That's Ent-ertainment - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

mormegil · 11-21-2005, 10:19 AM

I tend to agree that the Ents aren't as enjoyable as characters in the movie as they are in the books. I have wondered why PJ made them so myself and cannot come up with any great idea. Perhaps being that time was at a premium, he figured that properly developing Treebeards character would be too time consuming. I really wish they had made them a bit more clever though and kept Pippin as a bumbling stooge, because he still "screws up" doesn't he, by looking in the Palantir, but he is redeemed somewhat by lighting the beacons. They could also have accomplished some redemption by having him actually slay the troll at the end.

Bêthberry · 11-21-2005, 11:50 AM

Perhaps we have a suggestion here of why Jackson omitted the Old Forest and Fog on the Barrow Downs episodes. It might have had little to do with the appropriateness of old Tom to the main story. Jackson just does not appreciate trees. So, he eliminates the Old Forest and does a miserable job of the ents. Eomer, you are on to something here.

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 11-21-2005, 12:09 PM

Bb, I wouldn't rule out that idea entirely.

Morm, the time constraint argument is indeed something I didn't mention in the initial post. I don't think it applies here, though. Treebeard wasn't actually in the book too much. He had more than enough time given to him in the movies. Treebeard's not a deep character; he's someone who audiences should just like, simply because of his nature. Like a grandfather figure, almost. There's no real explanation needed for him; indeed that is shown in the book when Merry and Pippin immediately feel a liking for the Ent.

It actually took time – they went out of their way – to show Treebeard in a negative way.

*Note* – I don't think the Ents were terrible or anything, just not that great. If you want to argue that the book-Ents are 'not that great' then go for it. I know some of you wouldn't mind...

Kath · 11-21-2005, 12:48 PM

I didn't like the decision to make the Ents choose not to go to war just so that they could have Pippin do his little clever bit. Surely they could have thought up another way to show he does actually have a brain. It just made the Ents seem cruel, uncaring and dimwitted rather than simply slow and thoughtful, but ultimately good. While I can understand a lot of the changes that PJ and co. made, this one doesn't seem to have a great deal of point to it.

I would have preferred an interpretation closer to the books because I always liked the Ents, and the idea that the arrival of something new into their environment could cause such a change, or at least a trip down memory lane so they remember how to be powerful. The hidden power in the forest was a big thing to me when I read the books, as I found it incredible that you could hide such a force.

Elladan and Elrohir · 11-21-2005, 08:23 PM

I think the reason they changed this was partly to show the growth in Pippin's character, as has already been said, but also to make the point that there are times to make peace, and there are times to go to war. They really point this out in the Directors and Writers commentary. You have Treebeard going, "Well, it's not a big deal to me; plus, how are we supposed to do anything against a force like that?" But the Ents HAVE to go to war, both for the sake of the story and because it's the only moral choice to be made.

I'm not sure that I like this change. I understand pretty well why they did it, but it makes the Ents (especially Treebeard) look stupid and unlikeable. If they kept it the way it was in the books, I think it would have worked just as well -- and they still could have found a way to work in their point about the moral duty to fight Saruman.

It's interesting that this movie was released in December 2002, and the U.S. went to war in Iraq in March 2003. Not to suggest that PJ and Co. are making political statements, but the timing is nonetheless intriguing.

Lalwendë · 11-22-2005, 03:40 AM

A possible reason for the change to the Ents' decision to go to war may be that Jackson wanted to show the destruction of the forest and the effect that this would have on the Ents? In the books we know that Treebeard knows of this and that the Ents decide to march, while in the films they do not know, and do not decide to march. It could have been more difficult to show them as creatures which knew they were being attacked and yet had to hold a debate on whether to act; in the films they are shown to make a sudden discovery and be provoked into anger.

Boromir88 · 11-22-2005, 06:18 AM

Interesting idea Eomer...I do agree with you on this. I really did not see a reason to change the Ents, possibly the only explanation would be Hollywood. Let's make it dramatic, the Ents say no...so it builds up tension, then they agree to help. And as usual I find a lot of Hollywood dramatization to be rather cheezy and a bit of a bore.

With that being said, and it's clear the Ents are portrayed differently, you can't take out the role Merry and Pippin play in the Ents decision to go to war. Merry and Pippin got this entmoot started and got the Ents "riled." However, that doesn't mean you have to portray the Ents as clueless and dumb. I think you could still effectively show the role Merry and Pippin had in getting the Ents awakened again, and still have the Ents know what the heck is going on around them.

Worst of all with Treebeard not knowing what's going on and having to be tricked into going to war is it created inconsistency in the film. Upon their first meeting Treebeard seems to know what's going on in his forest, going off about Orcs..."They come with fire, they come with axes, gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning...etc." But then he's totally clueless about the chopped down trees? Doesn't make any sense.

Sometimes it seems to me Jackson made the movies one scene at a time. Changing and fiddling with what he wanted for that particular scene, for good or bad, but not thinking about possible inconsistancies that he showed prior in the movies.

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 11-22-2005, 06:22 AM

But then all they had to do was have Treebeard explain that the Ents are not hasty and that it is vital to rouse them.

Nonetheless, reading these posts has given me another idea. We know how PJ loves his twists (see 'The Lembas Saga and the Return of Sam') so it could well be that he just wanted the kids in the audience to feel sad, then happy, by the Ents' decisions.

I don't like this. I think that twists are overused; and that there's nothing wrong with showing Treebeard itching to go to war from near the start of the film.

EDIT: Boromir already made that point four minutes ago, it seems.

11-21-2005, 10:19 AM	#1
mormegil Maundering Mage Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,651	I tend to agree that the Ents aren't as enjoyable as characters in the movie as they are in the books. I have wondered why PJ made them so myself and cannot come up with any great idea. Perhaps being that time was at a premium, he figured that properly developing Treebeards character would be too time consuming. I really wish they had made them a bit more clever though and kept Pippin as a bumbling stooge, because he still "screws up" doesn't he, by looking in the Palantir, but he is redeemed somewhat by lighting the beacons. They could also have accomplished some redemption by having him actually slay the troll at the end. __________________ “I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

11-21-2005, 12:09 PM	#3
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	Bb, I wouldn't rule out that idea entirely. Morm, the time constraint argument is indeed something I didn't mention in the initial post. I don't think it applies here, though. Treebeard wasn't actually in the book too much. He had more than enough time given to him in the movies. Treebeard's not a deep character; he's someone who audiences should just like, simply because of his nature. Like a grandfather figure, almost. There's no real explanation needed for him; indeed that is shown in the book when Merry and Pippin immediately feel a liking for the Ent. It actually took time – they went out of their way – to show Treebeard in a negative way. Note – I don't think the Ents were terrible or anything, just not that great. If you want to argue that the book-Ents are 'not that great' then go for it. I know some of you wouldn't mind... __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

11-21-2005, 12:48 PM	#4
Kath Everlasting Whiteness Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Perusing the laminated book of dreams Posts: 4,533	I didn't like the decision to make the Ents choose not to go to war just so that they could have Pippin do his little clever bit. Surely they could have thought up another way to show he does actually have a brain. It just made the Ents seem cruel, uncaring and dimwitted rather than simply slow and thoughtful, but ultimately good. While I can understand a lot of the changes that PJ and co. made, this one doesn't seem to have a great deal of point to it. I would have preferred an interpretation closer to the books because I always liked the Ents, and the idea that the arrival of something new into their environment could cause such a change, or at least a trip down memory lane so they remember how to be powerful. The hidden power in the forest was a big thing to me when I read the books, as I found it incredible that you could hide such a force. __________________ “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”

11-21-2005, 08:23 PM	#5
Elladan and Elrohir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Halls of Mandos Posts: 332	I think the reason they changed this was partly to show the growth in Pippin's character, as has already been said, but also to make the point that there are times to make peace, and there are times to go to war. They really point this out in the Directors and Writers commentary. You have Treebeard going, "Well, it's not a big deal to me; plus, how are we supposed to do anything against a force like that?" But the Ents HAVE to go to war, both for the sake of the story and because it's the only moral choice to be made. I'm not sure that I like this change. I understand pretty well why they did it, but it makes the Ents (especially Treebeard) look stupid and unlikeable. If they kept it the way it was in the books, I think it would have worked just as well -- and they still could have found a way to work in their point about the moral duty to fight Saruman. It's interesting that this movie was released in December 2002, and the U.S. went to war in Iraq in March 2003. Not to suggest that PJ and Co. are making political statements, but the timing is nonetheless intriguing. __________________ "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING

11-22-2005, 03:40 AM	#6
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	A possible reason for the change to the Ents' decision to go to war may be that Jackson wanted to show the destruction of the forest and the effect that this would have on the Ents? In the books we know that Treebeard knows of this and that the Ents decide to march, while in the films they do not know, and do not decide to march. It could have been more difficult to show them as creatures which knew they were being attacked and yet had to hold a debate on whether to act; in the films they are shown to make a sudden discovery and be provoked into anger. __________________ Gordon's alive!

11-21-2005, 11:50 AM	#2
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	Perhaps we have a suggestion here of why Jackson omitted the Old Forest and Fog on the Barrow Downs episodes. It might have had little to do with the appropriateness of old Tom to the main story. Jackson just does not appreciate trees. So, he eliminates the Old Forest and does a miserable job of the ents. Eomer, you are on to something here.

11-22-2005, 06:18 AM	#7
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	Interesting idea Eomer...I do agree with you on this. I really did not see a reason to change the Ents, possibly the only explanation would be Hollywood. Let's make it dramatic, the Ents say no...so it builds up tension, then they agree to help. And as usual I find a lot of Hollywood dramatization to be rather cheezy and a bit of a bore. With that being said, and it's clear the Ents are portrayed differently, you can't take out the role Merry and Pippin play in the Ents decision to go to war. Merry and Pippin got this entmoot started and got the Ents "riled." However, that doesn't mean you have to portray the Ents as clueless and dumb. I think you could still effectively show the role Merry and Pippin had in getting the Ents awakened again, and still have the Ents know what the heck is going on around them. Worst of all with Treebeard not knowing what's going on and having to be tricked into going to war is it created inconsistency in the film. Upon their first meeting Treebeard seems to know what's going on in his forest, going off about Orcs..."They come with fire, they come with axes, gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning...etc." But then he's totally clueless about the chopped down trees? Doesn't make any sense. Sometimes it seems to me Jackson made the movies one scene at a time. Changing and fiddling with what he wanted for that particular scene, for good or bad, but not thinking about possible inconsistancies that he showed prior in the movies. __________________ Fenris Penguin

11-22-2005, 06:22 AM	#8
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	But then all they had to do was have Treebeard explain that the Ents are not hasty and that it is vital to rouse them. Nonetheless, reading these posts has given me another idea. We know how PJ loves his twists (see 'The Lembas Saga and the Return of Sam') so it could well be that he just wanted the kids in the audience to feel sad, then happy, by the Ents' decisions. I don't like this. I think that twists are overused; and that there's nothing wrong with showing Treebeard itching to go to war from near the start of the film. EDIT: Boromir already made that point four minutes ago, it seems. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond Last edited by Eomer of the Rohirrim; 11-22-2005 at 06:28 AM.