Dumbing it down

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, a word-for-word Council of Elrond would not have worked on screen. And maybe the omission of Fatty Bolger was a pretty good idea too...

But the Frodo/Faramir interaction, let's have some intelligence for that part. They added in a bunch of action that was pretty boring compared with the Battle at Helm's Deep. That's where you put in the good acting and the dialogue, as a sensible contrast to the major battle.

Instead, when they wanted to take a break from the battle, they cut to the comedy Ents and Hobbits. These were the least admired scenes from critics, which I find understandable if harsh.

But I think I lost my point. Sorry. It's a bemusing thread, verily.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

So, why would they put up with twenty minutes of prologue, when it was not present in Tolkien's book?

I always saw the prologue of FOTR as an attempt to portray some of the history given in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past" without resorting to the lengthy conversation occuring between Frodo and Gandalf that's been known to turn some readers off as well, by its length and depth. A little more of that history comes in during the prologue of ROTK, showing the history of Gollum.

Now perhaps I'm not as much of a purist as I always thought, but I see no problems in taking a conversationally described history and showing it from a different viewpoint. It's when the history is changed substantially that I begin to get irked. For instance, I would have preferred to see Gil-galad and Elendil slay Sauron and Isildur come in later. It negates the heroism of Elendil and Gil-galad to have Sauron kill them first and then have Isildur come in later and clean up. However, it's a minor point as far as plotline of the larger films is concerned, and that's probably why you haven't heard much complaining about it.

Sophia

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

That isn't the way that it came across to me. From Arwen's chanting I got the impression that it was Arwen who 'called up' the flood (in the movie of course). And now that davem has posted the translation of what she was saying I am further convinced of it.

Well the audience can't be expected to translate Arwen's words without subtitles. It is clear, however, from what has been said that the intention was that Arwen was calling up the flood. The question, therefore, is does that come across on screen. It is quite a while since I last watched FotR (I seem to watch these films a lot less than those who seem to like them less than me ), so I cannot really recall. My earlier comments were made from an imperfect recollection. But it seems from what has been said that it does come across that she is responsible for the flood, but that a look of surprise crossing her face may introduce an element of confusion. I'll have to watch it again, but might that be interpreted as a slight catch of breath at the power she has brought forth?

And in any event do people who have not read the book really analyse these things that closely and get bothered by such minor issues?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

But it seems from what has been said that it does come across that she is responsible for the flood, but that a look of surprise crossing her face may introduce an element of confusion. I'll have to watch it again, but might that be interpreted as a slight catch of breath at the power she has brought forth?

I've just finished an Extended Editions 'Rings marathon' so the Arwen/flood episode is fresh in the mind. Well, she definitely does call up the flood, but I take back my comments on her acting as what it actually appears that she is doing is looking over her shoulder as the torrent comes thundering round the bend and thinking "oops, I'd better move up this river bank a bit".

It was watching Two Towers that the script alterations came through most intrusively and I got the impression that the script writing had got a little out of hand and the team were unable to pinpoint where they wanted to go with it. There was an immense section of action in the middle of the film that did not seem to have a concrete purpose, going from the Warg attack right through to Aragorn getting to Helm's Deep. I feel this could have been tightened up considerably, but mainly as it seemes to take up a lot of time when other scenes were being 'cut', so that's my opinion.

Watching the Faramir sections again, I still cannot see how the changes fit to the storyline. And the time it took up was lengthy, so keeping to the books would not have taken any longer, not would it have been dull. I thought that a more suitable change, if there had to have been one, might have been to have Faramir realise that his brother's death was due to the ring and have this as his moment of realisation.

The other thing which came across was with the changes to Aragorn. I got the distinct impression that he was being drawn as a leader for a world which values the idea of a 'meritocracy', that a leader would have to 'earn his stripes' rather than have the divine right of a king. Thus the changes to Aragorn had some political implications to my mind. These could have been due to Jackson's own particular views on leadership or due to him thinking a modern audience would not 'like' the idea of divine right, but if it is the latter then that sits peculiarly as there is at the same time the contrasting image of Theoden, who does display 'divine right' at the same time as being an active military leader, so he shows that this can be done.

And yes, I did enjoy it thoroughly.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The other thing which came across was with the changes to Aragorn. I got the distinct impression that he was being drawn as a leader for a world which values the idea of a 'meritocracy', that a leader would have to 'earn his stripes' rather than have the divine right of a king.

Although, reading LotR along with the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion, it does seem to me that book Aragorn has a number of trials and tribulations to face before he becomes one who is truly worthy to be king. He is by no means the flawless character that I had previously thought. I have in mind such things as his mistake in letting the Fellowship be carried along by the flow, into real danger, on the Anduin, his despair at Boromir's death and subsequent need to build up his confidence in his own abilities, and his over-confidence before the doors of the Golden Hall. The last lesson, in particular, is important for, had he not shown humility in his reluctance to enter Minas Tirith, it is possible that his claim might have been rejected, Divine Right or no.

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And yes, I did enjoy it thoroughly.

Glad to hear it!

[Boromir88]

I don't see a problem with Faramir in TTT. Whether he gives it up in Hennuth Annun or Osgiliath, I don't think makes a difference. He still WILLINGLY gave up the ring did he not? TTT EE even goes to show why Faramir chose those actions. I don't see how it weakens Faramir at all, he still willingly gave up the ring (which is a hard thing to do if you're a man, especially the son of a crazy father, and the brother of the person who tried to take the ring). I think the whole Ringwraith spotting Frodo with the Ring should be thrown out, but I don't see a big problem with Faramir taking the ring to Osgiliath, if anything it adds suspense.

This thread may be of some interest.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.

I think maybe this sums up my problem with the movies (& I also, & co-incidentally , have just finished watching all three EE's through) - Jackson & the writers' tendency to take things from the book which Tolkien mentions in passing, or of which he makes a very subtle use & repeatedly belt the audience over the head them with till we're pleasing with him to 'STOP!, because we get it already!'

Its the way every little thing has to be hammered home, just in case some 13 year old in the audience may have missed it that makes the movies such a wearying experience at times.

Having said that, I have to be honest & say that I don't feel as negative about the movies as I did, now that I've had the chance to see them right through as Jackson intended.

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.

[Boromir88]

Jackson & the writers' tendency to take things from the book which Tolkien mentions in passing, or of which he makes a very subtle use & repeatedly belt the audience over the head them with till we're pleasing with him to 'STOP!, because we get it already!'

Very true, somethings he beats into our head, and others, I don't think he gives a lot of explaining which leaves a lot of non-book readers puzzling what the heck is going on? Like the famous questions...

"Why didn't Gandalf summon the eagles sooner?" (From ROTK it definitely appears as if Gandalf summons them).

or...

"Why did Frodo leave?"
"Why didn't Sauron guard Mount Doom better?"

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.

My favorite experience would be...someone (who will remain unnamed) totally oblivious to the basic plotlines. For example, this particular person though Sauron sent the 10,000 army to Helm's Deep, and was totally oblivious to who Saruman was. Then had the nerve of saying "I don't think I'm more clever then the screenwriters, just more clever then the book."