Elrond in PJ's LotR

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Almost entirely agree. Although I found Holm's Frodo a little too old, and a little too aggressive at times, it was a performance that knocked me for six.

I think the only reason McKellan's Gandalf was not more powerful for me was that Horden had already provided, for me, the definitive Gandalf.

And Mithalwen, I'd add John McAndrew's Pippin, Andrew Seear's Faramir, and Douglas Livingstone's Gimli to the list of unbeatables you cite.

I don't disagree.. I could have mentioned many more of the cast..Andrew Seear's Faramir was remarkable and I was thinking of the performance as well as the writing when I said Faramir was all he should be. I am fascinated by your comments on Holm. I just foundhe pitched it brilliantly and put the moments of fierceness due to teh stress of the ring.

[Pervinca Took]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am fascinated by your comments on Holm. I just foundhe pitched it brilliantly and put the moments of fierceness due to teh stress of the ring.

Is there a thread where we can discuss this further?

On the topic of Elrond, the twinkly stars around his head in the Rankin-Bass cartoon were quite memorable.

Hugo Weaving's Elrond does not exactly come across as "as kind as summer," but not only was he driving the plot with urgency, Gandalf was being portrayed as the more compassionate of the two: "It is a burden he should never have been asked to bear. We can ask no more of Frodo," versus "Our list of allies grows thin," etc.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Is there a thread where we can discuss this further?

Hugo Weaving's Elrond does not exactly come across as "as kind as summer," but not only was he driving the plot with urgency, Gandalf was being portrayed as the more compassionate of the two: "It is a burden he should never have been asked to bear. We can ask no more of Frodo," versus "Our list of allies grows thin," etc.

AS if a list could grow thin (unless it previoulsy ran to many pages)vtsk grumble grumble. I have bumped up the main radio discussion thread which was started by Davem and features fascinating insights from Brian Sibley. I must re read it. I am long overdue a re listen but RL got in the way for a while there..

[Pervinca Took]

Actually I agree with you, Mithalwen. I was quite shocked at how manipulative the films made Elrond, but I was shocked at how several of the characters were portrayed. It's why the movies never really worked that well for me - enjoyable to see as films, but not as adaptations of a most beloved book that I could watch again and again. Visually spectacular, and with some very fine moments. But character portrayal tends to be more important to me than landscape and other visuals.

At least the wardrobe department did well. Very well, in fact.

He did come across more human in a much later scene with Arwen - "Do not I also have your love?" But - "Welcome to Rivendell, Frodo Baggins" (cue very-mature-Gorgonzola-strength-cheese expression from Frodo) - oh dear.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against changes in adaptations. I only object when said changes seriously mangle the characters, and it's perfectly possible to change and adapt without doing this.

[Mithalwen]

Lol - I thought that scene was deeply creepy Dad and totally not the Elrond of the books. But I do remember a few examples of a lovely smile. But my issue is with the script not Hugo (who I have adored since I was 13..which is a little while ago now *ahem*. But while I saw the films I have never managed to sit through the later ones again. I loved the costumes, many of the sets and much of the casting. But I too would have preferred more characterisation and was bored to sobs during the endless tedious battle scenes. Especially sinceI knew how they were done. I did enjoy the Science Museum exhibition. I did feel that the costume, prop, set designers really loved Tolkien in a way I suspect PJ does not. Anyway I was not the target demographic. All inall rather peripheral to my love of Tolkien.

[FailBeast]

I saw this thread before and was thinking about it when I watched the movies last, and I think the way they portrayed Elrond made quite a bit of difference on Aragorn and on the nature of the kingship of Gondor.

This Elrond, it seemed like, has little to no regard for men as a race, and he talks bitterly about Isildur in particular. He almost speaks as if the whole mess was Isildur's fault, which seems slightly unfair. The movies give no reason to believe Isildur was a bad guy or bad king. He screwed up once, an Elrond hasn't forgiven him in however many generations.

So, okay, he's a bitter old grouch. But I think, if you think about the fact that he was raising Isildur's heir, you might attribute the changes in Aragorn's character to Elrond's bad attitude. Movie-Aragorn doubts himself. He doesn't really want the kingdom. He doesn't want to reveal himself as Isildur's heir, or even as anybody except some guy when he first mets Boromir. Book Aragorn was much surer of himself and his claim, and is quick to step up and say, "Sword that was broken? Right here. Check this out!" Couldn't being raised by somebody who hates and doubts your race and your ancestor be just the thing to make that difference?

I also thought it was interesting that Elrond in the movie keeps the shards of Narsil, where in the book it clearly belonged to Aragorn. Later on, when Aragorn goes into the paths of the dead, it's that sword that proves his claim to the throne. So, if Elrond has the sword, doesn't that in some sense give him some power to approve or deny a claim to the throne? It may not be desicive; Gondor may choose to accept a king without the sword as proof of his heritage. Oh - except that they'd have been mostly dead, if the Oath-Breakers hadn't showed up with Aragorn because of the sword. I think it's an interesting, and kind of unpleasant, implication if the crown is not awarded based on the individual's character and claim, but because some guy over in Imladris has decided, "Okay, okay, Arwen! Fine! Your boyfriend can have the sword already!"

Interesting choices.

[Mithalwen]

To be fair, the shards of Narsil being at Imladris is pretty low on the list of alterations even for me, though I appreciate what you say about it being his proof. Carrying around a broken sword is a bit impractical however symbolic especially when you do need an actual sword. Film Aragorn does conspicuously wear the ring of Barahir which isn't IIRC explained in the films which might have some clout and in the books other surviving heirlooms are kept for safe keeping (sceptre of Annuminas for example).