The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies

[MatthewM]

I've been wanting to start a topic like this for some time now. This thread is an attempt to have somewhat of a movie review about the trilogy. More like an overall look at all the obvious bad changes, but also to shed some light on the good changes. I know there have been topics about these things before, but I think they were seperate and not joined.

Disclaimer: Please, if you are just going to post to rip apart something that you think is an insignificant change and shouldn't be listed here, don't. We all have our problems with changes PJ made. There really is no such thing as an insignificant change, because everybody looks at specific changes differently. For example, Frodo's age might mean more to somebody than Wood's portrayal of the character. Who's to say either is an insignificant change? They are both changes. So please post with respect if you disagree. Afterall, these are my opinions.

Before I start I would first like to list the parts of the story that were not filmed, the obvious and the not so obvious, that I think are better off left to our imagination. Because they were left out, we now have the ability to imagine our own Middle-earth, without PJ's vision. Our own characters and our own scenery. And because of that, I am glad that some scenes were not filmed (in The Fellowship of the Ring):

* The Old Forest - Tom Bombadil - The Barrow-Downs. Quite frankly, these chapters are so important and close to my heart that I am glad they did not get filmed. At first I was disappointed and that they should have been included, but thinking about it now- it's good that these scenes were not tampered with.
* Scenes with the Wood Elves at the beginning of the Hobbit's journey. I'm glad we got the nod in the EE.
* Saruman of many colors - I suppose the white robe was better than attempting one which flickered a bunch of different colors. That one is better left to us, I think.
* The entrance into Lorien / the talks the Fellowship had in Lorien
* The orcs shooting arrows at The Fellowship on the Great River, Legolas shooting down the Nazgul, and the hike through the Tindrock.

There are more, I'm sure, but off the top of my head that is what I came up with. Ok...

So, let's start with my personal favorite, The Fellowship of the Ring.

THE GOOD (Changes, also those scenes which stuck nicely with the book)

* The Prologue. Nicely done, although the geography itself poses a problem for a later scene.
* Gandalf's entrance. McKellen as Gandalf was a great choice. Although some don't care for Frodo's entrance, I think that it worked nicely with Gandalf's, and gives the viewers a decent introduction to the two main characters.
* Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
* A Long Expected Party
* The Hobbits. They look like Hobbits should and would look. (Yes yes, we'll get to Frodo's age, but there is no doubt the Hobbits look good)
* In the EE, we see the flight of the Wood Elves. I love this scene. A great nod to the meeting the Hobbits had with them.
* The Wizard Fight. This is one of the changes PJ made that I actually like, and I think it fits very nicely within Tolkien's world.
* The Nazgul. In my opinion, PJ succeeds in making you feel fear when the Black Riders approach.
* The Prancing Pony. Although I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo's magnetic finger trick, the P.P. scene is definitely kosher with Tolkien. The whole medieval feel of the inn completely does it for me here. Great lighting and everything. A nice nod at the book when you see Bill Ferny and his goons glaring at the Hobbits.
* Aragorn. Good entrance, and although nowadays Viggo would not have been my first choice, I think he pulled the role off nicely.
* The Ranger sword. This was recently debated in a topic here, but I don't see any harm in giving Strider a sword that is actually functional compared with a sword that is broken.
* The Three Trolls. Gives us book fans comfort and joy!
* Scene at the Ford. I have mixed feeling about the actual Flight to the Ford, including Arwen's appearance, but I don't think that it was necessarily bad. It wasn't good, though. I liked the water horses in the actual Ford.
* Many Meetings. You have to like the golden calm of Rivendell...beautiful.
* Arwen and Elrond. Looking good.
* (Strictly appearance wise) Legolas and Gimli fit the part. Bean as Boromir did not, and we will get to that later. I get touchy on this subject! We are talking strictly appearance right now.
* Aragorn and Arwen in the blue twilight. I think this is a great scene, and it plants those important seeds that need to be sown in order to show the people the relationship of A & A. Not to mention, great lighting in this scene. Love the blue.
* "I will take it! Though I do not know the way." I love the way Frodo delivers these lines. It makes for a powerful moment indeed.
* The Ring Goes South. I will get to the bad changes made here, but there are some good elements here which stuck to Tolkien, such as the scenery. I like the choice for Hollin.
* Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.
* "Knock your head against these doors Peregrin Took...!" I like how they added this (I think it's in the EE) because it shows Gandalf's short temper, especially when it comes to Pip.
* Moria. Was done very well. Of course, as with every part of the story, could have been elaborated more, but looking at what we were given - pretty good. I was glad to see Pippin's folly, although I don't understand why he couldn't have just actually thrown a stone instead of a whole skeleton.
* Gandalf's fall. Nice.
* The scenery of Lothlorien.
* Galadriel. I think Cate was a wise choice. I don't know if it's just me, but after seeing Cate as Galadriel she (Cate) is wayyyy hotter. :)
* The Mirror of Galadriel. Done well, along with G's temptation.
* The gift scene was nice, although I think it complete rubbish that they didn't show Boromir get his gift of a golden belt.
* The Great River and the Argonaths. Could have elaborated much more, though.
* The Breaking of the Fellowship. Bean did a awesome job in this scene of portraying Boromir and his temptation. The attempt to take the Ring, although I would have done things differently, was nicely done.
* Boromir's death scene. Again, I would have done it a bit differently, but it was done well. It showed Boromir's valiant and heroic nature as he attempted to save M & P.
* The Departure of Boromir. I'm glad they showed his funeral boat going down the Falls of Rauros.
* Frodo and Sam. Done well, especially Frodo thinking of Gandalf's words.
* "Let's hunt some orc." Delivered nicely by Viggo and set up for an optimistic future.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.

TO BE CONTINUED!
Ah! Unfortuntely I am out of time right now but I will continue this list tomorrow! I hope you all enjoy and I will finish this tomorrow.

[Maedhros_the_Tall]

I look forward to reading more of this!! :D Especially your views on Sean Bean as Boromir

[Sauron the White]

yes... over the years I have read many posted comments from many different people on several sites indicating that they were thankful for the changes in the character of Boromir making him much more of a sympathetic character than he came across as in the book .... so this should be interesting given the previously stated feelings of Matthew for the Boromir character......

and interesting may be too mild of a word. ;)

[MatthewM]

Glad to see the interest, and I will be finishing this up tomorrow, however let it be known that I do not want to turn this thread into a debate on my opinions about Bean as Boromir...I have expressed these views numerous times on other threads. I was just going to say a few words about it, but again, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion solely on that. I'm taking a lot of time writing all of this stuff out and I would like to discuss more than just that.

[Lush]

* The Old Forest - Tom Bombadil - The Barrow-Downs. Quite frankly, these chapters are so important and close to my heart that I am glad they did not get filmed. At first I was disappointed and that they should have been included, but thinking about it now- it's good that these scenes were not tampered with.

Preeecisely.

It's my favourite part of the book, and it's also 100% unfilmable.

[Folwren]

Nice. I have only read some of the list. I noted that your last 'Good' thing was the "Let's hunt some orc" line, and I just want to make note here that I disagree utterly. I hate that line. It is probably my least favorite line of any movie that I have ever watched. None other, to my knowledge, grates so badly on my nerves - not even the Legolas ones that people rant so much about.

Otherwise, everything else you've stated and that I've read, I agree with.

[skip spence]

Preeecisely.

It's my favourite part of the book, and it's also 100% unfilmable.

I don't agree it's unfilmable. In fact, many episodes of these chapters could have been fantastic visually, almost without special effects. Just picture the Hobbits leaving the Shire and entering the Old Forest in the grey dawn, with silver dew on the grass and fog in the air. Or the spooky atmosphere inside the Forest, the creaking of the trees, the sudden stirring of the leaves, a bransch falling right in front of them ("It's just the wind", says Merry). The Barrow Downs could also be great on film - when the Barrow Wight takes them you could use the book for a script and it would be a great scene. Tom Bombadill, as he is described, would be difficult to pull off though. But then again, he is silly, even in the book, with his hopping about, whistling, and hopeless fashion sense.

I think the problems have to do with plotting and time concerns, more than anything else. In order to do these chapters justice you'd have a running time of at least 20-30 minutes more. These episodes could also confuse the audience, since they are sort of a side quest with little or nothing to do with the ring.

[Lush]

The Old Forest itself is very filmable, but I only see the Tom Bombadil part as being sustainable in a good cartoon (possibly anime - that would be pretty, pretty interesting, or else disastrous, but you never know).

In my mind, there are some elements of the book that immediately lend themselves to filming, and they set the tone from the beginning. Then we come to Tom Bombadil, and we get this subtle, but important shift. And I honestly can't think of a single director who could do it justice.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Of course, by the time anyone gets around to doing a re-make (or re-interpretation, or whatever the kids are calling it these days), I'll probably be a senile old grandma.

*le sigh*

[skip spence]

I read Matthew's op and also agree with most of what is said. Some things I don't even recognise though, but I haven't watched the EE so that perhaps explains it. Should I? This tread makes it clear to me how much I enjoyed the first movie however. I think it was excellent, and the few gripes I do have are easy to look past in the light of all that was great. Prior to it's premiere I had great expectations but the movie was actually better than I had hoped for. Sadly, the second film failed to live up to my expectations, and when the third one came out I didn't even to go watch it until months after it's opening.

I didn't mind the "let's hunt some orc" comment though. As I remember it, Aragorn did express some similar thoughts in the book, and it did not seem out of place to me.

[Lush]

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good. :Merisu:

[Maedhros_the_Tall]

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good. :Merisu:

That settles that then! :p

[Morthoron]

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good. :Merisu:

Those must be some mighty big mutant cockroaches. What do they eat when they can't get Lushes?

In regards to MatthewM's original post, I would say that, generally speaking, FotR is quite good for the first 3rd of the movie (I will only be referring to the extended versions, because honestly, has anyone watched the original film versions since the DVDs came out?). Perhaps that is because, save for acts of omission (like Tom Bombadil, for instance) which are pardonable, given time constraints, the movie adheres to Tolkien's story. I don't believe anywhere in the three movies does one get a better sense of Middle-earth. The sequences in the Shire are excellent, very Hobbitish; however, once one hits the Ford of Bruinen, the film begins to deviate from the original plot egregiously, and that's where the megalomaniac scripting (or perhaps it should be termed 'Narcissistic Jacksonophilia', for PJ's love of himself -- I will refer to the syndrome as NJS going forward) becomes apparent (fortunately, it is not as pronounced in FotR as it will become in TTT).

Arwen calling down the water upon the Nazgul is downright silly, isn't it? When the film was first released, I believe the entire movie theater giggled in unison. Read the sequence in the book, then watch the movie version. The book presents a failing Hobbit valiantly defending himself from the horrific specters of the Nazgul taunting him, almost hypnotically seducing him to follow them into darkness. It is a frightening, very vivid scene, but in the movie, we lose sight of the main protagonist completely, and instead we have Arwen muttering Sindarin, and then with a look of surprise she watches as the waves sweep away the Nazgul -- talk about anticlimactic. Plainly, it is a bit of NJS foisting a character who has no part in that sequence onto the viewing public. We get no sense of the power of her father, Elrond, at all (and he is insipid and whiny throughout all three movies); in fact, Gandalf doesn't even get to utter his humorous line regarding the adding of the horses to Elrond's flood. It is a lost opportunity to follow the better original plot for the director's personal aggrandizement.

Then we get a glimpse of Gandalf battling Saruman at Orthanc. Others here have said they liked the scene; however, to me the sharp angles, jangly shots and off-kilter camera positions in Orthanc make it seem more sci-fi than Middle-earth (although I admit the moth sequence atop Orthanc is superb). Then the entire film sequence at Rivendell becomes a hit or miss proposition: Bilbo craving the ring is excellent, Elrond's defeatism is ludicrous; Sean Bean's Boromir is magnetic in the Council of Elrond (certainly the most powerful perfomance of that sequence), Viggo's weakly apologetic Aragorn -- not so much.

I will reply further as Matthew continues and as time permits.

[Bêthberry]

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good. :Merisu:

Yes, it certainly must be good for all kinds of ironical reconstructions and recontextualising, which I'm sure our darling Lushious savours. Can't say as I'd fancy eating one, though I can imagine crunchy and ketchup jokes. ;)

So even when chasing spiders, I'm one who niggles over Tolkien's own niggling over orcs and whether they had souls and etc. So my own curiousity is mildly aroused when Movie-Argorn is given a line more in keeping with a fox hunt. Are orcs animals (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether animals have souls and the entire animal rights movements, which surely does deserve its own thread, as Tolkien has given us lots of talking, animate animals) or are they a degraded form of human/elf? Remember, aboriginal peoples in North America were hunted like animals, with bounties on their heads, and the KKK thought nothing of hunting down and murdering in cold blood Black Americans.

Then there's thoughts of Book-Aragorn's nature to consider. Aragorn, he-who-would-be-king, and a character whose Book purity some find mighty hard to swaller. Book-Aragorn is a figure out of heroic literature whose idealism comes via some very high-falutin' language. Book-Aragorn would never snog his horse while in the midst of a dream of Arwen. Maybe in a dream of battle where his horse revives him, but Book-Aragorn doesn't cross-themes.

After all, the decision is a momentous one, where Aragorn must decide either to uphold his promise to serve and protect the Ringbearer or to pursue the hobbitnappers of Pippin and Merry. The situation is a tad more serious than 'let's have an adventure today.'

So, here's what Tolkien has Book-Aragorn say:


'Let me think!' said Aragorn. 'And now may I make a right choice, and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!' He stood silent for a moment. 'I will follow the Orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I see him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played it part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. Come! We will go now. Leave all that can be spared behind! We will press on by day and dark!'

That's quite a Shakespearean monologue. Clearly Book-Aragorn is guided not by the blood-lust of the hunt but by ethical decision.

I wager that those who enjoy PJ's adventure flick prefer the pithy call to kill orcs while those who enjoy Tolkien's more ancient mode of heroism prefer the ethical eloquence of Book-Aragorn. Chaque-un a son gout.

[Lush]

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[MatthewM]

I see nothing wrong with the line...

Anyway, I apologize for not elaborating further, it was father's day. I will add more asap. Thanks to all who have contributed!

[Gordis]

Nice analysis, MatthewM!

Not that I agree with you on all points.
I hate the fight of Saruman and Gandalf - it is so undignified and so out of place... It made me wish to leave the theater.
I hate Elrond's portrayal and all this crap about "Men are Weak".
Arwen at the Ford was ridiculous, IMO, as well as the Weathertop fighting.

But why do you think Frodo should have looked older? Much fatter and less pretty, certainly, but why older?
He got the Ring at age 33 - age of maturity for Hobbits - and stopped ageing. He is 50 in 1318, but he shouldn't look it - because he had the Ring. I think his age is about right. It is another matter that he shouldn't have ACTED like a scared kid all the time.

[Bêthberry]

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Lushious One, you have given me two great lines here. Your orcroach line ranks with that other great movie line from Woody Allen, when he describes Keaton's roaches as "bigger than cadillacs" (or, well, something to that effect, memory being what it is). Only missing is a finishing touch, "Let's send them off to roach motel!"

You've given me an image of Aragorn on the shores of Sword beach on D-Day, exhorting his men. (Sword Beach, man! How much more forged could they get?) The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn. Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

No time for other scenes, although I am taken with Morthoron's allusion to SF style rather than M-e style for those dancing wizzs atop Orthanc.

[Lush]

Cockroaches/orcs do inspire, if only in a sick twisted way that has you staying up 'till dawn with weapons drawn.

The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn.

Really? Because I see no inherent contradiction between the two. I see him, in both the book and the film, as a very intelligent, thoughtful man, who's got to do what he's got to do. I mean, war is disgusting, even when the conflict is pretty much straightforward, those orcs still cry out when they die. And friends betray. In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there. I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

*Random anecdotal information from the life of Lush, skip if not interested*

My granddad was a major general. I only wish he had been born in Middle Earth rather than the USSR, when a military man was not simply discouraged from pursuing his intellectual goals and useful hobbies (such as healing, and my grandfather was a healer), but literally forbidden. I don't want to harsh too much on the USSR, it was home, it was ours, and I don't think my granddad wasted his life. I think he would have been happier, though, if he was allowed to do more prior to his retirement.

My mom has tried readingLotR, but she always stops. Aragorn reminds of her dad. She says that watching the movies is easier, because at the very least, Viggo doesn't look like Pyotr.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to add a couple things about Aragorn's character in the movie. I've often disagreed with Jackson's decision to show Aragorn as the "reluctant hero" of the movies. In the books Aragorn is steadfast and sure of what he has to do, and that is become the King of Gondor. Where, in the movies, Jackson fits Aragorn into the "unwilling hero" archetype that a trademark of the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

However, while discussing actually about Faramir, I got to thinking about Aragorn. Someone had mentioned that he likes Faramir's character better than Aragorn's (in the books), because Faramir is more human. Faramir doesn't struggle with the Ring, but he does struggle with what is his duty to Gondor now that Boromir is dead? Faramir doesn't necessarily want to "please daddy," but he struggles with now feeling as if he has to live up to Boromir's expectations. Where Aragorn just seems all too perfect and sure of himself.

I pointed out that although Aragorn, is as Bethberry, describes the ethical, always seems to be right person, he does have his own struggles. Aragorn does go through his own tough times, they just aren't as "severe" as Boromir's or Faramir's. For instance, after Boromir's death, and the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn sincerely starts doubting himself as a leader, and doubts the trust that Gandalf had in him. And while Aragorn always knew he had to become the King of Gondor, he was never sure of the proper time. He originally joined the Fellowship to leave with Boromir for Gondor. Aragorn thought (at that time) it was the right time for him to claim the throne. However, Gandalf's death changes the situation. Should Aragorn keep his promise to Boromir, or to Frodo?

So, Aragorn does seem more perfect than the other characters in Tolkien's story, but he does have his own "low points." After that someone else brought up a very important point to keep in mind. In the books Aragorn is 88, he's already matured, grown, tested, where Faramir and Boromir are still relatively young trying to figure out their own paths. Aragorn had served Ecthelion in Gondor, served Thengel in Rohan, been raised by Elrond and I bet you on more than a few occasions he went to Elladan and Elrohir saying "Let's hunt some Orcs" :p.

My point is in the books, Aragorn's history is revealed to us, and we see he is already a grown, experienced, and matured characters. That's when something else hit me I hadn't thought about before. The movies don't have this luxury of "time" that Tolkien did. They don't have the luxury of explaining (or showing) Aragorn's "past," his moments when he was younger serving Ecthelion, or growing up with Elrond and his sons. Book Aragorn had already gone through the maturation process, and hence why he is more "sure" (or if you prefer perfect) of himself than the younger characters like Boromir or Faramir. The movies don't have this luxury, so Jackson places Aragorn into the "reluctant hero" archetype. Thus, the audience is able to see Aragorn's transformation on screen, from the unwilling hero, to the man who knows (and accepts) his destiny.

I also might add that it was a very convincing change. Sometimes when Jackson wanted to make the characters go through a change it didn't make sense. Example, Theoden, throughout TTT and most of ROTK, Theoden was in an "I hate Gondor" mode. "What has Gondor ever done for me, why should I help them?" Aragorn comes running in to alert Theoden about the beacons, and all of a suddenly Theoden decides to go ride to Gondor's aid. That made absolutely no sense. However, Aragorn's change is a convincing one, most likely because Jackson had three movies to show it and if he couldn't show a character develop and change in three movies he should give up directing.

[Bêthberry]

In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there.

It certainly does.


I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.



Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ;) ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

In addition when you deal with 11 hours of screen type and a central character who appears in much of that time, Jackson felt it necessary to create an arc for that character, to show growth, development, denial, acceptance and resolution over the films. That was deemed to be more interesting that the static character who is the same in the first hour of film as he is in the eleventh final hour of the film.

[MatthewM]

Ok...let's continue a bit. I don't think I will finish in this post, but I'll get some more out there.

So far, I have to say that I understand where Boro88 is coming from. I never thought of those points. I'm sure that Aragorn had his immature moments in his past. But by the time of the story, he is 87. That's plenty of time to mature, and time that PJ could not film. So although I don't know how I feel about the reluctant Aragorn, I do understand the reasoning here.

Gordis- I, personally, do not have a real problem with Frodo's age in the films. That's kind of why I put "Let's get it over with..." I think Wood did a nice job with Frodo, except of course when PJ made Frodo do things that were clearly not book Frodo. I just mentioned the age thing because I know it's a hot topic and I know that many, many fans hate how young Wood was.

Ok, let's continue a bit.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.
* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.

No more time right now, will continue asap.

[Boromir88]

StW, while I agree with the view that Aragorn is one of the most righteous, just, and ethical characters of the story, I disagree that he was absolutely pure, moral, good...however you want to put it. There is a little Aragorn quote regarding the capture of Gollum and moving him to Mirkwood, where Aragorn wasn't all that gentle with him. Also, I find his arrival in Rohan, where he demands his will should trump the will of Theoden, in Theoden's own hall to sound rather power-hungry and over the top. Why else would Gandalf restrain Aragorn from asserting his "power?"

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:
"I am called Strider," answered Aragorn. "I came out of the North. I am hunting orcs."~The Riders of Rohan

[Lush]

Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ;) ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

Although I know and embrace my reputation as this forum's resident finger-licking fangirl, that's not at all what I meant. I was commenting on his range. Both in terms of the acting and in terms of what it reflects of wisdom, maturity, sensitivity and, above all else, his destiny as King.

[Morwen]

* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.



I suppose that these were things that got left out due to time constraints which I understand. But it would have been nice to see some aspect of "Conspiracy Unmasked" in the films, to underline the friendship that prompted Merry and Pippin to accompany Frodo rather than the "silly hobbits accidentally fall into adventure" scene.

[Groin Redbeard]

None other, to my knowledge, grates so badly on my nerves - not even the Legolas ones that people rant so much about.
Never, Legolas' lines are a thousand times worse! In fact, Orlando Bloom's depiction of Legolas has even furthered my dislike of elves. He plays Legolas in a very cocky and sort of arragant way.

[Quempel]

My view of Orlando and his Legolas is that of Plank from Ed, Edd and Eddy. The entire protrayal of Legolas is :rolleyes: :( And the continual drooling by the fangurls :rolleyes: One thing about Legolas that really ruined it for me was his lack of emotion at all, I blame Mr. Bloom for this, since he has of yet been able to prove he nothing more than a pretty face that couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.

[Bêthberry]

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.



It is true enough what you say about changing values and tastes in heroes. Yet, I would venture to say that it would not be impossible to present an ancient, traditional hero to today's contemporary audience. It would take but imagination, creativity, true subcreation of a genius film maker. At the risk of being accused of Bondage, I would say, 'never say never.' ;)

Perhaps as an aside, I would say too that Book-Aragorn is less a 19th century figure than one subcreated out of many earlier traditions of hero, Arthurian no less than Shakespearean and Old English. Arthur and Lancelot were flawed. Less so Galahad and Perceval. And there's been no diminishing in interest in Camelot in these rough modern times even with our Knights of Ni--who in fact were parodying modern misconceptions of medieval times.

So I would say not that Book-Aragorn could not be depicted in these cynical times but that Aragorn presents aspects of Tolkien's Middle-earth and Legendarium that could not be accomodated in the hands of PJ et al with the adventure flick concept which PJ wedded to Middle-earth.

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:

"I am called Strider," answered Aragorn. "I came out of the North. I am hunting orcs."~The Riders of Rohan


I've been waiting for someone to bring that up and am much obliged to you, Boro88 for doing so. Clearly, that quotation is PJ's justification for moving the 'hunting orcs' line to the death of Boromir scene.

Yet, yet, I would argue that the two scenes are quite different and require a langauge, command and composure from Aragorn. Aragorn's audiences--Eomer and his Rohirrim Riders versus Gimli and Lego--are different and so his purpose differs as well.

Upon the death of Boromir and the loss of the Ringbearer and Sam, and the kidnapping of the two spare hobbits, Aragorn speaks with the remaining members of the Fellowship. This is not a mano e mano situation, but one where all combatants know each other. Aragorn's monologue hints of those moments in LotR where there seems to be a hidden guiding hand, such as at last comes free in its final exquisite play with Gollem's final desperate leap to claim the Ring.

The Riders of Rohan scene is mightily different, for here our intrepid little band of threeship come point to spear point with the warrior tribe of LotR. And here it must be a mano e mano confrontation between Aragorn and Eomer and so here such crude short hand is appropriate. It is also Aragorn's way of appealing to what he hopes will be the honourable side of the Rohirrim, should they not yet have fallen into the fiefdom of Sauron. Here Aragorn dares to appropriate something of the battle tastes of the Rohirrim as a means of closing the distance between the circled horse riders and his three fellows, closing it without spear or bow.

So, because of this contextual difference, of the need for Aragorn to appeal to different audiences, I find it easy to understand, and would not question, why Tolkien put those words in Book-Aragorn's mouth at that time of first meeting Eomer. Not so easy to see the need for Movie-Aragorn , other than the usual complaint of condensing three books into three hour movies.

I suppose another way of saying this is that PJ must have decided that his target audience for the movies were contemporary versions of Rohirrim. ;)

Dearie, Darling Lush, it is, after all is said and done, a weak reader who reads only with personal touchstones. We all do it, and reading would be much the poorer without it, yet alone is is a prison house of language. It alone, all else is solipcism. :)

[Eönwë]

Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.

The thing is, I didn't notice this until the third time I watched it (but then, the first two times I hadn't read the book, so...). It really gives you sense of the differcence, especially when you see Boromir barreling through (though I'm not sure I like that, but the contrast is good).

[Macalaure]

Nice thread there. :) Much of what I would comment has already been said, but here are a few more or less random things from me.

I think that one of the worst changes was the omission of the "Conspiracy unmasked" part. They wouldn't necessarily have to do the entire Crickhollow side plot, but had they only filmed the most basic essentials of it in a few minutes, it would have given Merry and Pippin a lot more depth - not to mention a more decent introduction.

I think the scenes in Bree are the only ones where Mortensen is really a good fit for Aragorn. I keep thinking that PJ had this introduction more in mind than the later story when he casted him. Mortensen makes a good Strider, but not a good Elessar.

The ranger sword has been mentioned - note that Strider is also given bow and arrow in the movie. I think this was a good deviation.

One change I liked was the introduction of Elvish lines. I know that half of the words and grammar was probably made up, but the sound was at one level with Tolkien's own. When used in conversation it sometimes seems a little forced, but I really liked it in the scenes with Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen and Saruman at the top of Orthanc conjuring the wrath of Caradhras (whether those scenes themselves were good or made sense is another thing). It's a pity that many original Elvish lines were omitted. It's no surprise Namarie didn't make the cut, but a little A Elbereth and a glimpse of the Hall of Fire would have been nice.

The Breaking of the Fellowship - the way it's been done is ok, but here it could really have been better had they stuck to the original text more. The dialogue between Frodo and Boromir is one of the best of the entire LotR. They surely could have saved a few minutes of screen time for it.

[Lush]

it is, after all is said and done, a weak reader who reads only with personal touchstones.

Beth, I wouldn't attempt to characterize anyone's relationship to the literary work based on this discussion. As I've stated upthread, I don't believe the thinking woman's Aragorn and the fighting woman's Aragorn to be in conflict with one another. I think it's a false dichotomy, whether it's applied to Aragorn, or something or someone else. And I read the mix of tears and cheerfulness at the breaking of the Fellowship scene very differently than you do. If you think that Viggo Mortensen's "designer stubble" has warped my mind, you are free to do so. But I think it takes away from the conversation.

Mortensen makes a good Strider, but not a good Elessar.

That's something that I've always thought as well, Macalaure, though I don't limit his good scenes to Bree. I even think he's good for most of TTT. Then RotK happened, and I sat there wondering if the pod people had kidnapped the character. I could go on and on about my theories on this, but they're all boring.

[Boromir88]

Well, Bb, I knew that you knew that quote (and you probably knew, that I knew, that you already knew that quote), so here's my rebuttal.

'Let me think!' said Aragorn. 'And now may I make a right choice, and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!' He stood silent for a moment. 'I will follow the Orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I see him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played it part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. Come! We will go now. Leave all that can be spared behind! We will press on by day and dark!'
Aragorn delivers that same message in the movies, just not in monologue form. Remember after Legolas and Gimli find out Aragorn does not intend to follow Frodo and Sam, Aragorn says:

"Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands."

Gimli says something about the Fellowship failing and Aragorn replies: "Not if we hold true to eachother. We will not abandon Merry and Pippin to torment and death, not while we have strength left. Leave all that can be spared behind. We travel light. Let's hunt some Orc."

So, Aragorn virtually delivers the same message in the movies as he does in the book, just a shortened version of it, and Gimli's tiny interruption. And lookie how the chapter Departure of Boromir ends:

"Yes," said Aragorn, "we shall all need the endurance of Dwarves. But come! With hope or without hope we will follow the trail of our enemies. And woe to them, if we prove swifter! We will make such a chase as shall be accounted a marvel among the Three Kindreds: Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Forth the Three Hunters!"
There Aragorn goes on about hunting his enemies again, and he's with his two companions, not the macho Rohirrim. Jackson just decided to shorten that monologue pep talk down to "Let's hunt some Orc." :D Aragorn must be Tolkien's version of Hamlet, always wanting to hear himself talk. :rolleyes:

P.S. I happen to think Jonas Armstrong makes a very handsome yet ruggedly capable Robin Hood, by the way.

[Mithalwen]

Ah but like Aragorn, Hamlet is struggling to make a decision...

I think book Aragorn can be a bit of a prig *hope Fordim isn't around with his gauntlet* and despite not being particulary dark and tall, I liked Viggo Mortenson's performance very much - he was excellent at Bree and Weathertop. However I thought it was very wrong to have him kill the Mouth of Sauron.

You just don't kill emissaries - even if they are slimey creeps who are extracting the Michael. It just seems craven and unworthy of the rightful leader of the free world.

[Lalaith]

The Good: The lovely music. The splendid scenery, both real and CGI. The battles.


The Bad:
Mainly this.
Tolkien: "Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is of another sort, proud and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power."

Jackson: "Theoden is a bitter old man with a massive chip on his shoulder. Denethor is of another sort, drunk and deranged, a man of far greater propensity to poor table manners and pyromania."

[Groin Redbeard]

I've noticed that nobody has mentioned Gimli. I liked what PJ did with making Gimli tough, but it seems as if PJ has left out the loyalty and couragous side of Gimli, and has replaced that with comical relief. He also down plays the bond that Legolas and Gimli had. In the Return of the King I got so mad that PJ didn't make Gimli's and Legolas' final words more touching, instead it was right out of the blue.

Legolas: We're gonna die! Do you want to be friends, Gimli

Gimli: Sure, why not?

[MatthewM]

Added to the GOOD List:

- The Music

Lalaith, indeed! I completely forgot to mention the music. The music has to be one of the best parts of the films.




The Breaking of the Fellowship - the way it's been done is ok, but here it could really have been better had they stuck to the original text more. The dialogue between Frodo and Boromir is one of the best of the entire LotR. They surely could have saved a few minutes of screen time for it.

I agree. I actually must recant what I said about this scene, I actually think it should be under the "BAD" category. Boromir's words with Frodo should have been much longer and closer to the text. Bean was good in the scene, but again he is not my Boromir.

Boro88, nice points. I agree, and I agree with Lush as well. Beth, it seems to me that you are becoming a little rude to Lush and others, kind of segregating those who like the line and those who don't with "fangirls/boys" or whatever. I see nothing wrong with the line and I think if people like it, they like it...

Groin- I agree about Gimli, he was too much comic relief. I'll get to Gimli on the BAD list next update.

[Macalaure]

I agree. I actually must recant what I said about this scene, I actually think it should be under the "BAD" category. Boromir's words with Frodo should have been much longer and closer to the text. Bean was good in the scene, but again he is not my Boromir.I wouldn't put it into The Bad category, it's simply not bad enough compared to the company it would have there (like the drinking game! :eek:). Maybe we need a, probably huge, Could Be Better category. ;)

[Boromir88]

However I thought it was very wrong to have him kill the Mouth of Sauron.~Mith
Oh definitely, that was completely inexcusable in my opinion. I can't even chalk this one up to "trying to reach a more modern audience" defense, or the "modern audience wouldn't understand the era Tolkien was writing in" defense.

There are many many current movies where the evil, bad ambassador is granted parley, and even though you know the guy is as rotten as his teeth usually is, are granted parley. Look at Troy, Gladiator, King Arthur, Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven all these movies have "Rules of War" and treating with the enemies' ambassador/leader. I saw Prince Caspian about a week ago (absolutely loved it by the way!) and the evil Telmarine King dude is treated with dignity and respect when he is bartering a deal with the good King Edmund. So, I don't by the "modern audience won't understand" excuse for this one. Beheading the MoS is just inexcusable.

Sometimes it seems like Jackson thought we viewers were stupid and wouldn't "understand," so he had to dumb it down. That's possibly the most aggravating thing about the movies. What is it that the dwarf says in Narnia "You start treating animals like they're dumb and they become dumb?"

Lalaith, which is why when Theoden perks up and is all gun-ho about aiding Gondor, it doesn't make any sense. Quite literally 10 minutes ago Theoden was going on about how he would never help Gondor because what had Gondor done for him!

Gimli definitely seems to be one of the characters that takes a back seat to the talk about what characters were "ruined." Certainly he doesn't get as much mentioning as Faramir. I actually tend to forget about Gimli because I thought his portrayal in FOTR was pretty good. He was used for comic relief, and in Moria I admit that "no one tosses a dwarf" thing was pretty funny, but the 2nd and 3rd time it got old. Anyway, in FOTR Gimli had some comic relief but I don't think he ever lost his dignity. By TTT and ROTK that's changed and Jackson took the comic relief thing way too far with Gimli.

[Bêthberry]

Well, Bb, I knew that you knew that quote (and you probably knew, that I knew, that you already knew that quote).

Who's on first? ;)


Aragorn delivers that same message in the movies, just not in monologue form.

See, for some of us (well, maybe just speaking of myself, and not using the royal we) poetically speaking, "the same message" involves all of the ways that a message can aspire to meaning. So, if certain aspects are changed, then the message changes. Notice that Forth the Three Hunters lacks a direct object. Sometimes even the omission of a few small words can change nuance. And in writing such as Tolkien achieves, nuance is valuable, no?


Aragorn must be Tolkien's version of Hamlet, always wanting to hear himself talk.

What Mithalwen said. The allusion to Hamlet is significant for the character development of Aragorn and to omit it by shortening the monologue is to take away from Aragorn's character rather than to enrich it. JMHO.


P.S. I happen to think Jonas Armstrong makes a very handsome yet ruggedly capable Robin Hood, by the way.

And I absolutely promise not to make any cracks, wise or otherwise, about closets and leaving them, lest I be once again accused of crossing lines or taking away from the conversation. :D

[MatthewM]

I wouldn't put it into The Bad category, it's simply not bad enough compared to the company it would have there (like the drinking game! :eek:). Maybe we need a, probably huge, Could Be Better category. ;)

Perhaps you're right - maybe "Bad" is a stretch. Just ...not as good as it could have been, although good. If that makes sense.

[MatthewM]

There are many many current movies where the evil, bad ambassador is granted parley, and even though you know the guy is as rotten as his teeth usually is, are granted parley. Look at Troy, Gladiator, King Arthur, Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven all these movies have "Rules of War" and treating with the enemies' ambassador/leader. I saw Prince Caspian about a week ago (absolutely loved it by the way!) and the evil Telmarine King dude is treated with dignity and respect when he is bartering a deal with the good King Edmund. So, I don't by the "modern audience won't understand" excuse for this one. Beheading the MoS is just inexcusable.


Haven't you seen 300?!?! "THIS IS SPARTA!"

But seriously, I think it was wrong as well.

[MatthewM]

Before I continue the Bad list, I must add some things to the Good. In bold are the recently added, and so far the full list...

THE GOOD (Changes, also those scenes which stuck nicely with the book)

* The Prologue. Nicely done, although the geography itself poses a problem for a later scene.
* Gandalf's entrance. McKellen as Gandalf was a great choice. Although some don't care for Frodo's entrance, I think that it worked nicely with Gandalf's, and gives the viewers a decent introduction to the two main characters.
* Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
* A Long Expected Party
* The Hobbits. They look like Hobbits should and would look.
* In the EE, we see the flight of the Wood Elves. I love this scene. A great nod to the meeting the Hobbits had with them.
* The Wizard Fight. This is one of the changes PJ made that I actually like, and I think it fits very nicely within Tolkien's world.
* The Nazgul. In my opinion, PJ succeeds in making you feel fear when the Black Riders approach.
* The Prancing Pony. Although I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo's magnetic finger trick, the P.P. scene is definitely kosher with Tolkien. The whole medieval feel of the inn completely does it for me here. Great lighting and everything. A nice nod at the book when you see Bill Ferny and his goons glaring at the Hobbits.
* Aragorn. Good entrance, and although nowadays Viggo would not have been my first choice, I think he pulled the role off nicely.
* The Ranger sword. This was recently debated in a topic here, but I don't see any harm in giving Strider a sword that is actually functional compared with a sword that is broken.
* The Three Trolls. Gives us book fans comfort and joy!
* Scene at the Ford. I have mixed feeling about the actual Flight to the Ford, including Arwen's appearance, but I don't think that it was necessarily bad. It wasn't good, though. I liked the water horses in the actual Ford.
* Many Meetings. You have to like the golden calm of Rivendell...beautiful.
* Arwen and Elrond. Looking good.
* (Strictly appearance wise) Legolas and Gimli fit the part. Bean as Boromir did not, and we will get to that later. I get touchy on this subject! We are talking strictly appearance right now.
* Aragorn and Arwen in the blue twilight. I think this is a great scene, and it plants those important seeds that need to be sown in order to show the people the relationship of A & A. Not to mention, great lighting in this scene. Love the blue.
* "I will take it! Though I do not know the way." I love the way Frodo delivers these lines. It makes for a powerful moment indeed.
* The Ring Goes South. I will get to the bad changes made here, but there are some good elements here which stuck to Tolkien, such as the scenery. I like the choice for Hollin.
* Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.
* "Knock your head against these doors Peregrin Took...!" I like how they added this (I think it's in the EE) because it shows Gandalf's short temper, especially when it comes to Pip.
* Boromir and Aragorn attempting to slay the Watcher...shows their bravery, rather than just Sam's (as in the book).
* Moria. Was done very well. Of course, as with every part of the story, could have been elaborated more, but looking at what we were given - pretty good. I was glad to see Pippin's folly, although I don't understand why he couldn't have just actually thrown a stone instead of a whole skeleton.
* Pippin putting the final blow into the cave troll. A nice nod to Pippin's grand deed of slaying a troll during the Battle at the Black Gate.
* Gandalf's fall. Nice.
* The scenery of Lothlorien.
* Galadriel. I think Cate was a wise choice. I don't know if it's just me, but after seeing Cate as Galadriel she (Cate) is wayyyy hotter.
* The Mirror of Galadriel. Done well, along with G's temptation.
* The gift scene was nice, although I think it complete rubbish that they didn't show Boromir get his gift of a golden belt.
* The Great River and the Argonaths. Could have elaborated much more, though.
* The Breaking of the Fellowship. The attempt to take the Ring, although I would have done things differently, was nicely done.
* Boromir's death scene. Again, I would have done it a bit differently, but it was done well. It showed Boromir's valiant and heroic nature as he attempted to save M & P.
* The Departure of Boromir. I'm glad they showed his funeral boat going down the Falls of Rauros.
* Aragorn slaying Lurtz. You have to admit, it feels great when he beheads him.
* Frodo and Sam. Done well, especially Frodo thinking of Gandalf's words.
* "Let's hunt some orc." Delivered nicely by Viggo and set up for an optimistic future.

THE BAD (continued)

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.
* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* Appearance wise: Boromir does not fit. He was dark-haired, first of all, not light brown haired. He most likely didn't have a beard, seeing as how he was only 40 (not even half of his Numenorean life-span, Faramir lived to be around 118, and both were of "High Numenorean lineage"). He wore a stone around his neck. He did not openly wear chain-mail. And he carried a long sword, not a broad sword. His horn was tipped with silver, not gold. PJ's Boromir doesn't fit the description. People like Bean's Boromir, but I am not a huge fan. Character wise, I don't think PJ did that great. I think book Boromir was much nobler. But I'm not getting into that again. I'm sure a similiar argument could be had with PJ's Aragorn.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.
* Gandalf being reluctant to go into the Mines. Although I personally think it works better, why did it need to be changed? Aragorn's the one who warned against the Mines, Gandalf wanted to go under from the onset. One of the least bothersome changes, in my opinion.
* Caradhras. While hiking up the mountain, Frodo falls for some reason, tumbles, and in the process the Ring comes off his neck. Then PJ does something that makes no sense to me. He has Boromir pick up the Ring, and although I love the nod to the book (when PJ takes a line from Boromir's speech before he trys to take the Ring) in Bean's "it is a strange fate...", having Boromir pick up the Ring just does not make sense. Firstly, wouldn't technically then he be considered one of the Ring-bearers, regardless of how long he held it? He still held it. Secondly, again PJ is making Boromir look like a bad guy, having the good guy Aragorn almost strike Boromir with his sword. I just don't like this scene...and I know what people in defense would say. "They had to build up Boromir's temptation of the Ring" but come on now, I just don't buy that. Boromir wasn't seriously tempted until Lothlorien.
* Saruman being responsible for having the snow come crashing down onto the Fellowship. Takes away the raw power and mysticism that is Caradhras.
* Balin's Tomb. Not in full - for I like a lot of this battle, especially the moments building up to it, and when the Hobbits scream and go into battle. However, Gimli stands on Balin's grave - that's just not right. And, in the EE, the troll whipping Boromir around unconscious is pretty silly.
* Lothlorien. The Company should have been blindfolded. Definitely could have stuck to the story. Gollum could have made another appearance. Orcs could have been shown getting slayed by ranged elven archers.
* The Mirror. Sam could have been there, but I won't argue much with this one. It was important to get Frodo there, but not really Sam.
* Galadriel's Gifts (EE). Why the heck doesn't PJ film Boromir receiving his gift? Why in the world would he not include that? Especially because the scene was an extended so he didn't have to worry about time, plus the fact it would have taken about 10 seconds. Boromir should have received his golden belt on film. There's no logical reason for not showing it.
* I would have liked to hear some debate about whether or not the Company would go through Fangorn. I would have liked to see more debate before The Great River.
* No Orcs shooting arrows at the Company. No Legolas shooting down the Winged Beast. Like I mentioned, it's nice because I love these scenes so much so I'm glad in a way they were not filmed, but it would have been cool.
* Tol Brandir was not really explained. I don't recall them explaining how it was that Frodo saw what he saw, being on the Seat of Seeing.
* Frodo should have announced he was going off. The guy just wanders away without telling anyone? Would the ring bearer really do that? Come on.
* Boromir's speech to Frodo before he trys and takes the Ring is almost wholly absent. This is very upsetting as this is one of the best parts in the book. The scene is rather rushed.
* Boromir was pierced by numerous arrows, not just three.




That may be it. However, if I think of more they will surely be added.

[Eönwë]

There are many many current movies where the evil, bad ambassador is granted parley, and even though you know the guy is as rotten as his teeth usually is, are granted parley. Look at Troy, Gladiator, King Arthur, Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven all these movies have "Rules of War" and treating with the enemies' ambassador/leader. I saw Prince Caspian about a week ago (absolutely loved it by the way!) and the evil Telmarine King dude is treated with dignity and respect when he is bartering a deal with the good King Edmund. So, I don't by the "modern audience won't understand" excuse for this one. Beheading the MoS is just inexcusable.
Haven't you seen 300?!?! "THIS IS SPARTA!"

I was going to say, that. But even though 300 has next to no plotline compared to LOTR, even there it was treated as shocking. I mean, look at the messenger's last words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmOH5f1J1Uc): "NO man threatens a messenger. This is blasphemy! This is madness!" Anyway, there it had no story and was done for visual effect. In LOTR EE he kills him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KjVbHO9c)it so casually (but then If we're talking about ROTK I have quite a few complaints there).


And also MatthewM, I don't know if thiss has been said before, but I like the way Gandalf speaks the Black Speech in Rivendell.

[Macalaure]

What should be added to The Bad, I think, are the Stairs of Khazad-dûm, a completely unnecessary scene featuring a defiance of the laws of physics and, on top of that, the first attempted Dwarf tossing. It does create some tension, but one has to wonder whether a Balrog(!) alone wouldn't have sufficed for this purpose.

Talking of the Balrog, I would add him to The Good. He did not look the way he was supposed to, but the way he was presented was rather effective.

[MatthewM]

And also MatthewM, I don't know if thiss has been said before, but I like the way Gandalf speaks the Black Speech in Rivendell.

Yes, that's on the list under the Good category. I agree!

Mac- I agree, the Balrog should make the Good list.

[Mithalwen]

I can say whole heartedly that I loved just about all the costumes, sets and props. These I felt were designed by people who loved the book deeply. I went to see the exhibition when it came to the Science Museum in London and it was just fabulous - particularly Galadriel's dress and Boromir's funeral boat. I would have liked Lothlorien to be a bit more golden and less trippy but ..I would have liked more Lorien and less cave troll ....

[Eönwë]

I can say whole heartedly that I loved just about all the costumes, sets and props. These I felt were designed by people who loved the book deeply. I went to see the exhibition when it came to the Science Museum in London and it was just fabulous - particularly Galadriel's dress and Boromir's funeral boat.

Oh yes, the costumes. Amazing.

[ArathornJax]

since we are discussing a film adaptation I think we have to say that Howard Shore's score has to goo in the Good.

[MatthewM]

since we are discussing a film adaptation I think we have to say that Howard Shore's score has to goo in the Good.

We have said this, I just forgot to add it to the long list, for this is one of the greatest things about the films- here is the updated list!

THE GOOD (Changes, also those scenes which stuck nicely with the book)

* The Music by Howard Shore.
* The Prologue. Nicely done, although the geography itself poses a problem for a later scene.
* Gandalf's entrance. McKellen as Gandalf was a great choice. Although some don't care for Frodo's entrance, I think that it worked nicely with Gandalf's, and gives the viewers a decent introduction to the two main characters.
* Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
* A Long Expected Party
* The Hobbits. They look like Hobbits should and would look.
* In the EE, we see the flight of the Wood Elves. I love this scene. A great nod to the meeting the Hobbits had with them.
* The Wizard Fight. This is one of the changes PJ made that I actually like, and I think it fits very nicely within Tolkien's world.
* The Nazgul. In my opinion, PJ succeeds in making you feel fear when the Black Riders approach.
* The Prancing Pony. Although I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo's magnetic finger trick, the P.P. scene is definitely kosher with Tolkien. The whole medieval feel of the inn completely does it for me here. Great lighting and everything. A nice nod at the book when you see Bill Ferny and his goons glaring at the Hobbits.
* Aragorn. Good entrance, and although nowadays Viggo would not have been my first choice, I think he pulled the role off nicely.
* The Ranger sword. This was recently debated in a topic here, but I don't see any harm in giving Strider a sword that is actually functional compared with a sword that is broken.
* The Three Trolls. Gives us book fans comfort and joy!
* Scene at the Ford. I have mixed feeling about the actual Flight to the Ford, including Arwen's appearance, but I don't think that it was necessarily bad. It wasn't good, though. I liked the water horses in the actual Ford.
* Many Meetings. You have to like the golden calm of Rivendell...beautiful.
* Arwen and Elrond. Looking good.
* (Strictly appearance wise) Legolas and Gimli fit the part. Bean as Boromir did not, and we will get to that later. I get touchy on this subject! We are talking strictly appearance right now.
* Aragorn and Arwen in the blue twilight. I think this is a great scene, and it plants those important seeds that need to be sown in order to show the people the relationship of A & A. Not to mention, great lighting in this scene. Love the blue.
* "I will take it! Though I do not know the way." I love the way Frodo delivers these lines. It makes for a powerful moment indeed.
* The Ring Goes South. I will get to the bad changes made here, but there are some good elements here which stuck to Tolkien, such as the scenery. I like the choice for Hollin.
* Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.
* "Knock your head against these doors Peregrin Took...!" I like how they added this (I think it's in the EE) because it shows Gandalf's short temper, especially when it comes to Pip.
* Boromir and Aragorn attempting to slay the Watcher...shows their bravery, rather than just Sam's (as in the book).
* Moria. Was done very well. Of course, as with every part of the story, could have been elaborated more, but looking at what we were given - pretty good. I was glad to see Pippin's folly, although I don't understand why he couldn't have just actually thrown a stone instead of a whole skeleton.
* Pippin putting the final blow into the cave troll. A nice nod to Pippin's grand deed of slaying a troll during the Battle at the Black Gate.
* Gandalf's fall. Nice.
* The scenery of Lothlorien.
* Galadriel. I think Cate was a wise choice. I don't know if it's just me, but after seeing Cate as Galadriel she (Cate) is wayyyy hotter.
* The Mirror of Galadriel. Done well, along with G's temptation.
* The gift scene was nice, although I think it complete rubbish that they didn't show Boromir get his gift of a golden belt.
* The Great River and the Argonaths. Could have elaborated much more, though.
* The Breaking of the Fellowship. The attempt to take the Ring, although I would have done things differently, was nicely done.
* Boromir's death scene. Again, I would have done it a bit differently, but it was done well. It showed Boromir's valiant and heroic nature as he attempted to save M & P.
* The Departure of Boromir. I'm glad they showed his funeral boat going down the Falls of Rauros.
* Aragorn slaying Lurtz. You have to admit, it feels great when he beheads him.
* Frodo and Sam. Done well, especially Frodo thinking of Gandalf's words.
* "Let's hunt some orc." Delivered nicely by Viggo and set up for an optimistic future.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding the physical appearance of Boromir ...... It really matters little if an actors hair color does not quite match... brown or black ... or if a beard is there or not ... or a silver tipped horn or gold ..... unless of course that is a crucial detail that the film hinges on and none of those things did in FOTR.

I notice that last night the American Film Institute named FOTR the #2 Best Fantasy film of all time edged out by WIZARD OF OZ. They made a huge change in that film that completely angered book Oz fans when they changed the color of the silver slippers to ruby slippers simply to show off the visual wonders of the new Technicolor process against the yellow brick road. Now there was something crucial and important but it worked beautifully on screen.

The main thing with Boromir is that the character came of much more likable on screen that he did in the book and for film viewers that is very much a positive asset.

As far as the Moria stairs go ........ I loved them. Great set design and it gave an opportunity for some interesting heroics. That entire Moria sequence is still one of my favorite stretches in all three films and the stairs play a big visual part in that.

[Macalaure]

I have to agree with StW here, if we only judge which changes were good and/or worked and which didn't, then the change of Boromir's appearance indeed affected the film neither positively or negatively (at least he wore pants ;)). I believe the only reason for this change was to have even little children - and teens and adults with the attention span of little children - be able to distinguish Boromir and Aragorn.

I hate to say it, but making Boromir more likeable and identifiable with was probably a change to the better. Personally, I would have very much preferred Boromir as he should be.

The stairs scene on the other hand, yes, it was exciting to watch, but it made no sense - and not only once you start thinking about it afterwards, but right away when you watch it for the first time. And it took screen time away from things that would have made sense, Gandalf's early confrontation with the balrog along with the destruction of the Chamber of Mazarbul, for example.

[MatthewM]

Regarding the physical appearance of Boromir ...... It really matters little if an actors hair color does not quite match... brown or black ... or if a beard is there or not ... or a silver tipped horn or gold ..... unless of course that is a crucial detail that the film hinges on and none of those things did in FOTR.


I disagree. I think that if Tolkien gave one of the most detailed descriptions of a character we get in FotR, PJ should have adhered to them. There's no reason why he shouldn't have. The whole distinguishing thing is rubbish, in my opinion, and I've heard that was his reasoning. When I see PJ's Boromir, I don't see Book Boromir. They are totally different in my opinion, appearance wise and personality wise, but I don't want to get into that. My point is, with a character like Pippin, for example, I can honestly say I am pleased with PJ's Pip and I think PJ did a great job with translating Pippin from book to movie. He's a believable translation. PJ's Boromir on the other hand...eh.

I really don't want to get into a whirlwind of arguments over this again...so to save all of that, let's just agree to disagree!

[Sauron the White]

Matthew - perhaps one reason for your strong opinion is that Boromir is your favorite character from the book. We tend to feel more strongly about what is closer to our hearts. You praise the Pippin in the movie but that is something you do not feel asstrongly about as you did Boromir. Changes in the depiction of the character from page to screen would most likely not impact you as hard as Boromir.

When I see PJ's Boromir, I don't see Book Boromir. They are totally different in my opinion, appearance wise and personality wise, but I don't want to get into that.

People do not like it when I say this, but its true just the same - the reason you do not see Book Boromir in the movies is because its the movie and not the book. I do not mean that in a wiseguy sort of way - its just the simple reality that a book and a movie are two different things with two different masters to serve.

Lets face it - the Dorothy Gale in the book WIZARD OF OZ was clearly not the same character in the movie. The character of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was not the one his own brother knew from real life. They were not meant to be. They were characters which worked on the screen within the world they inhabited on the silver screen. The characters in the book- regardless if real or imaginary - do not have to have all the same qualities, characteristics, and components of what works in a book.

[Bêthberry]

People do not like it when I say this, but its true just the same - the reason you do not see Book Boromir in the movies is because its the movie and not the book. I do not mean that in a wiseguy sort of way - its just the simple reality that a book and a movie are two different things with two different masters to serve.

Lets face it - the Dorothy Gale in the book WIZARD OF OZ was clearly not the same character in the movie. The character of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was not the one his own brother knew from real life. They were not meant to be. They were characters which worked on the screen within the world they inhabited on the silver screen. The characters in the book- regardless if real or imaginary - do not have to have all the same qualities, characteristics, and components of what works in a book.

I think many Downers recognise that a comparison of apples and oranges has its problems, StW, and many of us here grant that a different medium will necessitate changes. However, surely there is more going on than merely this.

Why would Tolkien not make Boromir as glamorous as Aragorn? Why did PJ sex Boromir up? One hypothesis is that the two men had different visions of hero, adventure, moral failing.

Tolkien had a particular aesthetic about beauty. I think there's a letter where he even discusses the nature of beauty and evil and that in certain aesthetics, the two are never mixed. (I could be wrong about this, been awhile.) His beautiful characters (in LotR) are those who are not perfect but who are morally correct. Book Boromir is a character who has a clear moral failing--his pride, his ambition (for Gondor as well as for himself), his hubris. This is not to deny that he wins redemption. He clearly does. Nor is this to say he is a villain. Tolkien is too subtle for that.

Yet the subtly of Tolkien's vision is such that he does not want his readers to find those who clearly do have a moral failing too attractive. This is in sharp contrast to modern tastes, where beauty can be very twisted and where moral culpability tends to glamorised and treated with great compassion.

PJ glamorised Movie Boromir because that is the way of blockbusters and Hollywood. But I doubt Tolkien would have wanted Boromir to be glamorised. He would want readers to feel pity for Boromir, but not to be infatuated with him. he would have found Boro fangirls midguided if not ludicrous.

This is a question of the ethos of Middle-earth. PJ accomplished many things in translating LotR to the silver screen, but as he mixed Middle-earth with Star Wars he lost certain aspects of Tolkien's ethos. The question is, did he need to do that? And it is more than just the difference between apples and oranges.

So, would this hypothesis account for the differences between Book Boro and Movie Boro, more than simply the book/movie dichotomy?

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

PJ glamorised Movie Boromir because that is the way of blockbusters and Hollywood. But I doubt Tolkien would have wanted Boromir to be glamorised.

You bring up many good points about JRRT and his writings. I cannot take issue with them. I do think that the statement of yours that I printed above, is an oversimplification of things and the usual demonization of the Hollywood film industry.

First, the LOTR films were not a creation of Hollywood and were different in many ways from the traditional fantasy blockbuster. They did not follow the usual thud and blunder script and were more subtle in many ways despite the battle scenes and action material aplenty.

Second, I do not think I would use the word "glamorised" to describe what Jackson did to Boromir as much as I would use the word "humanize" him. Over the past six years I have read many posts on several sites where people say the following in different ways:

"Boromir was not a very sympathetic or likable character in the books but I gained a btter appreciation of him from the movies".

Those are my words and I am trying to summarize what many have said. Jackson succeeded in making the character more likable and someone who you really cared about once he made the sacrifice for the hobbits and died. It meant more then because the audience actually cared about him and liked him.

[Bêthberry]

Second, I do not think I would use the word "glamorised" to describe what Jackson did to Boromir as much as I would use the word "humanize" him. Over the past six years I have read many posts on several sites where people say the following in different ways:

"Boromir was not a very sympathetic or likable character in the books but I gained a btter appreciation of him from the movies".

Those are my words and I am trying to summarize what many have said. Jackson succeeded in making the character more likable and someone who you really cared about once he made the sacrifice for the hobbits and died. It meant more then because the audience actually cared about him and liked him.

This is what I meant by glamorised. Perhaps you are right that humanised is a preferable word. Still, my point is that an aesthetic which requires viewers/readers to "care about and like" a character is not an aesthetic which Tolkien adheres to. Even moving Boromir's death to the end of FotR, rather than making it the start of TTT, is giving the character too much dramatic attention. The end of the Fellowship is what is significant, not Boromir's death, hence that is what concludes Book-FotR. And it is Boromir's pride and ambition that forces Frodo not only to flee, but to put on the Ring. It is the terrible power of Sauron and the Ring that should be dramatised, not the denouement of Boromir. In Tolkien's ethos.

However, this is getting away from the topic of the thread I suppose.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

Still, my point is that an aesthetic which requires viewers/readers to "care about and like" a character is not an aesthetic which Tolkien adheres to. Even moving Boromir's death to the end of FotR, rather than making it the start of TTT, is giving the character too much dramatic attention.

You are right about this and I cannot disagree one iota............. as long as we are talking about the book and what was right for JRRT in writing that book. Tolkien had every right to construct charactes to his own sensibilities, his own style and his own liking. And he produced the book he wanted to. That is great.

The movie is a different medium entirely and as such requires different treatment.
What works in a book may not work in a film. Boromir is one example. JRRT himself said the book was probably unfimlable - and maybe some of his character construction was one reason he felt this. Who knows for sure? Perhaps he recognized himself that a character such as book Boromir would never work as film Boromir.

The death of a major character is a big deal in films. As such, it is a hook to get the audience to buy in to the film. It is necessary to use the full vocalulary available to screenwriters and a director to make this happen.

In the end, the only true test is "did it work on screen". Or another way to put it is "did the audience buy into it?"

I think the success of the film showed that it did. Of course, each individual viewer has to make their own decision for themselves and the overall success of the film then means nothing to them. And that is as it should be.

[MatthewM]

Matthew - perhaps one reason for your strong opinion is that Boromir is your favorite character from the book. We tend to feel more strongly about what is closer to our hearts. You praise the Pippin in the movie but that is something you do not feel asstrongly about as you did Boromir. Changes in the depiction of the character from page to screen would most likely not impact you as hard as Boromir.

This is true, but I would like to add that I love Pippin and he is one of my favorite characters. So, he's close to my heart too. I don't really feel like they messed with his character and appearance as much as they did Boromir's.


Why would Tolkien not make Boromir as glamorous as Aragorn? Why did PJ sex Boromir up? One hypothesis is that the two men had different visions of hero, adventure, moral failing.


You're talking about appearance, right? Because in the book, Boromir is quite handsome and Aragorn is, although not ugly, not the best looking of the bunch. Boromir is described when we first meet him as having a "fair and noble face" whereas from the Hobbit's prospective Aragorn looked foul and felt fair when they first met him at Bree. I remember on a few occassions Tolkien cited Boromir as being good looking. I actually think, coming from a guy, Bean was a step back from that...(I know, all the Bean fan-girls/boys are going to get me for that one)

[Morthoron]

You're talking about appearance, right? Because in the book, Boromir is quite handsome and Aragorn is, although not ugly, not the best looking of the bunch. Boromir is described when we first meet him as having a "fair and noble face" whereas from the Hobbit's prospective Aragorn looked foul and felt fair when they first met him at Bree. I remember on a few occassions Tolkien cited Boromir as being good looking. I actually think, coming from a guy, Bean was a step back from that...(I know, all the Bean fan-girls/boys are going to get me for that one)

I think the slight altering of Boromir's character (his humanization, if you will) was the only success Boyens and Jackson had while meddling with Tolkien's original characterizations. Aragorn is weak and vacillating -- a friendless and morose loner who does not know what he wants. Faramir? My god, what a travesty for such a noble character (even David Wenham was upset when he read what they did to his character). Denethor? A crass nutjob with no redeeming values (not even table etiquette). Elrond? Sorry, I've never read anywhere that elves whine. I cringe everytime I hear him say 't-h-i-i-i-n'.

So, I would definitely put Boromir's characterization as a positive.

[Nerwen]

Just chiming in with MatthewM– what is all this about PJ "glamourising" Boromir's appearance?:confused: Really, I don't think Sean Bean's all that good-looking.

Also, I found the book version to be an interesting and quite sympathetic character... I guess it all comes down to people reacting differently.

That said, I'd certainly list Movie-Boromir as one of the positives. I don't find the fact that he looks different to be an issue at all.

[MatthewM]

Also, I found the book version to be an interesting and quite sympathetic character... I guess it all comes down to people reacting differently.


Thank you! I also think Book Boromir to be quite sympathetic and caring. It's all about how people read him, I suppose, but I definitely see a helping and caring Boromir in the book, and I know I'm quite out numbered here, but I don't like what Jackson did to Boromir's character and I don't think he "humanized" him because (in my opinion) book Boromir is already humanized. In fact, I would say Boromir is the most human out of all Tolkien's characters.

[Eönwë]

Tolkien had a particular aesthetic about beauty. I think there's a letter where he even discusses the nature of beauty and evil and that in certain aesthetics, the two are never mixed. (I could be wrong about this, been awhile.) His beautiful characters (in LotR) are those who are not perfect but who are morally correct. Book Boromir is a character who has a clear moral failing--his pride, his ambition (for Gondor as well as for himself), his hubris. This is not to deny that he wins redemption. He clearly does. Nor is this to say he is a villain. Tolkien is too subtle for that.

Yet the subtly of Tolkien's vision is such that he does not want his readers to find those who clearly do have a moral failing too attractive. This is in sharp contrast to modern tastes, where beauty can be very twisted and where moral culpability tends to glamorised and treated with great compassion.

What about the whole "fair and foul" thing?
Does that mean that Aragorn was not morally correct?

edit: woops. MatthewM already said that.

[Bêthberry]

You're talking about appearance, right? Because in the book, Boromir is quite handsome and Aragorn is, although not ugly, not the best looking of the bunch. Boromir is described when we first meet him as having a "fair and noble face" whereas from the Hobbit's prospective Aragorn looked foul and felt fair when they first met him at Bree. I remember on a few occassions Tolkien cited Boromir as being good looking. I actually think, coming from a guy, Bean was a step back from that...(I know, all the Bean fan-girls/boys are going to get me for that one)

MatthewM and Eönwë, by "beautiful" I meant "excellent of its kind", as in "a beautiful putt on the seventh hole", to quote Dictionary.com. This definition would include Aragorn even in his disguise as a Ranger, his appearance so different from Boromir's luxurious presence.

Yet we all read in our own way and there's that old adage from Keats about the eye of the beholder. For instance, while you are right that Book Boromir is described as "fair and noble of face", those are not the only words which describe him and I would consider the entire passagae.


And seated a little apart was a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance.

Those last two words are as important for my appreciation of Book Boromir as the first two you refer to, MatthewM. That word "proud" is often used in the Council of Elrond in reference to Boromir. He even uses it to refer to Numenor, so obviously he thinks pride is a good thing. Yet pride has traditionally been one of the worst of human failings. The list of the seven deadly sins is variable; pride is I think the only sin mentioned on most of the discussions. (I can just see the lightbulb going off in some minds, ready to create an internet quizz, "What's your sin? ;)) This mix is what makes, to me, Book Boromir an interesting character--not a character I sympathise with but clearly one who is complex. As we learn later, Boromir never had to prove himself as Aragon and Faramir have had to, so he has the arrogance and pride of one who simply and always assumes he is entitled. It's a common problem among first born heirs.


In the end, the only true test is "did it work on screen". Or another way to put it is "did the audience buy into it?"

I think the success of the film showed that it did.

yes, but that does not prove that any other manner of presentation would not have worked or that a film which shows more sensitivity towards Tolkien's ethos is not possible.

But then, PJ is allowed his own interpretation, as all directors are. His true folly, to me, was in his claims that the production was faithful to Tolkien, the implication that his films were a true and authentic depiction of Tolkien's Middle-earth. I don't think that David Lean claimed he was faithful to T.E. Lawrence (although Lawrence was given credit along with Bolt as a sceen writer, or at least is on that movie site whose acronym I can never remember).

If only he had admitted to textual poaching. :D ;)

So, I hope I've clarified what I meant earlier. RL demands mean I won't have time to reply further.

[MatthewM]

Yet we all read in our own way and there's that old adage from Keats about the eye of the beholder. For instance, while you are right that Book Boromir is described as "fair and noble of face", those are not the only words which describe him and I would consider the entire passagae.


Of course, but I only put the first part of the description in because I thought you were referring to looks, so being proud wouldn't apply to that. The way you wrote it made it sound like you were referring to appearance, which wouldn't be a correct assumption as Boromir was good looking.

[MatthewM]

Updated List for The Fellowship of the Ring - Some big ones came into my head that I forgot before. New additions are in bold and spaced apart from the rest!

THE GOOD (Changes, also those scenes which stuck nicely with the book)

* The Prologue. Nicely done, although the geography itself poses a problem for a later scene.
* Gandalf's entrance. McKellen as Gandalf was a great choice. Although some don't care for Frodo's entrance, I think that it worked nicely with Gandalf's, and gives the viewers a decent introduction to the two main characters.
* Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
* A Long Expected Party
* The Hobbits. They look like Hobbits should and would look.

* The scene at the Green Dragon in the EE with Merry and Pippin dancing on the tables

* In the EE, we see the flight of the Wood Elves. I love this scene. A great nod to the meeting the Hobbits had with them.
* The Wizard Fight. This is one of the changes PJ made that I actually like, and I think it fits very nicely within Tolkien's world.
* The Nazgul. In my opinion, PJ succeeds in making you feel fear when the Black Riders approach.
* The Prancing Pony. Although I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo's magnetic finger trick, the P.P. scene is definitely kosher with Tolkien. The whole medieval feel of the inn completely does it for me here. Great lighting and everything. A nice nod at the book when you see Bill Ferny and his goons glaring at the Hobbits.
* Aragorn. Good entrance, and although nowadays Viggo would not have been my first choice, I think he pulled the role off nicely.
* The Ranger sword. This was recently debated in a topic here, but I don't see any harm in giving Strider a sword that is actually functional compared with a sword that is broken.
* The Three Trolls. Gives us book fans comfort and joy!
* Scene at the Ford. I have mixed feeling about the actual Flight to the Ford, including Arwen's appearance, but I don't think that it was necessarily bad. It wasn't good, though. I liked the water horses in the actual Ford.
* Many Meetings. You have to like the golden calm of Rivendell...beautiful.
* Arwen and Elrond. Looking good.
* (Strictly appearance wise) Legolas and Gimli fit the part. Bean as Boromir did not, and we will get to that later. I get touchy on this subject! We are talking strictly appearance right now.
* Aragorn and Arwen in the blue twilight. I think this is a great scene, and it plants those important seeds that need to be sown in order to show the people the relationship of A & A. Not to mention, great lighting in this scene. Love the blue.
* "I will take it! Though I do not know the way." I love the way Frodo delivers these lines. It makes for a powerful moment indeed.
* The Ring Goes South. I will get to the bad changes made here, but there are some good elements here which stuck to Tolkien, such as the scenery. I like the choice for Hollin.
* Caradhras. Mixed feelings, it should have been done better and elaborated more. Still, it wasn't that bad compared to some other things. Having Legolas walk on the snow was a major plus and adds to the good of this scene.
* "Knock your head against these doors Peregrin Took...!" I like how they added this (I think it's in the EE) because it shows Gandalf's short temper, especially when it comes to Pip.
* Boromir and Aragorn attempting to slay the Watcher...shows their bravery, rather than just Sam's (as in the book).
* Moria. Was done very well. Of course, as with every part of the story, could have been elaborated more, but looking at what we were given - pretty good. I was glad to see Pippin's folly, although I don't understand why he couldn't have just actually thrown a stone instead of a whole skeleton.
* Pippin putting the final blow into the cave troll. A nice nod to Pippin's grand deed of slaying a troll during the Battle at the Black Gate.
* Gandalf's fall. Nice.
* The scenery of Lothlorien.
* Galadriel. I think Cate was a wise choice. I don't know if it's just me, but after seeing Cate as Galadriel she (Cate) is wayyyy hotter.
* The Mirror of Galadriel. Done well, along with G's temptation.
* The gift scene was nice, although I think it complete rubbish that they didn't show Boromir get his gift of a golden belt.
* The Great River and the Argonaths. Could have elaborated much more, though.
* The Breaking of the Fellowship. The attempt to take the Ring, although I would have done things differently, was nicely done.
* Boromir's death scene. Again, I would have done it a bit differently, but it was done well. It showed Boromir's valiant and heroic nature as he attempted to save M & P.
* The Departure of Boromir. I'm glad they showed his funeral boat going down the Falls of Rauros.
* Aragorn slaying Lurtz. You have to admit, it feels great when he beheads him.
* Frodo and Sam. Done well, especially Frodo thinking of Gandalf's words.
* "Let's hunt some orc." Delivered nicely by Viggo and set up for an optimistic future.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.

* Elrond's little flashback of telling Isildur to destroy the Ring. This is just ugly. First of all, did PJ realize that it would take days to reach Mt. Doom from the Dead Marshes? I think he moved the battle in the first scene, but nonetheless, this scene is just garbage. "Isildur, come with me, hurry!" Wow.

* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* Appearance wise: Boromir does not fit. He was dark-haired, first of all, not light brown haired. He most likely didn't have a beard, seeing as how he was only 40 (not even half of his Numenorean life-span, Faramir lived to be around 118, and both were of "High Numenorean lineage"). He wore a stone around his neck. He did not openly wear chain-mail. And he carried a long sword, not a broad sword. His horn was tipped with silver, not gold. PJ's Boromir doesn't fit the description. People like Bean's Boromir, but I am not a huge fan. Character wise, I don't think PJ did that great. I think book Boromir was much nobler. But I'm not getting into that again. I'm sure a similiar argument could be had with PJ's Aragorn.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.
* Gandalf being reluctant to go into the Mines. Although I personally think it works better, why did it need to be changed? Aragorn's the one who warned against the Mines, Gandalf wanted to go under from the onset. One of the least bothersome changes, in my opinion.
* Caradhras. While hiking up the mountain, Frodo falls for some reason, tumbles, and in the process the Ring comes off his neck. Then PJ does something that makes no sense to me. He has Boromir pick up the Ring, and although I love the nod to the book (when PJ takes a line from Boromir's speech before he trys to take the Ring) in Bean's "it is a strange fate...", having Boromir pick up the Ring just does not make sense. Firstly, wouldn't technically then he be considered one of the Ring-bearers, regardless of how long he held it? He still held it. Secondly, again PJ is making Boromir look like a bad guy, having the good guy Aragorn almost strike Boromir with his sword. I just don't like this scene...and I know what people in defense would say. "They had to build up Boromir's temptation of the Ring" but come on now, I just don't buy that. Boromir wasn't seriously tempted until Lothlorien.
* Saruman being responsible for having the snow come crashing down onto the Fellowship. Takes away the raw power and mysticism that is Caradhras.
* Balin's Tomb. Not in full - for I like a lot of this battle, especially the moments building up to it, and when the Hobbits scream and go into battle. However, Gimli stands on Balin's grave - that's just not right. And, in the EE, the troll whipping Boromir around unconscious is pretty silly.
* Lothlorien. The Company should have been blindfolded. Definitely could have stuck to the story. Gollum could have made another appearance. Orcs could have been shown getting slayed by ranged elven archers.
* The Mirror. Sam could have been there, but I won't argue much with this one. It was important to get Frodo there, but not really Sam.
* Galadriel's Gifts (EE). Why the heck doesn't PJ film Boromir receiving his gift? Why in the world would he not include that? Especially because the scene was an extended so he didn't have to worry about time, plus the fact it would have taken about 10 seconds. Boromir should have received his golden belt on film. There's no logical reason for not showing it.
* I would have liked to hear some debate about whether or not the Company would go through Fangorn. I would have liked to see more debate before The Great River.
* No Orcs shooting arrows at the Company. No Legolas shooting down the Winged Beast. Like I mentioned, it's nice because I love these scenes so much so I'm glad in a way they were not filmed, but it would have been cool.
* Tol Brandir was not really explained. I don't recall them explaining how it was that Frodo saw what he saw, being on the Seat of Seeing.
* Frodo should have announced he was going off. The guy just wanders away without telling anyone? Would the ring bearer really do that? Come on.
* Boromir's speech to Frodo before he trys and takes the Ring is almost wholly absent. This is very upsetting as this is one of the best parts in the book. The scene is rather rushed.
* Boromir was pierced by numerous arrows, not just three.

[Sauron the White]

Matthew - regarding these two on the bad side of the ledger..........

Boromir's speech to Frodo before he trys and takes the Ring is almost wholly absent. This is very upsetting as this is one of the best parts in the book. The scene is rather rushed.
* Boromir was pierced by numerous arrows, not just three.

One inherent difference in movies and books is there simply is not space for long speeches in films. If you look at almost every speech in the books, they were seriously shortened for the film. That is simply part and parcel of the medium. It does not lend itself to long speeches - especially with todays audiences for good or bad.

Most things in films are shortened when they involve numerical repetition, and that may also apply to the arrows piercing Boromir. I think what Jackson did here was to give Lurtz thicker and heavier arrows so the effect of each one was magnified beyond that of a normal much thinner arrow. And his slow-mo reaction makes each one seem more important. Its simply a difference in style. Remember, in the book we see nothing of this, only the after effects. In the films its much more dramatic and painful to actually witness it.

[Gwathagor]

PJ just wanted another fight scene. It would have taken less time for Aragorn to have come upon Boromir with a TON of arrows already stuck in him, than for us to watch him get shot thrice in slow-mo.

I thought the scene was well-done, but I wanted more arrows. Come on, Boromir! Three? Really? Is that all it took?

[Gwathagor]

I think the slight altering of Boromir's character (his humanization, if you will) was the only success Boyens and Jackson had while meddling with Tolkien's original characterizations. Aragorn is weak and vacillating -- a friendless and morose loner who does not know what he wants. Faramir? My god, what a travesty for such a noble character (even David Wenham was upset when he read what they did to his character). Denethor? A crass nutjob with no redeeming values (not even table etiquette). Elrond? Sorry, I've never read anywhere that elves whine. I cringe everytime I hear him say 't-h-i-i-i-n'.

So, I would definitely put Boromir's characterization as a positive.

Ahh, preach it.

[Gwathagor]

Haven't you seen 300?!?!

Don't get me started.

[Boromir88]

Haven't you seen 300?!?!~Matthew
That part of the movie was supposedly accurate (although the movie was based off the comic book, and the comic book wasn't in any way trying to stick to history). Anyway, the Persian Kings believed they were the master of nature. They believed they could control the seas, the land...etc. It was either Xerxes or Darius I, who during a storm, actually whipped the ocean to calm it down, of course following the belief that the Kings controlled nature. So, whenever Persian ambassadors went to other "kingdoms" as a tribute they'd ask for land and water. By giving them land and water you are accepting Persian rule and are in the Persian Empire. By refusing, the Persians would just come with an army and take it themselves.

Well, in true Spartan fashion, when the Persian emissaries came asking for "land and water." The Spartans pretty much said "We got plenty of that down there in this well" and threw the ambassadors into the well...or so how the story goes. And seeing as the Spartans were battle-hungry, blood-thirsty, beasts of combat it comes to no surprise they would treat the Persian ambassadors in such a way. In Gladiator the Roman ambassador rides back without a head, but look how the Germania tribes were portrayed in comparison to the Romans. The Romans get a very good portrayal in Gladiator (and probably the way the Romans would have liked themselves to be seen!), and the German tribes were depicted as ruthless barbarians, hence they decapitate the Roman ambassador.

Enough on 300 and Gladiator, even though they are two movies I love watching. :D

As far as Boromir's death, we actually get a pretty good account of the battle from Pippin in The Uruk-hai chapter. I believe Pippin describes the orcs coming in three waves, and on the 3rd, Boromir was finally slewn...Pippin says "Boromir made them fight" and a "rain of arrows always aimed at Boromir." In fact, Boromir had successfully driven off the Orcs and they were on their way back to camp when the 3rd wave came and they were just too many. So, we get a really good account from Pippin, sometimes people can exaggerate, but I doubt Pippin was doing it here. Pippin tells Denethor it took "many arrows" to slay Boromir, and this is supported by Faramir telling Frodo and Sam that there were "many wounds on him."

With that being said, I'm perfectly fine with Boromir's death in the movie, as it is quite possibly the greatest death fight/scene ever filmed. Not only does it stir up the emotions, but visually it is absolutely stunning. Not much more to say about it other than, I was shocked with amazement. Too bad Jackson couldn't treat Theoden's death the same way. I didn't have any time to reallyjust like that Gimli's prancing around the battle, cracking jokes and there's some elephant marshmellow dude gimping around.

[Gwathagor]

...It was either Xerxes or Darius I...

It was Darius who sent the ambassadors (whose murder the Spartans atoned for by sending two of their young nobles to Persia) and Xerxes who whipped the sea as punishment for being unruly and making his crossing difficult.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet we all read in our own way and there's that old adage from Keats about the eye of the beholder. For instance, while you are right that Book Boromir is described as "fair and noble of face", those are not the only words which describe him and I would consider the entire passagae.

Of course, but I only put the first part of the description in because I thought you were referring to looks, so being proud wouldn't apply to that. The way you wrote it made it sound like you were referring to appearance, which wouldn't be a correct assumption as Boromir was good looking.

It's a matter of how one reads the passage.


And seated a little apart was a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance.

If "proud" were the third item in this list of Boromir's characteristics, there would be, as I read it of course, a comma separating "proud" from "stern of glance." But there is no comma between "proud" and "stern of glance". So we have two coordinate phrases linked by "and", "dark-haired and grey-eyed" and "proud and stern of glance."

So "proud" does not this time describe his emotional or psychological nature, but instead modifies "glance." Thus I read this last characteristic as a qualifier of that "fair and noble face"; it is part of the characteristics of Boromir's face, which is overcast, if you will, by Boromir's "proud and stern" glances. That is, his physical features are marred by this manner of looking around him. His attractiveness is overwritten by this intimidating manner of looking at people.

Pardon the focus on grammar--which can be tedious to many--but it is why I would include "proud and stern of glance" in any consideration of how attractive Book Boromir's face is/was. He ain't just a good-looker; there's something else more ominous in that face.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled lists. :)