Book vs. Movie characters

[hobbit punk]

I agree that Faramir was just treated the worst out of all characters and I feel that Gimli was made out to be too much of a joke and not a great warrior. Frodo gets too sappy eyed too quickly in TTT and you feel like slapping him and telling him to snap out of it and stop being such a wuss. It didn't portray the ring taking power over him for me, I just found it argravating that he was so big eyed and helpless all the time. Theoden seemed too mean and Eowyn and Eomer were not developed enough. Especially Eomer. Merry, Pippin and Treebeard did not get any of the credit they deserved. Merry and Pippin are a lot less goofy at that point then portrayed in the film and I think that the non-book reading audience will find their "sudden" change in ROTK slightly confusing and implausible. And Treebeard did seem waaaay too simple for such an old and wise being. Gandalf and Aragorn were great, despite PJ trying to make Aragorn into the main hero of the story, and Grima was awesome and just how I pictured he would look and act. His scene with Eowyn was sad in many ways. I found Arwen's, Elrond's and Galadriel's scenes unecessary, especially Arwen's. She wasted screen time that could've been used on more important things i.e. Shelob and her scenes with Aragorn were more sappy than tragic. But what my point at the end of all this is, is the treatment of Gollum. I found book Gollum not cute. Not cuddly. Not funny. I felt that he was made a joke of in the film. His look was amazing but the audience saw him as a joke and not a serious threat to Frodo and Sam and the mission. People were made to think he was cute and to feel a bit too much pity for him. While he is tragic, I didn't feel as much pity for him in the books because he came off as a lot more evil. Also, in TTT the chapter where he is fighting between Smeagol and Gollum was SCARY! The movie TTT made it funny and a moment of comic relief almost. My point is, did anyone else notice this or feel this way?

[ July 30, 2003: Message edited by: hobbit punk ]

[Neferchoirwen]

As a literature major beginning to lean towards pop culture studies (films genres and the like, for instance), this thread is literally feeding my brain.

Genevieve, you are so welcome!
*bows*

Jackson's treatment of Faramir has become a major sore point for my wife that the kids and I sometime like to ride her about, but truth be told, if any of the character treatments deserve the word butchered, it's this one

I may be the devil’s advocate for Faramir (had me a violent reaction somewhere about my stand, but I'm an open person...), as it seems. But my understanding of Faramir rests on the fact that he is pressured by a lot of things: the enemy closing in on all sides, the death of his brother, and in connection with that tragedy, facing his father with news that his favorite son is dead. As for Faramir, I am looking forward for him to be “redeemed” in some way in the next movie, now that Denethor will enter the scene.

I like movie Theoden better.

He actually made me wish for a grandfather like him. My gramps is still alive, but I find myself asking: “Why can’t the senior citizens in the family be more like the people I read?” I even wished that I’d have Maya Angelou as a grandmother, but this is all OT…

Otto's Eowyn doesn't feel quite right to me. I'm one of the ones that thinks her relationship with Aragorn is being handled well, so I don't think that's it.

Same here. She seems too much like a child, IMO.

you feel like slapping him and telling him to snap out of it and stop being such a wuss

…except that slapping won’t snap him out of it…unless you be ringbearer.

I think it's true, though; that Frodo just seems all too desperate. A bit early for him to succumb to the Ring, but an epic won't have enough time to unfold on silver screen. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

His [Grima] scene with Eowyn was sad in many ways.

It kinda made me feel for Grima…only for a few minutes. I felt for the man in Grima, for a while back there. Then when Eowyn was left by the door, I suddenly felt like yelling “you go, girl!”

She [Arwen] wasted screen time that could've been used on more important things.

Which made me ask: do the audience (non-readers at this point) need to know the events in the appendixes? I mean, I’m SURE that they will get married in the movies, one way or another…Are the appendixes necessary to include in the movie? A great point, though, Hobbit Punk [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

in general, i think almost all of the characters lost something to the movies.

Movies are bound to be that way…once, or even twice removed from the reality as originally intended in the books(twice because the reality is interpreted differently by the script writers, and is conveyed differently in the finished film; but then again, who knows how many times the "reality" has been removed, considering the dailyrevisions ). Movies are a different kind of literature altogether, and is a separate language as well, and so these things are quite unavoidable.

~forgive the devil's advocate mode...

[The Elusive Spirit]

I think that there were simply to many characters to develop in a movie. So many things needed to be explained that the characters had to do without. I totally agree that most of the characters were lacking, except Arwen. It's true that she needed to be introduced before the end but she was simply in the movie to much. I, for one, could have lived if the scene in TTT where Aragon has a dream about him and Arwen was excluded. That was unnessicary. Don't get me started on the Ents! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[TheSquireof Aragorn]

I feel that most characters stayed quite true to the books maybe with the exception of Legolas i thought he should seem a bit wiser for being so much older than the rest of the Fellowship and Gimli fits well as the character with the comic reliefare natural Frodo could be a little less dramatic for just the second movie but mostly i feel the movie characters have stayed true to the book.

[King_Elendil]

Wait a minute. Arwen in the film was no warrior princess. If you believe being chased by Ulairi and drawing a sword is a warrior, well..., plus she didn't fight them. They were drowned before she even had a chance to use the sword.

[Neferchoirwen]

That makes a lot of sense, King Elendil.

Everyone has to know that. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Personally, I though they messed Arwen up totally. Others too... Aragorn, for instance.

As I've said before, it isn't what they left out that I dislike about the movies -- but what they changed in those they left in. As a true Tolkienist should. =] It wasn't too bad, but enough to take away any attraction that LotR the Movie(s) could hold for me.

[Firnantoonion]

I think they screwed Gimli at some places too: in TTT he has some lines where he is making himself and the whole dwarvish race look laughable. why?

[Mariska Greenleaf]

I think they screwed Gimli at some places too

Yeah, Gimli is supposed to be this great ferocious warrior who had no fear and was serious in bringing the quest to a good end. But they turned him into a standup comedian or something...
I must confess that I had a laugh with it when I went to see the movie, but it didn't feel right. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[King_Elendil]

Neferchoirwen, thank you for the compliment. Gwaihir, you are most definately entitled to your opinion. I like the movies and I've gone into the Sil, now I'm going through the Hobbit, and this from someone who was virtually illiterate in Tolkien before the movies came out, but you've most definately studied the work of the Professor more than I have. I have my opinion and you have yours.

[TheSquireof Aragorn]

I disagree, I think that Gimli was made into a pretty tough warrior look at FOTR, Boromir had to hold him back from running back in to Kazad Dhum. To tell you the truth i think LOTR would'nt be as interesting without a touch of comic relief, and Gimli is the best guy to do it.

[Neferchoirwen]

I have to say that I agree with The Squire. Although I also agree with Gwaihir. Movies are movies. They incidentally take away the reality of the books even up to more than twice over. In light of that, they are just interpretations that do not give an exact rendition of the original found in the books. All we are to do is to acknowledge the presence of these (as flaws or whatnot). It's pretty much like evil. It exists; denying it is futile, and it is, needless to say, necessary.

Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes there.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Yes, but unlike evil it is not better to have been. =/

Some people may not mind that the movies mess around far too much with the real story and characters, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], but I easily mind it enough for it to put me off them completely. Anyway. The transposition to a film of an incredible book like LotR unavoidably produces a stuffed-up movie; the real LotR can not be a film. They have to movie-ise it, which, to my dislike, distances it from the book and thus wrecks it.

You're right, King, I have been into Tolkien in depth for years before the movies. When you consider Tolkien's work, the whole mythology... when you are in love with that, the film is nothing more than a cheap imitation.
(Accept no imitations. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])

[Firnantoonion]

I disagree, I think that Gimli was made into a pretty tough warrior look at FOTR

at FotR, yes, but at TTT they messed things up, I mean just look at the lines when he, Legolas and aragorn are chasing the orcs, it made me laugh to, but indeed, it doesn't feel right... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Maéglin]

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more. In the movie, he seems to do so little in terms of helping the fellowship compared to Legolas who has that uncanny ever-regenerating arrows [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Also I didnt like how the Elves were represented in battle at Helms Deep (despite the fact that they should NOT have been there). I mean, the Uruk-hai, unexperienced orcs in battle that they are, are hacking the Elves left, right and center. Seriously, these Elves are hardened warriors that have seen conflict over an age.

I thought Theoden's character was a bit too harsh, and we didn't get to see Eomer's relationship with Gimli at all, an incident i thought would have been better comic relief in the film.

[Elentári]

I couldn't stand Faramir, I agree that Pippin and Merry have been turned into jokes, so has Gimli...and Legolas, well in the book he didn't say much, but when he did it was more than that sappy rubbish like 'a red sun rises, blood has been spilt this night', he talked about what time is like for the the Elves and stuff. Yeah, Gollum in the book was SCARY!!!!!!!!! But everyone thinks he's cute because of the films grrrr. Eowyn was good I thought, I was never able to understand her or relate to her in the book for some reason. Theoden was a bit annoying in some parts. The way the Ents had to be tricked......AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eomer (why did they give him accents over both the 'e's???) was ok, but they got lots of his story wrong. stuff like he was 'banished when he wasnt' and they were riding south, not north...can't remember now...
Arwen was sap and a waste of space...shame that, I really liked her in the book.

Maybe the stuff in the appendices should have been included.

[Neferchoirwen]

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more.

I thought I forgot that he was a dwarf in the whole thing. Comic relief is an important thing, especially for a sequel, but I just wish that they limited its use. Legolas telling Aragorn how funny he smells is more endearing to me than any of Gimli's side comments...okay. The "toss me" thing was alright, but "the box" was just too obvious.

Speaking of the Ents...I appreciated it that NOT ONE ENT DIED. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Neferchoirwen]

I liked some of the comic relief in TTT, but I wanted to see Gimli's dwarvishness more.

I thought I forgot that he was a dwarf in the whole thing. Comic relief is an important thing, especially for a sequel, but I just wish that they limited its use. Legolas telling Aragorn how funny he smells is more endearing to me than any of Gimli's side comments...okay. The "toss me" thing was alright, but "the box" was just too obvious.

Speaking of the Ents...I appreciated it that NOT ONE ENT DIED. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Ughósh the Abominable]

Among the characters I thought were portrayed quite well were Aragorn, Boromir, Gollum, Saruman, Sam, and Elrond; though I'd have to say that the one character that was absolutely spot-on was Gandalf. Ian McKellen is amazing. However you spell his name. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] (Haha, I said "spell"...never mind). Sure, each of the above (expect Gandalf, in my opinion) suffered some from the fact that they're characters in a movie, not a book; therefore they can't be fleshed out as much as they might be, etc. And there are one or two changes that make me grumble, like Aragorn being so unwilling to take up his inheritance (he struck me as much more noble and responsible in the books).

There are no characters in the movies that I think were portrayed horribly, except perhaps Faramir who really wasn't portrayed at all (though I'm hoping PJ will redeem himself on this point in RotK). But there are several that I think could use some work. Eowyn seemed too much the starry-eyed little girl in TTT. In the books she always struck me as a bit more crazed, a bit more tomboyish, a bit more hard-edged and serious; in the movie she seems to be all sighs and swoons.

Eomer simply didn't get enough screen time and dialogue. In the books he seemed something of a younger Theoden, or an echo of Theoden in his hale youth; in the movie he simply didn't get the chance to be portrayed as...anything, except a guy on a horse with a cool helmet that likes to insult Dwarves.

Legolas is played by Orlando Bloom, a young and inexperienced teen idol...I mean, actor. Therein lie most of his problems in the movie. He spends most of his time pouting, the better to attract swooning teenaged girls to the theatre who otherwise wouldn't see a movie like this in a million years. He does have his moments, though; he seemed to get quite a shot in the arm after the Moria scenes in FotR, and after that did quite well for the rest of the movie. However, he goes back to pouting in TTT. And anyone remember that scene where he starts yelling at Aragorn about how they're all going to die? Sheesh. A. That came out of nowhere; wasn't he making jokes about Aragorn's B.O. just before that? B. His expression didn't change a bit throughout the delivery of those lines. Orlando Bloom strikes again, and according to the umpire, he's out of there.

I have similar reservations when it comes to Gimli. Gimli in the movies is a bit of a paradox. Jon Rhys-Davis seems at the same time the best and worst possible choice for the role. I love the way he delivers his lines; the way he speaks fits very well the way I always imagined a Dwarf speaking. However, the actual lines that he speaks leave me a bit worried. "Nobody tosses a Dwarf"? "Ach, you could have picked a better spot"? "We Dwarves are natural sprinters, very dangerous over short distances"? No, no, no. Gimli in the books was always...the Dwarf. That's just it. He wasn't the silly lawn gnome that rears its ugly head so often in the films; he was a Dwarf, child of a race whose history is the very definition of sorrow and tragedy and painful defiance in the face of great evil. He had his mirth; after all, if one whose quest was so perilous didn't indulge in a bit of laughter once in a while, he'd probably just cry the whole way. But mirth did not define his character; often he was sort of a pessimist, or a superstitious paranoiac. In battle he was a combat machine (42 kills at Helm's Deep; 42!!); I think that, at least, has been adequately portrayed, especially in TTT where him and Aragorn get to defend the gates by themselves against the charging Uruk-hai.

Theoden in the movie troubled me. He went from a puppet of sorcery to a mean old man, then through a phase of senility before he finally showed something of the Theoden I remember from the books (charging fey down the ramp from the Keep and into the black throng). Of course this is all wound up with my sense of annoyance at PJ's alteration of the whole Helm's Deep plot element. In the books, they had to go to the Deep because a huge force of orcs and Dunlendings was charging across the plain, and Theoden's force could not hope to defeat them in a pitched battle. In the movie, Gimli and Gandalf start moaning about Theoden's...cowardice?...in not charging off immediately to get slaughtered. ***?

And yes, I would like to put in my two cents about the elves at Helm's Deep. I have but one question to PJ: why? I couldn't help chuckling behind my hand when I saw Haldir, who we'd just seen in the Lorien scenes near the end of FotR, saying he and his force came on the behalf of Elrond of Rivendell. ?????

No, that's not the worst part of it. The worst part is that A. This never happened in the books, and B. It never would have, because it doesn't make any sense. LOTR is not about Elves coming in and saving the day for everybody; it's more about everybody saving the day for themselves, for the first time, and in doing so starting a new age where much that has been for ages will now pass away (including, I add pointedly, the dominion of the Elves). But no, PJ has to inject his precious Elves into everything, because all the Elf fan-boys in the audience will wet their pants in glee when they see the pointy-eared freaks marching onto the screen. Elves, elves, elves, elves, ELVES!!!!! *twitch*

In conclusion, I have one more beef with the portrayal of a character in the film: Glorfindel. My beef is simply this: he's not in the films at all. His glory was totally usurped by Arwen in the first film. And PJ wasn't finished with that: he proceeded to rub Arwen in our faces constantly throughout the rest of FotR and again in TTT. No doubt the rubbing will continue in RotK. *sigh*

[ August 26, 2003: Message edited by: Ughósh the Abominable ]

[ August 26, 2003: Message edited by: Ughósh the Abominable ]

[Corwyn Celesil]

The person whose character is most reduced in the movie is Faramir. A man of wisdom beyond his brother's, of great sensitivity (as revealed in his treatment of Eowyn later) as well as strength and valour, he loved his brother but clearly saw his faults. Though tempted by the Ring, he refused to take it when he had the chance and revealed great worth. His portrayal in the movies was that of almost an entirely different man, a less admirable man.
Theoden, too, disappointed and annoyed me. He changed from a man of honour and valour to a man who refused to take the advice of the wise and move against evil. Oh, his glorious call of the Rohirrim to arms in the book (which moved me to tears at my third reading) was a great loss.
Aside from these two, the other character portrayal that has begun to annoy me is that of Aragorn. I greatly admire most of the movie Aragorn, but his reluctance to be Gondor's king is greatly out of character. Aragorn was every inch a king and he knew it. He had been to Gondor before and served under Denethor's father, and he loved the land and the city of Minas Tirith. When he looked into the palantir and revealed himself to Sauron, when he resolutely and fearlessly went through the Paths of the Dead, he had no hesitation and he had become then the king of Gondor, though he hadn't taken the throne. The movie Aragorn's aparent lack of desire to do what he should (especially in what I have heard of how RoTK will go) is disappointing and annoying.
I do, however, absolutely love Gandalf's portrayal. He follows the book better than anyone else.
Despite the things about the movies that annoy me terribly, I believe that as movies they are some of the best that I have ever seen.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

You mean Theoden wasn't healed in the second movie? I wouldn't know, I didn't bother seeing it... but do you mean to say that, in the movie, Theoden refused to lead the Rohirrim to the Hornburg?

[Corwyn Celesil]

They turned the Hornburg into a place of flight and refuge instead of Erkenbrand's fortress in the second movie and had Theoden refuse to listen to Aragorn and Gandalf and to lead his men out against the orcs. Instead he took all his people to Helm's Deep, and they hid there. The battle took place and all, but Theoden's character was changed for the worse.

[THE Ka]

Oh here we go agian, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] well i thikn one character the treated with no respect was that of Faramir.... i mean come on, in the movie they portray him like he was in boromir's boots in fotr, as if he had already been posessed by the ring... anyd i did find a flaw in the movie that was an important part of the book... in the movie when faramir says " an opportunity for faramir captian of gondor to show his quality" when he says this in the book however he sees frodo and sam tense up and get ready to defend themselves and he laughs at himself because of what he just said... then he says it was a shame that boromir died because of the ring.... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] in the book he very well knows what will happen if he trys to take the ring from what frodo and sam tell him when he asks about his brother... in the movie this some what happend but, not enough to show that he didn't want it.... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

well, i think i have covered my problem... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

"Well that really takes the cream filling out of the hoastess"

[Lyta_Underhill]

in the movie this some what happend but, not enough to show that he (Faramir) didn't want it....

Upon rewatching TTT, I find that it appears that Faramir doesn't so much want the Ring for himself, but he wants something powerful to show Denethor, something to prove himself worthy in his father's eyes. I have a feeling there are some cut scenes that will reinforce this view, but I still cannot forgive Faramir for putting his personal agenda above the universal problem of the Ring of Power and the consequences of its being found again and sought by Sauron. It makes Faramir seem short-sighted and I didn't even get the feeling he really understands the nature of the Ring when he finally lets Frodo go...it seems arbitrary. He is not only a duplicate of Boromir in the film, he seems a bad carbon copy! I imagine he will fight his way back to Minas Tirith from Osgiliath and redeem himself and seem the hero in all but Denethor's eyes but he doesn't seem to have the background knowledge that he does in the book, and Boromir seemed to know more than he did about history in the movie, although he discounted it...I can see how the view of Faramir as somewhat harsh due to being on the front lines of conflict with Mordor might come into play, but I never get the feeling that he understands what the Ring of Power is, unless there is supposed to be one of those "flashes of light" right before he tells Frodo "we understand each other" and lets him go. Maybe it is an editing flaw, who knows? Looking forward to ROTK and the extended TTT to fix Faramir!

Cheers,
Lyta

[GreyIstar]

Here is a link of a very good discussion on a movie message board over at IMDB. Very compelling arguments either way.

IMDB

I tend to think that Faramir of the movies is much more human than he is in the book. In the book he is more of a representation.

Anyways its pointless to get upset about this stuff. Can't change it. All you can do is not watch if it wounds you so deeply.

[Elentári]

And there are one or two changes that make me grumble, like Aragorn being so unwilling to take up his inheritance (he struck me as much more noble and responsible in the books).

That's what I felt too, but some people like him more in the movies because he's more human. But hey. In the films the perspective has changed anyway. It's more of an outsider's view of the events, instead of what the hobbits see like in the books.
And I think Orlando did a good job of a limited script. I didn't see it so much as pouting, just...I don't know. And hey, I think his acting has improved now, from seeing Pirates...if that's worth anything to anyone. You can't blame the actors if they had bad scripts and were powerless to change them.

[Arothir]

I thought Elrond was a bit misrepresented, I mean he seemed selfish. I know he wants Arwen to go with him, but in the movies he seemed harsh about it.

[Failivrin]

i agree. in FOTR i thought elrond was pretty good and i think hugo weaving has played him to perfection (or my perfection atleast) both times, but the lines given to him were very suspect.

[Theoric Windcaller]

In the books I imagined Eomer looking the "movie version of Theodin" but younger and I imagine Theodin as having a sort of "movie version of Isildur" look. But all the same, even though I've seen the Liv Tyler Arwen and the Cate Blanchett Galadriel, no one compares to the beauty of the two Elven females I have pictured in my mind.

I imagine them more beautiful than a blaze of purple in the nighttime sky, more beautiful than the whistling of the bird in the dawn of a new day, or more beautiful than the snow crested peaks of the Misty Mountains.

...SOrry, got carried away. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Elentári]

Hmm...although I had vague ideas of what characters looked like, I have never been able to give them faces or anything...there is no way I would ever have been able to draw them. So having faces from the films I find very useful, although if I do happen to have an image, my imagination uses that instead- for example I see Faramir with dark hair.

[Failivrin]

well i didn't have much time last so let go over ALL the characters i can remember AND what annoyed me [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] :

frodo: good in FOTR, crappy in TTT. sounded american, looked am dram, couldn't cope with the weight of such a role. too young.
sam: annoyed me. too, i can't describe it. just genreally stupid and annoying.
merry: big nose. sorry; that's all i see when i see dominic monaghan. don't think he's a very good actor either though alright
pippin: annoying. why didn't he to change the scottish accent? the maericans changed there? scotland isn't the england tolkien set LOTR in.
gandalf: pretty good. mckellen is a wonderful actor (saw him o nstage)
aragorn: liked him actually.
boromir: love sean bean so can't say. another wodnerful stage actor.
gimli: odd accent. pretty good. bad comic relief
legolas: hard to say
elrond: good
arwen: what can i say
galadriel: not pretty enough
celeborn: hmmmmmmmmm
bilbo: good
faramir: don't start
eowyn: didn't like her
eomer: failed to make an impression but good i think
theoden: too young looking. bad exorcising
grima: wonderful. looked totally wrong but performed so well i didn't think of that til afterwards
saruman: what can i say? christopher lee is the master. all bow down to him NOW!
glorfindel: where was he?
haldir: why did he die?
hama: not how i imagined him
treebead: f**k off, that's not an ent. his size changed! he was tricked for god's sake. they aren't tricked, they are the oldest living things in ME!

crazy...they should have had boromir in TTT like i nteh book. faramir was better in teh book. i mean, they couldn't even get his hair colour right. he is the complete opposite of what he is in the book. i nthe book he is inspirational, here he is stupid.

i don't care if the characters in the movies are more human. HELLO: LOTR IS A FANTASY! do wizards exist in real life? do ents? do hobbits? so why can we not make the humans glorious and wise if we can have all of these diffierent races of people? human isn't a particularly good thing anyway; look what we are doing to the world.

well i forgot the rest and i have to go anyway [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Lord of Angmar]

Failivrin, when you just use vague descriptions like someone was "good", "stupid" or you "didn't like" someone, we don't get the impression of why you feel this way.

gimli: odd accent. pretty good. bad comic relief

I loved the accent, but I did not enjoy his overused part as the comic relief in the Two Towers, especially not at Helm's Deep, where the tension had truly reached grandiose proportions before Legolas made the "box" crack about Gimli's height.

Why the ragging on Merry and Pippin? I thought Dominic and Billy were great choices (especially Billy, Scottish accent and all).

[Ainaserkewen]

Okay, my character ideas originated from the movies because, sadly I was hooked on the movies first, but now I'm a well learned Tolkien fan(very learned indeed)
Movie characters don't make sense unless theirs some biography behind them, the character I'd like to make refference to is Frodo. So weak and pathetic, but good and peachy. Hmmm, what I mean to say is that from the movie perspective I thought Frodo was kind of a massiah who had magical powers to repel evil, kind of like some warrior only trapped in a little person's body, also, everyone treated him really special not just cause of the ring, but like he wasn't a silly hobbit but one of the wise, that's just what I got.
From the books I got that he was a normal hobbit but rich and smarter, slightly. He also was a weak child that everyone had to take care of. Movies tend to portray their characters as super humans, who have less emotions of fear and such, in the ROTK I've heard that they are going to torture Frodo(not literally) in mind and body, which is better than there feeble attempts so far, I can't wait to see his character really grow.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I find myself in agreement with most of the complaints voiced thus far, but I shall set them aside so that I can concentrate on Gimli. One point about this character appears to have been left out of the preceding discussion (it goes without saying that it was absent from the films), and I should like to address it.

When Gimli is speaking to Galadriel at the giving of gifts and asks only for a single lock of her hair, he is revealed as a courtly hero in the tradition of the medieval romance. He chooses a lady to champion (Galadriel), whose favour he carries (a lock of hair is reasonably typical). Like the courtly knight, he entertains no romantic aspirations towards this lady, whom he keeps in mind as a spur to noble behaviour and a picture of the feminine ideal. To this end he defends her reputation for virtue and beauty even in the face of insurmountable odds (witness his defiance of Éomer before his entire éored), and will challenge the placing of any woman higher in others' estimation.

This attitude towards Galadriel is indicative of a general sensitivity towards beauty that is also shown in his reaction to the Glittering Caves. It sets him closer to the Elves, perhaps, than the rest of his race, but it is also possible that here we have the epitome of Dwarvishness, showing us that there is more to them than axes, beards and a love of smithying, another thing that the films have utterly failed to achieve. It is hardly surprising that this fundamental element of his character was dropped for the film, though, since it precludes his use as a bumbling clown. Also Tolkien plays with the image of the knight in shining armour by setting in his place one of the squat and solid Dwarves, perhaps showing us that it is not necessary to be a dashing Sir Lancelot in order to have the soul of a knight. Film-makers are notoriously afraid of taking risks like this, so a more conventional (and consequently less engaging) image for Gimli must be found.

As for comic relief, I do agree that it is necessary in a story such as The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien thought so too, and included it. The problem is that Tolkien's idea of a good joke and that of the average film-maker are not the same thing. They are looking for obvious humour to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that means having someone clown about. Since Merry and Pippin can't be everywhere, and Aragorn and Legolas clearly can't be portrayed in this light, poor Gimli must trip over and talk like an idiot so that the real morons (hypothetical members of the audience, whose existence I doubt) may be sufficiently entertained by a story that is in every way above them (it is a fact universally acknowledged that nobody can be entertained by something that challenges them). I can guarantee that Tolkien would not be impressed.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Squatter, I agree wholeheartedly! Those very endearing aspects of Gimli's character make him a book character that I like much more than Legolas. He has the soul of a poet in the body of a clumsy oaf, and the soul wins in every respect in the book. Galadriel accepts his proferred chivalry with a favor that not even Féanor, arguably one of the greatest Elves, received from her!

[Failivrin]

i am sorry lord of angmar, it appeared that i had less time than i thought on the internet. so let me concentrate on the characters you mentioned and the ones i can remember saying were 'good' etc.

elrond: i thought he was good. i like hugo weaving as an actor because he is so varied. his performance of elrond is one of the ones i liked best in the whole movies (i actually thought he got it spot on) but the problem was the script. i really liked him FOTR but then the whole grey havens thing ruined it for me. that's why he was just 'good'.

aragorn: i tried to read LOTR when i was about 9, got bored and failed at the barrow downs. when the film came out i was die hard HP (oh the shame) and decided that i had better read LOTR all the same. the first thing i read was the children's movie guide so i could kind of associate it with teh book. i saw viggo mortensen an i thought he was pretty. then i read the book and his image seemed to fit that of aragorn in the book. that's why i liked him. i don't think he was 'amazing' because of that stupid accent that verges on english, american and danish much of the time.

eowyn: i didn't like her because i don't think miranda otto is a particularly good actress for this kind of film. like elijah wood, i don't think she has the depth to draw on for such a character. i always imagined eowyn as quitely suffering, whereas her performance seemed more obvious to me. i don't know, she just didn't click for me...

bilbo: many of you have expressed how delighted you were with ian holm's bilbo but he was another character that i just didn't find quite right. i can't quite put my finger on it, but i think it was the 'dramaticness' of his performance if you get my point. i don't know. i thought he was perfectly competent but he's not my kind of actor.

eomer: to be honest i wasn't that impressed with any of the new additions apart from wormtongue. i thought they were fine but they failed to make an impression. he was alright i suppose, but he wasn't EOMER.

i rag on merry and pippin because i don't like them. my point about mr boyd's scottish accent is that hobbits are menat to be from around warwickshire if we compare middle earth to the world. that is in england and they have an english accent there, not a scottish one. scottish is just as foreign as american. i just was not impressed with them. they weren't merry and pippin. they didn't impress me. they seemed to be there merely for comic relief. i DON'T think they're maturing nicely. they don't have that offhand, light tolkien humour of the two hobbits in flotsam and jetsam, they have stupid blockbuster slapstick humour. like the apple incident. it is irritating because i am a major tolkien purist and i can't cope with things being messed with. gimli's accent annoyed me because i couldn't decide whether it was welsh or scottish and he can't be from two places.

something i don't believe has been mentioned is the NAZGUL. what was with them? i mean the winged nazgul. i was always under the impression that they rode huge, contorted, grotesque bird like things, not dinosaurs. those things were DINOSAURS. there were no dinosaurs in middle earth. the other day i saw something the looked extremely like a pterodactyl in a film, but that might not have been TTT...

[Lyta_Underhill]

i rag on merry and pippin because i don't like them. my point about mr boyd's scottish accent is that hobbits are menat to be from around warwickshire if we compare middle earth to the world. that is in england and they have an english accent there, not a scottish one. scottish is just as foreign as american.

Certainly an inconsistency, but one I am willing to allow. And I think Scotland is a little bit closer than America! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I suppose, if you looked at it that way, we Americans would all speak with the language and accent of Aman! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] But, I could hold with the theory that the Tooks were more adventurous than your average run-of-the-Shire hobbit and thus their stock would come from all over.

i DON'T think they're maturing nicely. they don't have that offhand, light tolkien humour of the two hobbits in flotsam and jetsam, they have stupid blockbuster slapstick humour.

Such is ever the case with a movie translation, but I rather think the portrayal of Merry and Pippin in TTT showed the proper spirit of "lighthearted hobbits in trouble" that I got from the book. I especially thought Billy's intonations when Treebeard first has him speak more than they say, so to speak. "And whose side are you on?" has that childlike wonder to it, while being to the point. I do find the subtleties lost in the movie, but the spirit is mostly maintained. The initiative is taken from Merry and Pippin by bringing them together with Gandalf at this point, but they still, all by themselves, manage to stir the Ents to war and thus fulfill their place as the "small stones" that begin an avalanche. I realize the methods are different, but this is of necessity.

The closeness of Merry to the lore of the trees and Pippin's quick thinking and acting are maintained in a different way but they are there. This is just like what I remember from Fellowship, when I bemoaned the loss of the Ford of Bruinen scene with Frodo defying the Nazgul all by his lonesome hobbit self, but still the spirit was kept later with his quiet challenge to Galadriel at her mirror. We still understand that Frodo has quiet strength but does not show it ostentatiously. Just so, I believe, with Merry and Pippin in TTT. I can't keep anyone from their opinions, but I enjoyed Billy and Dom's portrayals quite a lot!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Failivrin]

yes, i did like it when pippin talked after they got caught by treebeard

[Alaksoron]

I'm not one to say what's better in the book than in the movie, or vice versa, but I got the impression while reading the book that he was older than Viggo Mortensen portrayed him.

[Alaksoron]

I do not think Aragorn was well portrayed in the movie. In the book he was older, less turbulent, and more grim than valiant and heroic. And another thing everyone here seems to forget. Arwen was not in the books. Save for a brief mention in ROTK, she existed in the story only in the Appendixes.