The Council of Elrond

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Although I would have loved to see more included in The Council, I agree here. There is no denying that it is very dramatic when you hear Frodo yell "I will take it!" and you see Gandalf's face turn from anger to compassion.

Dramatic, yes. Killing the Fellowship at the end would have been even more dramatic. It turns Boromir, Gimli, Legolas, and even Gandalf(and all those other people) into children who can't talk below a shout, and can't have a quiet debate! It was almost one of those "It's mine," "no, it's mine," arguements that I have had, and I am sure that I'm not the only Downer still able to remember the wonderful days of childhood, where logic isn't appreciated. Now I know it isn't nearly that bad, but it was childish, and I am glad that Aragorn and Elrond stayed seated and didn't join. It doesn't speak well for the order of the West.

*sigh* The things that movie makers do, and people justify it for the sake of "dramatics"! The whole Aragorn-Arwen thing is alot the same. All the falling off cliffs were for the same thing.

[Folwren]

Seems like they already had a dramatic setting for much the same thing - when Frodo was trying to give the ring to Gandalf in the beginning of the movie when he and Gandalf were rather loud just before his - "What must I do" line.

As for being dramatic in the Council...well, there is more than one way to make something dramatic. Tolkien's way of doing it was dramatic in almost the opposite way. Things were utterly quiet for some little while before Frodo spoke up in the book. I think they could have done it.

Having the council blow up into a shouting match between the elves and the dwarves and Gandalf and Boromir wasn't good.

I had no problem with the people being summoned, though. That was fairly reasonable. However, I wish they had shown people coming up with different options - like throwing it into the sea, or taking it across the Water, etc. *shrugs* I don't know, I think it's better than saying, "This thing is utterly evil, we have to walk into the middle of Mordor to destroy it and I invited you here so that I could shovel this duty on you, for one of you must do this."

Eh well. That's my opinion.

And, oh! Golly! Another insanely illogical and dumb thing that they did was put the Ring out in the middle of the whole circle! In the book Frodo was loath to show it, even for a moment. Would he have set it in the middle of so many strangers? I somehow think not. It was too easily set away from him.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Have you ever noticed how in actual real life things often regress pretty rapidly when you have opposing sides taking strong positions against each other? Notice how two smart people can be quickly overcome by road rage in a matter of seconds. There certainly was rational discussion in the Council of Elrond film sequence, but it regressed to what we saw. Again, I think it only served to underline the poignancy of Frodo's acceptance of the Ring.

In the end, only one thing matters when you are discussing a film. DID IT WORK?
And for me - and I would imagine millions of others who came back again and again - it did work. Mission accomplished.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

In the end, only one thing matters when you are discussing a film. DID IT WORK?
And for me - and I would imagine millions of others who came back again and again - it did work. Mission accomplished.

No...I don't think so... That is somehow wrong and slightly twisted. There are parts in that movie that didn't work, and yet people still came back. For instance, when Frodo stuck on the ring at Weathertop and you could see the Nazgul, who was impressed by the sniffing white guys looking down their noses at Frodo? No one...that certainly didn't work - and yet people came back.

There's a difference between making something that will hold together for a little while and making something that will last for a lifetime. The LotR movies were great for the first few viewings. All of us were stunned and amazed by the movies when we saw them in theaters. We went two or three or more times to see them while they were there. Then we bought them when they came out and we have watched them many times since. But! After learning them by heart and finally waking up from the dream that the beautiful scenery and intense drama that the movies cast on us, we realize, hey...these movies have holes...why? The books don't...

The difference between us and the millions that you mention is that they don't study the work like we do. I doubt they watch them as much we do.

Do you know why they were such big hits? Because it was the Lord of the Rings and the Lord of the Rings has amazing depth in characters, plot, history, and different scenery. And why does it have those things? Because Tolkien put them there. Jackson used a fair amount of Tolkien's work, but not as much as he could have. Do you know what would have happened if Jackson had used more of Tolkien's original work? I am convinced that the movies would have been a great deal more loved, by Tolkien fans and people who didn't know Tolkein both.

The Council of Elrond (as well as many other places in the movie) could have easily been done differently and could still have impressed the people who didn't know Tolkien's work just as much, and could have made LotR fans happy.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

After learning them by heart and finally waking up from the dream that the beautiful scenery and intense drama that the movies cast on us, we realize, hey...these movies have holes...why? The books don't...

Of course the movies have holes. Nothing is perfect. I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Army of the Dead render the complete battle before the gates of Minas Tirith meaningless. Of course there are holes. What film does not?

The other day I was watching WEDDING CRASHERS on cable. Pretty successful film with a very simple plot. But a hole big enough to drive the proverbial truck through. The preppie bad guy calls his buddies to get the real lowdown on the two crashers - but does not give his contact on the other end of the phone any real info about them which could lead to discovering their actual identities. Everything he tells them is meaningless crap. But a half hour later, he gets a call and finds out all the truth. There is no way the guy on the other end could have found out this stuff even if he was Sherlock Holmes. This is typical and every film has something like this. And books do also.

And as for the book LOTR not having any holes. I give you two words - the first one is Tom and the second one starts with the letter B.

No holes? Explain this to me then. Sauron needs the ring so he can dominate and control all of Middle-earth. Well, he had it once and it sure did not do him any good then did it? The forces of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and his armies even though Sauron had the ring firmly in his possession.

And for years now I have yet to hear a reasonable explaination as to why the forces of good could not have laid siege to the Black Gates to distract Sauron and his forces while at the same time Frodo swept in on an eagle, escorted by an army of other eagles, and dumped it right into Mount Doom.

No holes in the book? Really? And that is just off the top of my head.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Of course the movies have holes. Nothing is perfect. I cringe every time I see the scrubbing bubbles of the Army of the Dead render the complete battle before the gates of Minas Tirith meaningless. Of course there are holes. What film does not?

Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Master and Commander, to name a few. All of which are based off of well written books.

And as for the book LOTR not having any holes. I give you two words - the first one is Tom and the second one starts with the letter B.

Tom Bombadil is not a hole. What makes you think he is? He may be an unnecessary character, but so is Bergil, and the ninth Nazgul, and Haldir, and Glorfindel (Tolkien could have used Arwen) etc, etc, etc. These characters may be unnecessary but they do make the story deeper and more interesting and are not holes in the tale.

No holes? Explain this to me then. Sauron needs the ring so he can dominate and control all of Middle-earth. Well, he had it once and it sure did not do him any good then did it? The forces of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and his armies even though Sauron had the ring firmly in his possession.

Alright, then, I will explain. Sauron did not take over all of Middle Earth in the beginning because there were too many powerful opponents. There were many more elves and they were powerful elves Gil-Galad and Elrond were just two. The men were united and their blood still pure Numenorean blood. The force and strength of the Alliance could never be equaled again. What is more, they acted quickly to the threat of the Ring, whereas in the 3rd age after the Ring was found they tarried whilst Sauron got busy gathering orcs and trolls to himself. Sauron was too strong for another Alliance. An army gathered would be like waves on a sea shore - no matter how large, they always break, foam, and then fall back, defeated.

And for years now I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why the forces of good could not have laid siege to the Black Gates to distract Sauron and his forces while at the same time Frodo swept in on an eagle, escorted by an army of other eagles, and dumped it right into Mount Doom.

I've never thought about this. But I guess I will, just for you.

Eagles...eagles would have not only ruined the book, but would have caused the ruin of Middle-Earth. Think of it - the council decides to send eagles. They go find some and bring 'em back and the eagles start flying across Middle-Earth. They reach Mordor to. . . .get assaulted by the Nazgul and their winged creatures. What do you suppose would happen? A battle in the air resulting in what? Frodo falling to the earth, breaking his neck, and the Ring being misplaced in the land of Mordor. Yay.

As for the forces of good…what forces of good are you talking about? Theoden, the horse lord, was under the poison of Saruman, and Denethor was a jerk. What forces are you referring to?

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren... thank you for taking the time to offer your explainations on the items which I brought up. I have read them before both here and in other forums and they did not satisfy me then and do not now.

I certainly cannot discuss the films versions of Jane Austen books turned into movies. Not being an impressionable woman who is struggling with her role in society, I never caught the Austen bug either in book form or cared to see it on screen. Sorry.

Bombadil is more than just another unnecessary character. To me he is a huge contradiction that gets in the way. Tolkien gives us this being who has powers beyond the ring and then does nothing with him beyond the barrow wight saving episode. Sure, JRRT attempts to plug this "hole" (and I do not want to get into another endless internet discussion in which 90% of it is defining terms to fit into our respective arguments) by telling us that Bombadil would not want venture far from his stomping grounds and would eventually trade it for a comic book or pack of baseball cards. I am being sarcastic but in the end that is what his reasoning comes down to. I did not buy it when JRRT wrote it and have not bought the additional explainations of others in the passing years. You could omit the contradiction of Bombadil from the book and not miss a single beat.

The idea that you create a powerful being who is beyond the power of the ring and then do not use him to resolve the problem of the ring is - for me - a gaping hole.

Let me get this straight. The eagles can fly around everywhere they desire - and do so several times at pivotal plot points - but they cannot cross into Mordor? What is there to stop them that would not stop lesser creatures or beings? You mention the Nazgul on their flying steeds - sure that is the defense. But is that any different than 10,000 orcs in Mordor joined by other peoples to stop a couple of hobbits? How is that any different?

Allow me to answer. It is different because the eagles might have a better chance of success. They are much faster and have the advantage that speed and their numbers bring with them.

You say it would have ruined the book - AND I AGREE WITH YOU - because it would have simplified and shortened everything. I agree. I want a 1200 page book too. But its still one of the more logical solutions to the problem and is a glaring hole.

The free peoples I am referring to are the same ones who rallied to the cause and marched to the Black Gate. Yes, at the time of the Council there were the political obstacles you accurately refer to. But those could have been planned for and in fact were overcome by the varied forces present at the Council. Denethors plight was not fully known at the time of the Council and instead we heard the boastings of Boromir giving everyone the picture of the armies of Gondor ready to fight the good fight.

As to the forces of the Last Alliance being more powerful - I would partially agree with that and concede some of your reasoning. But only partially. However, let us remember that the Elven king Gil-galad was killed in that military effort as was Elendil. So they were not as powerful as we may think compared to Sauron with the ring. The fact is this. Sauron had the ring firmly on his finger and it did not lead him to domination of Middle-earth. But later we are told that if Sauron gets the ring all of ME will come under his dominion. That is a contradiction and a hole.

My overall point is a simple one. A book is one thing - a film is quite another. This whole business of comparing the book to the movie is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. They are two very different things. In the end we have some folks coming forth and declaring that after exhaustive study they have determined without a doubt that apples do indeed taste better. And cinderblocks are much harder.

And this is news?

I first read LOTR right out of college in 1971. I lost count of how many times I have reread it. I love that book and everything that JRRT wrote about Middle-earth. I also love the movies and have seen them too many times to count. I view them as two very different things and can appreciate the merits of both. I also am not a perfectionist. I do not expect perfection in even the best of what I love. I am more than happy when my glass is half filled. With the adaption of a great book into a great series of films, I think I drank from a beautiful cup that was 90% filled.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Folwren

and Denethor was a jerk. What forces are you referring to?

Denethor was not a "jerk".

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

*sigh* The things that movie makers do, and people justify it for the sake of "dramatics"!

I am not justifying it, I don't think that anything PJ did opposite to the books is "justified". I'm just saying that I liked Wood's delivering of "I will take it!" and the look of Gandalf afterwards. That's all.

Originally Posted by Finduilas

The whole Aragorn-Arwen thing is alot the same. All the falling off cliffs were for the same thing.

Although there are constant complaints about the Aragorn and Arwen plot change, I do not mind it much. The falling off the cliff is another story.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

It turns Boromir, Gimli, Legolas, and even Gandalf(and all those other people) into children who can't talk below a shout, and can't have a quiet debate!

And you're right (I've made my stance clear on the "childish" qualities PJ's Boromir holds, as you know)- but this thread isn't about character portrayal - it's about The Council scene itself, correct?

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Well the characters have a lot to do with the council scene, since they are kinda the thing that keeps it going... are they not? And yes Boromir was quite childish, not just in the council scene but also when he picks up the hilt of Narsil and then drops it, and in other parts of the films as well, and i was also Boromir who started the fight. Was it not?