![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did Jackson miss any of the themes of the book? Well, I am sure that he did. But then, so did I before I joined this site (despite having read the book a number of times, and long before the films came out). As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I still think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly. One further thought (again). I do think that we are rather lucky to have had the Grey Havens scene, which I do see very much as a bittersweet moment (as far as both the Elves and Frodo are concerned). It is not really necessary in the context of the films, but Jackson nevertheless felt it sufficiently important to include. Of course, its omission would have been an anathema to us Tolkien fans, but I am sure that the films would still have been greatly enjoyed by the majority of those who went to see them, and just as successful, without it. Indeed, it might be argued that "the politics of Box-office movie-making" would dictate the omission of this scene. I have seen a number of reviews of RotK (the film) which criticise it for the length of its ending. As davem suggests, most film-goers would have expected it to end with Aragorn's coronation and the honouring of the Hobbits. That would certainly have been the more traditional "Hollywood" approach.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 11-16-2004 at 06:44 PM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where the Moon cries against the snow
Posts: 526
![]() |
![]()
I agree with Saucepan Man, given the fact that Peter Jackson is not one of our fellow BD pupils (or teachers for that matter), I'm sure that if one of us were to make the movie's we would spare no turmoil and no detail no matter how small or intricate.
However that not being the case, I am one to agree that PJ did a fine job, though the omitting of certain scenes did displease me. The movies made me cry and I daresay certain parts of the books did as well (especially the ending). The Trilogy provoked more emotion from me then the movies and I do enjoy both deeply. Let me remind that if some of us had our way one movie alone would be some 6 hours long, a movie that long would definetly call for an intermission (in this day and age because we no longer have need for intermissions in 3 hour movies). So mainly because of timing and no doubt pressure from the higher ups some of our most beloved scenes (no doubt some of PJ's most beloved as well)from the book have been omitted or cut from the movies. Now back to the subject of whether Peter missed the point of Tolkien's work. My opinion is both yes and no. Yes, because I felt he didn't develope the characters as much as he could have, but keeping in the bounds of movie logic he did well enough. Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron. Morgoth was mentioned by Legolas in the movie, so PJ if he hadn't read the Silm must still know something of him. Also keep in mind, I pay way to close attention to these things and also that I havn't seen RoTK in awhile and heres the grabber I don't even own the theatrical release; I'm waiting for EE. I might not remember this line exactly so I won't quote it. Gandalf (movie) mentioned something to the fact that peace will last as long as the days of the King last, though a happy thought keep in mind that can't last forever, even when Elessar's Heir rules something could happen to him and if not he will eventually pass from Middle-Earth as well, and so on and so forth. Evil will eventually grow again in the land, its an ever changing cycle of life, nothing can be totally good nothing so totally evil. As evil resides good will eventually come to destroy it, as good prevails evil will eventually come to crush it. And a final note, at the Haven's in the movie, though the Elves are all smiles and la dee da, there is still a sadness in their tone and something in their eyes that betrays their smile. In my eyes its not a Fanciful splendour cruise to Neverland, its a bittersweet parting, an end of an age. Please tell me (politely) if I've gone too far from the mark, its just my opinion, and I'm not nearly as intelligent as the rest of you, whose knowledge and awe inspiring-ness (made up a word there) is something to behold.
__________________
"...for the sin of the idolater is not that he worships stone, but that he worships one stone over others. -8:9:4 The Witness of Fane" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,003
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am quite happy to recognise that many people enjoyed the movies. I don't think, however, that one's response to the movies hinges entirely on whether one is a dedicated Tolkien book reader or just someone who reads 'Tolkien lite.' I am not in particular a big fan of TheSilm. And for me, RotK was disappointing, in part, because it had so many 'concluding' scenes or climaxes. Aesthetically or emotionally, it was, for me, a mishmash. This does not lessen the enjoyment of many others. It merely reflects the different way I have of reading movies. Nor do I presume that there is one essential way of reading LotR, which Jackson missed. He is entitled, as are we all, to have his own particular interpretation.
SaucepanMan's argument is that most people do not read The Silm and so will not understand the theme from that point of view. This derives from Son of Numenor's first point which quotes from The Silm. However, I don't think the argument needs to be referred to The Silm at all. I think the question of the nature of evil can be analysed in LotR alone. That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]()
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Bittersweet Symphony
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise
Posts: 1,814
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() But an interesting question nonetheless. Since it's my favorite chapter, I shall discuss the Scouring of the Shire. The ending of the book, complete with this separate little ending, is much more painful, but in the end it's almost that much rewarding. The hobbits return to their beloved Shire to find it a complete mess, and under the control of "Sharkey" and his ruffians. It's a severe blow for them; I can't find the quote I'm looking for for the life of me, but I believe it's Sam who says that it's the worst thing they've encountered yet (someone please correct me if I am wrong). We see that the evil that has spread can make it anywhere, that there is no entirely safe place -- this is the tragedy of the book's ending. Our small heroes do save their home, making them appreciated by their fellows. They get the respect and honor that they deserve. Yet the movie depicts the Shire as a place that might be taken over, but only if the quest should fail, as Galadriel says when Frodo sees the mills and chimneys in the Mirror. It puts more at stake on the turnout of one single event, as if all evil and evil influences will simply disappear for a time if the Ring is destroyed. The quest is successful, and the hobbits return back to their picturesque homeland. The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on. The message here is that sometimes great deeds must go uncelebrated, and just because they are not recognized does not make them any less worthy, or make the heroes any less for it. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
![]() |
Encaitare,
not sure what you mean by Quote:
the movie showed (via the pumpkin scene) exactly what the book explains to us, that the hobbits were not celebrated in their country for their great deeds. in the book they expelled saruman and the Men, but this, if anything, is what the Shire (by giving sam the mayorship) thanked the 4 hobbits for. Not for the destruction of the ring. Do we see anywhere in the end of the book where the hobbits even mention what their Quest was for? Frodo only tells the Cottons that Sam was now one of the Greats, and that was because Frodo was putting in a good word for Sam with Rosie! PS jackson shows us, via a brilliant narration by Frodo in Bag End, the real melancholic feeling of the end of the books. every time I see this scene, I feel pangs of regret for Frodo, and a deep sadness for what he will have to give up. To me, as a movie goer who had read the books, this was clear. I'm not sure how clear this is to a non book reader, but hey, what do I care????? PPS to me its boyens and walsh who were the real scriptwriters, who reigned back jackson when required, and were the main players behind the plot of the films. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Bittersweet Symphony
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise
Posts: 1,814
![]() |
I shall try to clarify, Essex.
You're right, either way they're never fully appreciated for what they did, but at least in the book they are considered the saviors of the Shire. That's what I was getting at. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too unpalatable a thing for a movie hero to say. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |