Did your View of the Characters change after seeing the films?

[Essex]

At Dawn in Rivendell? Another adaptation to listen to. cool.

regarding Boromir.

I believe that Jackson got his character correct in a number of ways. When reading the books again after seing fotr and tt on the movie screen, I seem to have a new insight into Boromir's character when reading the books. Yes, he was a great leader of men, we can see this. But what I also now get from the books now is his almost childish nature in the way he thinks everything he says is right, and will not listen to any other arguments, no matter how well put.

Another new thing I've seen, which is staggering the amount of times I've read the book, is the animosity we can see at times between Aragorn and Boromir. I believe they really didn't get on in the books. This is also picked up by Jackson in the EE where we have Aragorn's angry retort to boromir that he wouldn't go near MT with the Ring. A number of times we can see the infighting going on between the two of them in the book.

Cheers to jackson for bringing out another 'level' to the FOTR for me.

[mollecon]

Actually, I thought (some of) the characters in PJ's movies were more interesting than the ones Tolkien himself describes! That's got nothing to do with Tolkien being a bad writer (I love the books, have read them many times!), but a lot to do with the particular style and tradition Tolkien is writing 'on'. PJ and his co-writers probably realised that if these persons were gonna live on the screen, and have an appeal to an audience that didn't know the books - they had to make them more 'modern', and less mythological, in terms of their psychology/personality. For instance, in the books it seems reasonable enough that you have a person coming out of nowhere who's totally immune to the Ring's power - that wouldn't have worked in the movies (I'm referring to Faramir, of course ). I also like the Aragorn in the movies - the one in the books is rather two-dimensional.

I guess it is true that some of the other characters in some way payed a penalty for this change. Both Gimli & Legolas are to an extend 'non-characters' - comic relief yes, but not much beyond that. But if you look in the books, they aren't really much more developed there.

[Aethelwine]

Very nice topic!

Oh, and please, I beg your forgiveness for the off-topic-ness of the below, but I just had to get it out!

Elves in background were like dragqueens, mostly (with blond hair and black eyebrows)

So, I’m a drag queen, because my hair is naturally blond, but my eyebrows are dark? Why thank you…

Oh, and mollecon, you must not forget that Tolkien wrote LOTR to be a myth, so the style he wrote in was to reflect that fact.

Forgive the off-topic-ness!

Cheers mates!

Aethelwine.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh, and mollecon, you must not forget that Tolkien wrote LOTR to be a myth, so the style he wrote in was to reflect that fact.

Yes, and New Line/Jackson made the films to appeal to modern film-going audiences, so the style in which they made them reflects that fact.

[Lalaith]

Film is a very dominant medium, compared to the tentative nature of literary imagination. So I agree that the movie characters can easily trample on our own previous book-inspired imaginings.
One change I find slightly disturbing is my view of Merry. I can't put my finger on it, but I found film-Merry slightly seedy, somehow, and not noble enough. It annoyed me, but now he's in my mind as Merry. I want my book-Merry back!

[Lord of Angmar]

Merry? Seedy?

[Lalaith]

Yes I know. Like I said, I can't put my finger on what it is exactly that rankles. I didn't like the way he said "My Lady", for example.

[Vanya]

[QUOTE=Aethelwine
So, I’m a drag queen, because my hair is naturally blond, but my eyebrows are dark? Why thank you…
Aethelwine.[/QUOTE]


I apologize, I ment no offense, but this just didn't look natural to me, even if it is to you. Forgive me once again.

[Lobelia]

Originally Posted by Essex

At Dawn in Rivendell? Another adaptation to listen to. cool.


Another new thing I've seen, which is staggering the amount of times I've read the book, is the animosity we can see at times between Aragorn and Boromir. I believe they really didn't get on in the books. This is also picked up by Jackson in the EE where we have Aragorn's angry retort to boromir that he wouldn't go near MT with the Ring. A number of times we can see the infighting going on between the two of them in the book.

Cheers to jackson for bringing out another 'level' to the FOTR for me.

I think that there's a lot more fighting between Aragorn and Boromir in the film than the book. True, Boromir is constantly going on about how they really should head for MT and he'll go alone if he has to, but, apart from the Council of Elrond scene, in which he is very rude and Aragorn keeps his temper, they do seem to co-operate well. On the other hand, before I saw the film, I wasn't all that interested in Boromir. He was the guy who pounced on Frodo and regretted it and then paid with his life. He was dead by the beginning of TTT. On with the quest! But after the film, I had another look at the character and realised he had more depth than, say, Legolas, who didn't do a whole lot to show his personality apart from the occasional comment about his Elvish abilities, with a grin - you didn't even know what he looked like! So the film made me re-read the book with different eyes. It said, for example, that the hobbits had liked Boromir and his kindness, but you *saw* that in the film, most notably in the scene where he was teaching them how to use the sword and lay there laughing when they knocked him over. And in the extended version, in Lothlorien, where he urged Frodo not to take on more burdens, the Ring being heavy enough. Neither scene was in the book, but they made me read the scenes that were there more carefully.

[Essex]

Laliath, re your point about Merry

I can't put my finger on it, but I found film-Merry slightly seedy, somehow, and not noble enough.

I stated earlier in the post that I have issues with the Merry character. I said he was too 'street wise'. To add to this, I believe we do not see the innocence of his character in the film as we get in the books. Like you, I can't really put my finger on it, it's just not quite right.

Lobelia, re

I think that there's a lot more fighting between Aragorn and Boromir in the film than the book.

I'll try to fish out some quotes from the books to explain my point that there was a fair bit of infighting between A and B in the book, as much as in the film.

[The Only Real Estel]

I can't put my finger on it, but I found film-Merry slightly seedy, somehow, and not noble enough.

I found Pippin slightly-no-greatly more stupid & less smart than he was in the books, a victim of the comic-relief character change, obviously.

The only character in the movies that might've changed my view of one in the books would be Boromir. Sean Bean just played him so well, it really helped me figure is character out a little better (I'm sure that's been said before, but I've not the time to look through all the posts ).

[The_Hand]

I agree with the Pippin thing. I read RotK just before I saw the movie and I really hated that he didn't get as much screen-time as I wanted him to. In the book he is shown to be very... well much smarter. And he talks more wisely and such. In the movie he's is just for laughs, but luckily he is brave.

Boromir: I really didn't think they got him right in the movie, but when I saw the extra sceens in extended edition I thought differently. He shows more understanding of Frodo's burden and what kind of person he was before he went just a little mad about the ring.

I hated the changed made to Faramir.

It has been a while since I visited this thread, and I feel compelled to clear up my last post. Not that anyone took issue with it, but from my own review of other posts I see that many are taking the question as viewing characters differently from a personality standpoint rather than a visual one. When I read the books I don't see any of "my" characters as they are in the films in their character or personality, but I am bothered by the fact I visually see actor faces competing in my mind with the faces I imagined in my many readings of the books. The characters I have come to know and love are so firmly set in my mind no movie can touch them. I am overcoming the visual problem. I can't say that anything in the movies brought me more depth than what I have read, and I have to forget the misconceptions in the film to keep my memory of what "really" happened and who these folks really are. I actually backed down in a discussion with a friend about the council of Elrond when he said a certain event really happened in the book... and it wasn't until later that I re-read and was rather embarrassed that I didn't stand up for myself when it turned out I was right!

I can appreciate the films for being what they are. I am coming to appreciate them more as I overcome my disappointment in the flaws (my own perception, and most of the things I am disappointed in have been dealt with in minute detail in other threads and there is no need of reiterating only to hear myself vent). I don't hold myself out as holier than thou as far as book v. movies, but I know (most of us know) that much more depth and breadth is to be found in the reading, and it saddens me when I talk to people who have never read the books and insist they "know" the story Tolkien wrote. They do not... they know only a movie based upon. What I have come to realize is that it is okay if people love the movies with no interest in the books. They will not know my love, and I will not know theirs. That is certainly okay.

And on the bright side... I would have never found this site if the movies hadn't spiked interest in Tolkien. Years and years ago (when the internet didn't have a billion hits for each search) there weren't many sites for Tolkien, and I hadn't looked around for a long time until the movies came out. I don't post much, but reading many of the fascinating posts of others has been a real pleasure.

[The Only Real Estel]

I can appreciate the films for being what they are. I am coming to appreciate them more as I overcome my disappointment in the flaws

Although it's completly off-topic, I just wanted to say that I'm starting to appreciate them more not necessarily because I'm getting over the flaws, but because I've put a lot of effort into defending them from baseless accusations over the last few months. After defending the films (most of the time), it's harder for me to be mad at them...