Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Sauron the White]

WCH - you bring up a very good point regarding the Mouth of Sauron death. Had it been filmed the way that Tolkien wrote it in the book, perhaps it would have been great. We will never know (barring another effort someday). Again, I am not Peter Jackson or the writers so I cannot tell you with certainty why they decided to do it this way. I will offer this.

Tolkien wrote LOTR during the decade of the Forties. In that, he is much a product of his era. We all, to an extent, are. Even more than that, JRRT was also bound by even older traditions and values that were beginning to fade during his lifetime.
So to some extent, his writings are "out of time" or "out of sync" with post WWII developments in the arts. The rise of the anti-hero comes to mind as both a literary and cinematic trend which is not found in LOTR but which is found in spades in both mediums over the last fifty or more years.

It could be - and this is speculation on my part - that Jackson and company are also products of their times. It could be that the rigid code of the good guys simply appears dated and out of fashion with the code of the 21st century. I imagine an audience raised on Dirty Harry films and Charles Bronson revenge flicks hardly blinked an eye when Aragorn beheaded MoS. And it made Aragorn look like the righteous avenging angel of death who would not take any BS from an 100% evil baddie.

I can see the response coming - and I do not take issue with it. However, it seemed to be a crowd pleasing scene and certainly added to the finality of the Battle Before the Black Gate. After all, you just killed the emassary of Sauron and basically gave the finger to the entire land of Mordor just inches away from their borders. Its pretty much an "in your face" invitation to fight to the last man. That seemed to fit in with the entire sacrificial nature of the military strategy of marching to the Black Gates and is further emphasized as Aragorn leads the charge to certain death with the words "for Frodo".

All the great tales are told and retold through the prism of the generation that tells them and with the confines and realities of the time in history in which they are retold. LOTR is no different.

Regarding the words about Saruman and possession - you have a very good ear for detail. I have seen the films dozens of times and never picked that up as important. The way you explain it, you have a valid point of criticism. I just believe that 99% of the audience thinks nothing about it. Consider yourself ahead of the curve on that one.

[Meriadoc1961]

Well, I started this thread, and it just occurred to me that this was the first year since 1974 that I did not read the books starting in February. However, I did watch the movies in February. Which may mean that at least at a subconscious level I felt that the films were true enough to the books.

I did not mean for this to be a "bash Jackson and the films" thread. Maybe I did not make my own opinion clear enough in the beginning. I do enjoy the films, but I believe my preference is for the books. I believe that Jackson did tinker more with the characters the further on into the three films he went. And I believe that removing myself from the emotion as I saw the Shire and Bag End unveiled in the beginning of FOTR helps me to see the film in a more objective light, although it is practically impossible for me to watch LOTR and NOT get emotional again.

Merry

[Aiwendil]

Why do we watch films a second, third, repeated times? With a book, usualy it isthat we wish to contemplate deeper and richer meanings, pull things together with reflection in a way that is not possible on that first read?

Do we really re-watch films for a fundamentally different reason than that for which for re-read books? Speaking for myself, the motivation is the same in both cases - moreover, the motivation is quite simple: if I enjoy reading a book or watching a movie once, I'll probably enjoy it again. It's true that when I re-read my favorite books, I sometimes discover new layers of meaning, and this in turn motivates further re-readings - but this is also true of my favorite movies. Every re-reading of LotR yields new delights, but so does every re-viewing of 2001, for instance.

As for an attempt to "recapture the original viewing experience" - I'm not sure what this means beyond simply experiencing again the pleasure induced by the movie (which of course is the whole reason to watch it at all). The same surely applies to books.

[Bêthberry]

You could be right that there isn't a substantial difference between re-reading books and re-viewing movies. Yet the habit of revisiting movies is a fairly new ability, short of paying again at theatres. I seem to recall that it was Star Wars which really created this trend as much of its profits arose initially from patrons who returned to the theatre to see it again and again and again. And then of course the new video technology made it possible to treat movies as easily as books. Perhaps for those born post-SW there is no difference.

I also know people who rewatch movies in order to laugh at them the harder. After the first viewing, it seems the "semes" show up more for such viewers. I don't know any readers who reread books in order to make fun of them or find their faults--unless it is critics and academics who rake them over professionally.

Then again, rereading or re-viewing from the perspective of knowing how it all ends provides a different experience from that of sussing out all the clues together before one knows the 'answer.' All depends I suppose on what one does when one reads/watches.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW:

What you say about the antihero and the modern audience is an interesting point- but it seems to me that Jackson (& Walsh & Boyens) were rather schizophrenic in this case. After all, they spent a very great deal of effort (and screentime) reworking Aragorn as the reluctant nolo regi sort, I would assume because they reckoned modern filmgoing audience would dislike Tolkien's Man of Destiny. But then this approach to the revised character doesn't really square with the badass- it's as if Eastwood's reluctant gunfighter of Unforgiven suddenly morphed into Harry Callaghan.

This I think (in my personal opinion) to have been mistaken. Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner. As Tolkien was at pains to point out, there's nothing wrong with fairy-tales, even for adults; and that includes fairy-tale heroes like Aragorn. We're not expected to identify with him: that's what the hobbits are there for.

******

Another perplexing moral inversion occurred to me- especially perplexing in that the scene and the very dialogue are reprised from the book, but turned on their heads. In the movie, as the Three Hunters in Fangorn become aware of the mysterious old man,

Aragorn: 'We must act quickly, before he can put a spell on us'

whereuopn the three attempt an ambush (naturally unsuccessful).

Compare this to Tolkien's version:

Then suddenly, unable to contain himself longer, [Gimli] burst out: 'Your bow, Legolas! Bend it! Get ready! It is Saruman. Do not let him speak, or put a spell upon us! Shoot first!'

Legolas took his bow and bent it, slowly and as if some other will resisted him. He held an arrow loosely in his hand but did not fit it to the string. Aragorn stood silent; his face was watchful and intent.

'Why are you waiting? What is the matter with you?' said Gimli in a hissing whisper.

'Legolas is right,' said Aragorn quietly. 'We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us. Watch and wait!'

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

[Sauron the White]

from WilliamCH

Tolkien's original surge of popularity hit during the late 60's precisely among the same folks who were protesting American 'imperialism' in Vietnam and the like: yet the hippies didn't seem to mind the Returning King as written. And this was a generation raised on Hemingway and Salinger and Faulkner.

You are correct in that statement. However, we are discussing the change of things as they happened in the movies. For that it is important to remember two things: 1) the time the books were written by JRRT and the mores and values that he subsribed to as a man of his time, and 2) the films were released in the 21st century - a good two generations removed from the hippie era you refer to. The vast majority of the movie crowd came of age long after the Sixties were dead and gone.

I really do not want to get into a huge sidebar here, but being 58 years old and having lived through this period, the idea that everyone between ages 16 and 29 was running around for several years with shoulder length hair, beads, fringe jackets and smoking dope is a gross misreprentation of the period. It is no more accurate than saying all young male African-Americans today are rappers or gangsta's.

But that is a topic for some other forum.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

StW:

If there is one single overriding theme of the Lord of the Rings it is that the end never justifies the means- that the moral course is the only course, no matter what self-interest or even the Greater Good might dictate. Anything else is a form, greater or lesser, of Boromirism. The *whole point* of the Ring is that Might never, ever makes Right.

This is an excellent point, and one in which I am in full agreement. The book form of Faramir, compared to that of the film version, is another example of Jackson and crew missing one of the, if not THE most important, messages of the book, by changing his character. They should not have changed the character of Faramir at all, and neither was it necessary to change the scene when Gandalf first appears to the Three Hunters.

Merry

[Mister Underhill]

Well, it's good to see that some folks are sticking to their guns, both pro and con, down the long haul. There's nothing like consistency.

Since filmmaker types always like to talk about their journey on a particular film, I'll talk about my journey with the LotR films.

If you check back through the dusty catacombs of the archives and look at posts from a Time Before the Films, you'll find Mister Underhill in there advocating cautious optimism about them, vigorously sparring with the hard-liners who contended that they should never have been made -- without having seen a single frame, just on principle. I still to this day wonder if Inziladun kept his vow to never see them.

Having as I do a bit more than a layman's knowledge about the filmmaking process -- especially when it comes to adaptations -- I even expected and agreed that there ultimately would be significant alterations made in the transition from novel to film. I was one of the first ones out there carrying the banner of "Judge the films as films!"

So, the movies came out. Fans laughed. Fans cried. Fans made music videos and devised krazy kaptions.

I had a few nits to pick with FotR, but overall I thought it was a pretty fair adaptation. Sure, it tilted towards action-blockbuster, but was that really a surprise? Anyway, I like action as much as the next guy, and there is good action in Tolkien after all. When Sam bashed an orc with a saucepan in the Chamber of Mazarbul, I laughed; when Gandalf fell I cried. The EE DVD came out, and I thought it was even better.

I was less forgiving with TTT. Interestingly, by the time it premiered, I'd had more time with the FotR DVD, and its flaws had started to show. More on that in a moment. Gollum exceeded all expectations, and I enjoyed the spectacle of Helm's Deep (excepting certain unlikely Elvish combat maneuvers of course), but -- well, no need to rehash old arguments. In my view, there were flaws. Deep ones. TTT EE -- meh... better, but not in a way that fundamentally changed its flawed nature.

By the time RotK rolled around, I think I had reached the stage of Acceptance. I enjoyed the spectacle, and with wayward plot elements inevitably drawing back towards certain surefire sequences and emotional moments, it could only go uphill after the nadir of TTT... and jeez this post is getting long. Downs-withdrawal these past moths, I guess.

So I'll move this along. CUT TO: Now!

I am, if anything, more sympathetic than ever to the chaos that affects any movie production, let alone one of the size, scope, and ambition of LotR. There are literally thousands of possible reasons for why a decision might be made to change X, Y, or Z. Given that, the movies are, if nothing else, an amazing achievement of logistics and intrepidity, and I am inclined to be more forgiving now, in some ways, about some things, than I was when the films were released.

But.

The thing that bugs me most about PJ and LotR is that when it comes to a choice between logic and a gag, he'll go with the gag every time.

For this reason, it's my opinion that his films are designed in such a way that they become less satisfying with repeated viewings, rather than more. I might get a shock or a thrill or a laugh out of a fundamentally illogical gag the first time I see it, or it might help to smooth me past a questionable plot point, but when I watch it again and again, the gag only jars me. It makes me think of a line from a Raymond Chandler story: "From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away."

I think I'd probably have a more favorable view of the movies if I'd only watched them once, from that "distance" of a first viewing.

Nowadays, I sometimes flip them in to watch particular scenes, the ones where the spectacle is totally kewl, and the ones where they got the moment completely right. For all the controversy over whether Gandalf slipped or let go, I thought they really nailed his fall in Moria and its immediate aftermath. But there are parts -- long stretches in TTT, especially -- that I find completely unwatchable.

[mark12_30]

Underhill, Bethberry Nice to see you around.

As of summer 2007: My chief delight in the movies is that my sons can watch them and gain some (partial) understanding of Where Mom Comes From. They're too young yet for the books, so for me the movies are a godsend. Someday they'll be ready for the books, and then a whole new depth of nobility, virtue, and even holiness will open up to them; I'm looking forward to that.

But in the meantime, I'm glad they've got the movies-- even with flambuoyant Legolas, oscillating half-aged Frodo, belching Gimli, and some tomatoes thrown in. Maturity will come with time. They'll love the books when they are ready for them. Their english is almost good enough now that I could start reading them The Hobbit for a bedtime story. Hmmmmmm. They love the cartoon. There's another place where there's far more meat in the books than in the movie, or in this case the cartoon. But that doesn't make the cartoon a flop.

Meanwhile my nephew has instantiated himself as a hobbit-burglar in some vast online game, and has reread The Hobbit to refresh his skills. And all my nephews play Middle-Earth Risk together. Proud Auntie.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I still to this day wonder if Inziladun kept his vow to never see them.

Well, he's back, so maybe he can tell us.