries include excerpts from media reviews:

FotR (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_the_rings_the_fellowship_of_the_ring/)
TTT (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_the_rings_the_two_towers/)
RotK (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_the_rings_the_return_of_the_king/)

I’m assuming that the excerpts in these entries represent a cross-section of critical reaction, since there are a few negative comments. But these are massively outweighed by the positive and indeed the wildly enthusiastic (some of which go further than even I would). Many of these comments hail it as groundbreaking or refer to it as a great cinema achievement. And, since these are people who review films either professionally or as a hobby, I tend to think that they know what they are talking about. Of course, there is some diversity in opinion, but that is to be expected as a consequence of differences in personal tastes. Other comments refer to the films as remaining true to the spirit of the book, while achieving the almost difficult task of translating it to, and condensing it for, the screen.

I couldn’t resist repeating this quote:


The director and screenwriter brings unity to a somewhat unwieldy story and handles the spectacle scenes with flourish and coherence.
-- Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWSI don’t agree that the original story is "unwieldy", but it is probably a fairly common view. There are, I am sure, many who have no time for the book who will enjoy the films.

The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/index.jsp)

FotR (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1147362)
FotR (EE DVD) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1764479)
TTT (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1774508)
TTT (DVD) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1969447)
TTT (EE DVD) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2048280)
RotK (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2047029)
RotK (EE DVD) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1764479)

With regard to RotK, the following comment is interesting:


Jackson and co-writers Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh make noteworthy departures from Tolkien, including such crucial moments as what happens when Frodo is finally standing on a ledge over the Crack of Doom inside the volcano where the ring must be destroyed, and how Aragorn makes use of the Army of the Dead that only he can command. Whole swaths of the book have been condensed and eliminated, but Jackson and company usually realize splendidly whatever they take on.The BBC Movies section (http://www.bbc.co.uk/movies/)

FotR (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/12/11/lord_of_the_rings_fellowship_of_the_ring_2001_revi ew.shtml)
TTT (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/12/12/lord_of_the_rings_two_towers_2002_review.shtml)

A nice comment, this one:


This is a compact, flab-free adaptation of JRR Tolkien's complex, lengthy book, and it suffers little from following three simultaneous adventures.RotK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/12/11/lord_of_rings_return_of_king_2003_review.shtml)

Again:


It's an astonishing piece of storytelling, sacrificing little of the novel, as it nimbly switches between several story strands without becoming confusing or dull (despite being a bum-numbing 201 minutes).The New York Times (http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html)

I could only access the summary review of RotK (http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=278981)

As I said, these are pretty representative of the reviews that I read. Clearly, they are overwhelmingly positive. But most importantly, as far as the issues being discussed on this thread are concerned, there is hardly a mention of plot-holes or inconsistencies. The main criticisms focus on other areas (primarily length and over use of dialogue/exposition). Also, it seems quite clear to me (particularly from the extracts from media reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes site) that many regard this film trilogy as a groundbreaking cinematic event and consider that these films are likely to become classics. Comparisons with the original Star Wars films are frequently made.

Now, I must emphasise that I am not suggesting that anyone is wrong if they disagree with these reviews. I am sure that many here will. But they do, in my view, provide a useful indication as to the regard in which these films are held by those who know and love films generally (rather than only those who know and love Tolkien’s works).

Finally, a bit of fun:

Movie Mistakes.com (http://www.moviemistakes.com/) is a nice little site that I came across during my investigations. It refers primarily to continuity errors and the like, rather than inconsistencies in the story and/or characters. They give a list of the 30 most mistake-filled films. The LotR films are at 5, 6 and 7 respectively. But two of the Harry Potter films are in the top 3, and Star Wars is pretty high up too.

[Bêthberry]

That didn't strike me as funny at all-- because horses do that. I can't be the only person who's had affectionate horse slobber on my face, or grass-stains on my shirt.

When two horses meet, they sniff noses, and then if they are friends, they each dig their chin into the other horse's crest (arch of the neck.) Watch two horses greet in a field, you'll see it. And if you walk up to a horse and sniff, his eyes will light up, and he will put his nose up to yours with great, deep snufflings. You have just spoken his language. If he likes you, he will try to dig his chin into your shoulder (or sometimes the top of your head-- ouch.)

Be cautious, because if he decides he doesn't like you, he may strike at you.

Aragorn, in the barn at Edoras, was speaking in both a tone ('horse-whispering', if you like) and a language (elvish) that Brego understood. And, he brought his face close to Brego's as he spoke it; good equine body-language. You could see Brego respond. I thought this was brilliant script-writing, because it was a blend of Tolkien's elf-to-horse communication-- that readers understand-- and 'horse-whispering', that horsemasters understand. Blend them together, and the most obvious thing for Brego to do when he finds Aragorn is nuzzle and sniff noses.

It's a pity that horse-greetings aren't more widely understood. That moment was, to me, anything but cheap humor; it was a tribute to Aragorn's bond with Brego, and Brego's friendly and trusting response.



Thanks for the horse sense, Helen. :)

I didn't laugh at the language of horses--which I do understand (my brother used to keep four horses on his acreage). It was the juxtaposition of Aragorn's dream of Arwen with his horse. It made me think of that line, "If dreams were horses ...". Or is it wishes?

I quite agree that it is nice Aragorn had someone to bond with. ;)

[Aiwendil]

That's certainly an impressive bit of research, Saucepan Man, and I'm grateful that you've rounded up these reviews for everyone here. But I continue to suspect that the two "sides" in the argument here are not really arguing against each other at all. You make an impressive case for the popularity, among both critics and ordinary folk, of the movies. But, again, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the movies are popular.

[The Saucepan Man]

You make an impressive case for the popularity, among both critics and ordinary folk, of the movies. But, again, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the movies are popular. But I continue to suspect that the two "sides" in the argument here are not really arguing against each other at all.Well I was largely browsing those reviews for my own interest, but I think that they are relevant here. I accept that we are not arguing in the sense of saying that another person's feelings about the films are "wrong". The main point that I think the reviews are relevant to here is the issue of whether the "inconsistencies" and "plot-holes" reasluting from "dumbing down" made much of an impact on non-book fans.

Hmm, I'm beginning to use quotation marks as much as I did on the dreaded C-thread ... :D

[davem]

Thanks for the horse sense, Helen. :)

I didn't laugh at the language of horses--which I do understand (my brother used to keep four horses on his acreage). It was the juxtaposition of Aragorn's dream of Arwen with his horse. It made me think of that line, "If dreams were horses ...". Or is it wishes?

I quite agree that it is nice Aragorn had someone to bond with. ;)

I have to agree with Bb about the juxtaposition. Still, its nice to get another pov. I suppose Helen must be our resident horse expert, so we now know who to turn to if we have any equine questionshttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/kngt.gif.

One that springs to mind is whether the Rohirric horses could have charged down a 45% scree slope without all losing their footing & rolling to the bottom in a tangled bloody mass....

[mark12_30]

whether the Rohirric horses could have charged down a 45% scree slope without all losing their footing & rolling to the bottom in a tangled bloody mass....

Why thankee, davem! I shall do my best.

Let's generalize first: horses are individuals, and not all are athletes, and of the athletes, not all are "gymnasts" or "wrestlers". Some horses are good with rugged terrain, others are not.

Running down a steep scree-hill: Could a pampered, stalled, blanketed Thoroughbred do it? I doubt it. The vet bills afterward would make you rue your foolishness all the way to the poorhouse.

Could an outback-raised Brumby do it? Yep. SIT BACK. (See Man From Snowy River-- or is it Return to Snowy River? One of the two.)

Could a backyard pony do it? That depends on the daily activities of the backyard pony and the skill of the rider. Some could.

Now, could a rohirric horse do it?

I'll say again, that depends. What are their daily activities? If the horse lived up by Edoras-- very hilly; the horse would be well conditioned to the ups & downs.

If he lived always and only on the very-flat plains, then ... I'd be skeptical. But since we are talking about The Movies:

In the movie, Rohan was a very rugged country. There were canyons, rocky outcroppings, little cliffs, big cliffs, little hills, big hills. The Rohirrim lived Not-That-Far from the mountains, some lived in the mountains or at their foot, others were in-and-out of mountainous country. And the herds of Rohan were range-bred horses, not pampered pets. They were workhorses not showhorses, warhorses not race horses. Their riders knew them well.

So-- off hand, I'd say yes, I'd expect them to do pretty well on a steep downhill charge. Because of the scree, you'd have had some injuries, some tender frogs and swollen ankles and maybe a few broken legs.

But on a tough, scruffy, hill-country horse, the hill and its scree would have worried me less than the pikes.

**** story:

I went riding with a friend in Palos Verdes, LA area. It's very hilly. There were trails trough the hills, and there was this one trail with a steep washed-out area, basically a mini-landslide that went down maybe thirty feet. The crumbling sand came halfway into the trail. No New England horse I know would have gone over that without a fuss. "Time to turn around and go back?" I asked. My friend crossed it, and then said, "Huh? What?" I was scared stiff. But the (local, native) horse I was on could have been yawning. I think he was actually looking elsewhere while he crossed it, sending rocks and dirt tumbling thirty feet below.

So back to my point: it depends on what you do day to day, and what you are used to. And a horse raised in Movie-Rohan would, I think, have been very used to the ups and downs.

[alatar]

Not sure where else to post this. A Sequence-by-Sequence (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43) thread might have been better, but I couldn't decide which. Anyway...

The kids and I were watching, "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" (1977) yesterday, and they seemed to enjoy this old favorite of mine. What struck me is that the 'wizard' of the group (he's actually a scientist!), Melanthius (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://shillpages.com/dw/movie/tropsi20.jpg&imgrefurl=http://shillpages.com/dw/tropsi.shtml&h=480&w=640&sz=62&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=oOqqAs58K7XsIM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSinbad%2Band%2Bthe%2BEye%2Bof%2Bthe%2 BTiger%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Df irefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN), is another wise older man with a grey beard. Those familiar with the Harry Potter films, which I'm warming to, will know that (to me) the wizard on top of the food chain is Albus Dumbledore - also old, male and covered with grey-white scruff.

Isn't the caricature old male with grey-white hair 'shorthand' for wise? Why then, when we see Gandalf in the later LotR movies, is he the one who needs assistance/knowledge/reassurance from Aragorn?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Hmm... I'm not really sure how to answer that but, I'm really surprised to see this thread again.

[Bêthberry]

Not sure where else to post this. A Sequence-by-Sequence (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43) thread might have been better, but I couldn't decide which. Anyway...

The kids and I were watching, "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" (1977) yesterday, and they seemed to enjoy this old favorite of mine. What struck me is that the 'wizard' of the group (he's actually a scientist!), Melanthius (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://shillpages.com/dw/movie/tropsi20.jpg&imgrefurl=http://shillpages.com/dw/tropsi.shtml&h=480&w=640&sz=62&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=oOqqAs58K7XsIM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSinbad%2Band%2Bthe%2BEye%2Bof%2Bthe%2 BTiger%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Df irefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN), is another wise older man with a grey beard. Those familiar with the Harry Potter films, which I'm warming to, will know that (to me) the wizard on top of the food chain is Albus Dumbledore - also old, male and covered with grey-white scruff.

Isn't the caricature old male with grey-white hair 'shorthand' for wise? Why then, when we see Gandalf in the later LotR movies, is he the one who needs assistance/knowledge/reassurance from Aragorn?

I think it's a shorthand for many things, wise being only one aspect. For instance, that picture of Melanthius is very similar to many depictions of Moses. Think Charleton Heston with wild beard. Great find, though, alatar.

Now, Moses accomplished many things, but he did err himself and was denied the opportunity to live in the promised land because of his heavy-handedness. I think it is important to ensure that Gandalf not look too much the heavy authoritarian type of old wizened man in the move, so he turned to the pretty boy for aid. It's moves like this which ensure that mass appeal of popularity which is such a constant refrain from some here on this thread.

[alatar]

Great find, though, alatar.
Thanks. Just goes to show you that almost anything can be turned into a Barrow-Downs post.


I think it is important to ensure that Gandalf not look too much the heavy authoritarian type of old wizened man in the move, so he turned to the pretty boy for aid. It's moves like this which ensure that mass appeal of popularity which is such a constant refrain from some here on this thread.
I don't think that Gandalf was ever portrayed as 'authoritarian.' The only persons that he lords around are those like Pippin, who haven't a wit. As I've stated post and post again, I was not happy with the dilution of Gandalf's character, which peaks at about 'The Shire' and falls off from there. Seeing how Melanthius was able to help Sinbad yet not steal any of the hero's glory made Gandalf's role in RotK even more glaringly wrong. It then occurred to me, as stated, that in movie shorthand, grey-haired wizards are wise beyond the hero - so much so that they let be as necessary. Nor are they competing for the glory or the princess, so what's the problem?

Another example would be Ulrich in Dragonslayer (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/Captures/CapturesA-D/Dragonslayer/dragon_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/Reviews/A-D/dragonslayer.html&h=125&w=245&sz=4&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=hS7GNjVHkjHnbM:&tbnh=56&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddragonslayer%2Bgalen%26svnum%3D10%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG). Any others?

[Finduilas]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I do want to mention some things that really bothered me in the film. They made Frodo more of a coward, I can get quotes if necessary, and in doing this, probably for that reason, they lowered everyone else. They ruined Faramir. Theoden was to much of a coward to face Suraman, "They flee to the mountains when they should stand and fight," when in the book he rode out to meet them. Denethor was to much of a coward to burn himself without running. Sam was very violent toward Gollum.... As I once told my sister, I have more than a bone to pick with Peter Jackson, I have a whole skeleton. I wont go on. Must go. Farewell