The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies

[Lush]

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good.

[Maedhros_the_Tall]

Originally Posted by Lush

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good.

That settles that then!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lush

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good.

Those must be some mighty big mutant cockroaches. What do they eat when they can't get Lushes?

In regards to MatthewM's original post, I would say that, generally speaking, FotR is quite good for the first 3rd of the movie (I will only be referring to the extended versions, because honestly, has anyone watched the original film versions since the DVDs came out?). Perhaps that is because, save for acts of omission (like Tom Bombadil, for instance) which are pardonable, given time constraints, the movie adheres to Tolkien's story. I don't believe anywhere in the three movies does one get a better sense of Middle-earth. The sequences in the Shire are excellent, very Hobbitish; however, once one hits the Ford of Bruinen, the film begins to deviate from the original plot egregiously, and that's where the megalomaniac scripting (or perhaps it should be termed 'Narcissistic Jacksonophilia', for PJ's love of himself -- I will refer to the syndrome as NJS going forward) becomes apparent (fortunately, it is not as pronounced in FotR as it will become in TTT).

Arwen calling down the water upon the Nazgul is downright silly, isn't it? When the film was first released, I believe the entire movie theater giggled in unison. Read the sequence in the book, then watch the movie version. The book presents a failing Hobbit valiantly defending himself from the horrific specters of the Nazgul taunting him, almost hypnotically seducing him to follow them into darkness. It is a frightening, very vivid scene, but in the movie, we lose sight of the main protagonist completely, and instead we have Arwen muttering Sindarin, and then with a look of surprise she watches as the waves sweep away the Nazgul -- talk about anticlimactic. Plainly, it is a bit of NJS foisting a character who has no part in that sequence onto the viewing public. We get no sense of the power of her father, Elrond, at all (and he is insipid and whiny throughout all three movies); in fact, Gandalf doesn't even get to utter his humorous line regarding the adding of the horses to Elrond's flood. It is a lost opportunity to follow the better original plot for the director's personal aggrandizement.

Then we get a glimpse of Gandalf battling Saruman at Orthanc. Others here have said they liked the scene; however, to me the sharp angles, jangly shots and off-kilter camera positions in Orthanc make it seem more sci-fi than Middle-earth (although I admit the moth sequence atop Orthanc is superb). Then the entire film sequence at Rivendell becomes a hit or miss proposition: Bilbo craving the ring is excellent, Elrond's defeatism is ludicrous; Sean Bean's Boromir is magnetic in the Council of Elrond (certainly the most powerful perfomance of that sequence), Viggo's weakly apologetic Aragorn -- not so much.

I will reply further as Matthew continues and as time permits.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

I always use the phrase "let's hunt some orc" when hunting cockroaches in my bedroom. So it must be good.

Yes, it certainly must be good for all kinds of ironical reconstructions and recontextualising, which I'm sure our darling Lushious savours. Can't say as I'd fancy eating one, though I can imagine crunchy and ketchup jokes.

So even when chasing spiders, I'm one who niggles over Tolkien's own niggling over orcs and whether they had souls and etc. So my own curiousity is mildly aroused when Movie-Argorn is given a line more in keeping with a fox hunt. Are orcs animals (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether animals have souls and the entire animal rights movements, which surely does deserve its own thread, as Tolkien has given us lots of talking, animate animals) or are they a degraded form of human/elf? Remember, aboriginal peoples in North America were hunted like animals, with bounties on their heads, and the KKK thought nothing of hunting down and murdering in cold blood Black Americans.

Then there's thoughts of Book-Aragorn's nature to consider. Aragorn, he-who-would-be-king, and a character whose Book purity some find mighty hard to swaller. Book-Aragorn is a figure out of heroic literature whose idealism comes via some very high-falutin' language. Book-Aragorn would never snog his horse while in the midst of a dream of Arwen. Maybe in a dream of battle where his horse revives him, but Book-Aragorn doesn't cross-themes.

After all, the decision is a momentous one, where Aragorn must decide either to uphold his promise to serve and protect the Ringbearer or to pursue the hobbitnappers of Pippin and Merry. The situation is a tad more serious than 'let's have an adventure today.'

So, here's what Tolkien has Book-Aragorn say:

Originally Posted by Book-Aragorn, The Two Towers, "The Departure of Boromir"

'Let me think!' said Aragorn. 'And now may I make a right choice, and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!' He stood silent for a moment. 'I will follow the Orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I see him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played it part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. Come! We will go now. Leave all that can be spared behind! We will press on by day and dark!'

That's quite a Shakespearean monologue. Clearly Book-Aragorn is guided not by the blood-lust of the hunt but by ethical decision.

I wager that those who enjoy PJ's adventure flick prefer the pithy call to kill orcs while those who enjoy Tolkien's more ancient mode of heroism prefer the ethical eloquence of Book-Aragorn. Chaque-un a son gout.

[Lush]

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[MatthewM]

I see nothing wrong with the line...

Anyway, I apologize for not elaborating further, it was father's day. I will add more asap. Thanks to all who have contributed!

[Gordis]

Nice analysis, MatthewM!

Not that I agree with you on all points.
I hate the fight of Saruman and Gandalf - it is so undignified and so out of place... It made me wish to leave the theater.
I hate Elrond's portrayal and all this crap about "Men are Weak".
Arwen at the Ford was ridiculous, IMO, as well as the Weathertop fighting.

But why do you think Frodo should have looked older? Much fatter and less pretty, certainly, but why older?
He got the Ring at age 33 - age of maturity for Hobbits - and stopped ageing. He is 50 in 1318, but he shouldn't look it - because he had the Ring. I think his age is about right. It is another matter that he shouldn't have ACTED like a scared kid all the time.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Lushious One, you have given me two great lines here. Your orcroach line ranks with that other great movie line from Woody Allen, when he describes Keaton's roaches as "bigger than cadillacs" (or, well, something to that effect, memory being what it is). Only missing is a finishing touch, "Let's send them off to roach motel!"

You've given me an image of Aragorn on the shores of Sword beach on D-Day, exhorting his men. (Sword Beach, man! How much more forged could they get?) The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn. Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

No time for other scenes, although I am taken with Morthoron's allusion to SF style rather than M-e style for those dancing wizzs atop Orthanc.

[Lush]

Cockroaches/orcs do inspire, if only in a sick twisted way that has you staying up 'till dawn with weapons drawn.

The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn.

Really? Because I see no inherent contradiction between the two. I see him, in both the book and the film, as a very intelligent, thoughtful man, who's got to do what he's got to do. I mean, war is disgusting, even when the conflict is pretty much straightforward, those orcs still cry out when they die. And friends betray. In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there. I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

*Random anecdotal information from the life of Lush, skip if not interested*

My granddad was a major general. I only wish he had been born in Middle Earth rather than the USSR, when a military man was not simply discouraged from pursuing his intellectual goals and useful hobbies (such as healing, and my grandfather was a healer), but literally forbidden. I don't want to harsh too much on the USSR, it was home, it was ours, and I don't think my granddad wasted his life. I think he would have been happier, though, if he was allowed to do more prior to his retirement.

My mom has tried readingLotR, but she always stops. Aragorn reminds of her dad. She says that watching the movies is easier, because at the very least, Viggo doesn't look like Pyotr.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to add a couple things about Aragorn's character in the movie. I've often disagreed with Jackson's decision to show Aragorn as the "reluctant hero" of the movies. In the books Aragorn is steadfast and sure of what he has to do, and that is become the King of Gondor. Where, in the movies, Jackson fits Aragorn into the "unwilling hero" archetype that a trademark of the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

However, while discussing actually about Faramir, I got to thinking about Aragorn. Someone had mentioned that he likes Faramir's character better than Aragorn's (in the books), because Faramir is more human. Faramir doesn't struggle with the Ring, but he does struggle with what is his duty to Gondor now that Boromir is dead? Faramir doesn't necessarily want to "please daddy," but he struggles with now feeling as if he has to live up to Boromir's expectations. Where Aragorn just seems all too perfect and sure of himself.

I pointed out that although Aragorn, is as Bethberry, describes the ethical, always seems to be right person, he does have his own struggles. Aragorn does go through his own tough times, they just aren't as "severe" as Boromir's or Faramir's. For instance, after Boromir's death, and the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn sincerely starts doubting himself as a leader, and doubts the trust that Gandalf had in him. And while Aragorn always knew he had to become the King of Gondor, he was never sure of the proper time. He originally joined the Fellowship to leave with Boromir for Gondor. Aragorn thought (at that time) it was the right time for him to claim the throne. However, Gandalf's death changes the situation. Should Aragorn keep his promise to Boromir, or to Frodo?

So, Aragorn does seem more perfect than the other characters in Tolkien's story, but he does have his own "low points." After that someone else brought up a very important point to keep in mind. In the books Aragorn is 88, he's already matured, grown, tested, where Faramir and Boromir are still relatively young trying to figure out their own paths. Aragorn had served Ecthelion in Gondor, served Thengel in Rohan, been raised by Elrond and I bet you on more than a few occasions he went to Elladan and Elrohir saying "Let's hunt some Orcs" .

My point is in the books, Aragorn's history is revealed to us, and we see he is already a grown, experienced, and matured characters. That's when something else hit me I hadn't thought about before. The movies don't have this luxury of "time" that Tolkien did. They don't have the luxury of explaining (or showing) Aragorn's "past," his moments when he was younger serving Ecthelion, or growing up with Elrond and his sons. Book Aragorn had already gone through the maturation process, and hence why he is more "sure" (or if you prefer perfect) of himself than the younger characters like Boromir or Faramir. The movies don't have this luxury, so Jackson places Aragorn into the "reluctant hero" archetype. Thus, the audience is able to see Aragorn's transformation on screen, from the unwilling hero, to the man who knows (and accepts) his destiny.

I also might add that it was a very convincing change. Sometimes when Jackson wanted to make the characters go through a change it didn't make sense. Example, Theoden, throughout TTT and most of ROTK, Theoden was in an "I hate Gondor" mode. "What has Gondor ever done for me, why should I help them?" Aragorn comes running in to alert Theoden about the beacons, and all of a suddenly Theoden decides to go ride to Gondor's aid. That made absolutely no sense. However, Aragorn's change is a convincing one, most likely because Jackson had three movies to show it and if he couldn't show a character develop and change in three movies he should give up directing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there.

It certainly does.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

In addition when you deal with 11 hours of screen type and a central character who appears in much of that time, Jackson felt it necessary to create an arc for that character, to show growth, development, denial, acceptance and resolution over the films. That was deemed to be more interesting that the static character who is the same in the first hour of film as he is in the eleventh final hour of the film.

[MatthewM]

Ok...let's continue a bit. I don't think I will finish in this post, but I'll get some more out there.

So far, I have to say that I understand where Boro88 is coming from. I never thought of those points. I'm sure that Aragorn had his immature moments in his past. But by the time of the story, he is 87. That's plenty of time to mature, and time that PJ could not film. So although I don't know how I feel about the reluctant Aragorn, I do understand the reasoning here.

Gordis- I, personally, do not have a real problem with Frodo's age in the films. That's kind of why I put "Let's get it over with..." I think Wood did a nice job with Frodo, except of course when PJ made Frodo do things that were clearly not book Frodo. I just mentioned the age thing because I know it's a hot topic and I know that many, many fans hate how young Wood was.

Ok, let's continue a bit.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.
* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.

No more time right now, will continue asap.