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

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 11-21-2005, 09:02 AM

I'll just give you a moment to let that brilliant thread title sink in.

Ok?

Apologies for the delay (see post #10 in Boromir88's 'Meat driven' thread for details — sorry I can't link); but I completely forgot about the idea until that thread was brought back.

This thread is for my favourite character and for all of that glorious race: Treebeard and the Ents. Their portrayal in the films didn't satisfy me, and I'm not at all sure that there were good reasons for choosing this portrayal.

In my opinion, the Ents did not come across as likeable. The best example of this is when Treebeard says his highly amusing line "It takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish; and we never say anything unless it's worth taking a long time to say." Merry and Pippin just roll their eyes and look stroppy as if encouraging the audience to think that Ents are frustrating and annoying.

Then they decide not to go to war. What on Middle-earth? Why would they do the total opposite of what they did in the book? As it happened, it appears that this decision was made so that Pippin could trick the Ents into going to war. Now, this makes Pippin look clever. Pippin needed being made to look clever because he was shown to be a bit of an idiot in The Fellowship of the Ring. However, this doesn't so much elevate Pippin as diminish Treebeard. Pippin demonstrates to Treebeard that Treebeard's own forest is being destroyed by Saruman. We must presume that Treebeard did not know this. What an awful guardian he is. Add to this that every other Ent just storms out of the Forest after one call by Treebeard, despite the fact that their long debate just hours beforehand suggested that they, as a group, had reasoned and accepted that they were not going to war. Oh dear.

I don't really want to talk about the CGI or whatnot. I really liked the look of the Ents, and I could never really get a clear picture of them when reading the book. But this thread is really about how they came across to the audience. In conversation with other people, I find that nobody loves the Ents (a bit like Faramir actually; only with Faramir, even though I really didn't like the character in the films, I can understand why he was portrayed that way).

Treebeard and the Ents I don't understand.

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.

Morsul the Dark · 11-22-2005, 08:10 AM

Well... Yes I agree about Treebeard strangly not knowing his forest was cut to ribbons i dont however agree on their pertrayal overall...honestly if they didnt know that the forest was getting chopped down than yes it makes since for them not to go to war... the only problem was the fact that he didnt know it also proved how much he cared for his forest honestly as soon as he saw it torn down he went psycho and showed why trolls were modelled after ents

Kath · 11-22-2005, 09:36 AM

But surely if Treebeard did care for the trees and was active in his role as shepherd or caretaker, he would already know about the trees that had been cut down? His words about the orcs (as Boromir said) semm to show he is aware that this is happening, so for him to be suddenly so surprised by it is odd. It's almost as though he's been backed into a corner and only now that he can't argue his way out of it does he agree to fight.

Morsul the Dark · 11-22-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

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.

well remember books and movies are different
If i may digress about the whole lembas saga for a second do you think a general audience member would have accepted the fact that gollum and sam hate each other and odldsly never fight until the very end?

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 11-22-2005, 10:21 AM

Well, if I understand your point correctly, my answer is yes.

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 11-24-2005, 01:15 PM

Anyway...

The fact that books and films are different is a fact which I have not ignored, as indicated in the initial post. (Indeed, anyone ignoring this point obviously hasn't been paying much attention the Movies forum in recent years.) The question raised by making that point is: In which way did the unflattering (as I see it) portrayal of the Ents benefit the transition of the story from book to film?

AbercrombieOfRohan · 11-24-2005, 01:36 PM

Well, as I see it, there's absolutely nothing beneficial about changing the ents, though it doesn't destroy the movie either. The ents are one of the few things that I can truly seperate from the books and not overly complain about. Like (I think) you said Eomer, you had a hard time visualising the ents while reading the books, and so did I. Every time I read the Two Towers my visualisation changed; sometimes they looked more stone-like than tree-ish and othertimes more human than tree-ish and sometimes just tree-ish. So when I saw the movie, the ents were definitively Peter Jackson's version and I could easily differentiate between the two.

So I'm not sure if I've answered your question, but here's my take on things. Nice thread, by the way.

11-21-2005, 10:19 AM	#2
mormegil Maundering Mage Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,679	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. __________________ When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke

11-21-2005, 12:09 PM	#4
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,992	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	#5
Kath Everlasting Whiteness Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Perusing the laminated book of dreams Posts: 4,725	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	#6
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	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,814	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, 09:02 AM	#1
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,992	That's Ent-ertainment I'll just give you a moment to let that brilliant thread title sink in. Ok? Apologies for the delay (see post #10 in Boromir88's 'Meat driven' thread for details — sorry I can't link); but I completely forgot about the idea until that thread was brought back. This thread is for my favourite character and for all of that glorious race: Treebeard and the Ents. Their portrayal in the films didn't satisfy me, and I'm not at all sure that there were good reasons for choosing this portrayal. In my opinion, the Ents did not come across as likeable. The best example of this is when Treebeard says his highly amusing line "It takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish; and we never say anything unless it's worth taking a long time to say." Merry and Pippin just roll their eyes and look stroppy as if encouraging the audience to think that Ents are frustrating and annoying. Then they decide not to go to war. What on Middle-earth? Why would they do the total opposite of what they did in the book? As it happened, it appears that this decision was made so that Pippin could trick the Ents into going to war. Now, this makes Pippin look clever. Pippin needed being made to look clever because he was shown to be a bit of an idiot in The Fellowship of the Ring. However, this doesn't so much elevate Pippin as diminish Treebeard. Pippin demonstrates to Treebeard that Treebeard's own forest is being destroyed by Saruman. We must presume that Treebeard did not know this. What an awful guardian he is. Add to this that every other Ent just storms out of the Forest after one call by Treebeard, despite the fact that their long debate just hours beforehand suggested that they, as a group, had reasoned and accepted that they were not going to war. Oh dear. I don't really want to talk about the CGI or whatnot. I really liked the look of the Ents, and I could never really get a clear picture of them when reading the book. But this thread is really about how they came across to the audience. In conversation with other people, I find that nobody loves the Ents (a bit like Faramir actually; only with Faramir, even though I really didn't like the character in the films, I can understand why he was portrayed that way). Treebeard and the Ents I don't understand. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

11-21-2005, 11:50 AM	#3
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,169	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	#8
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,559	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	#9
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,992	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.

11-22-2005, 08:10 AM	#10
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,502	Well... Yes I agree about Treebeard strangly not knowing his forest was cut to ribbons i dont however agree on their pertrayal overall...honestly if they didnt know that the forest was getting chopped down than yes it makes since for them not to go to war... the only problem was the fact that he didnt know it also proved how much he cared for his forest honestly as soon as he saw it torn down he went psycho and showed why trolls were modelled after ents __________________ Morsul the Resurrected

11-22-2005, 09:36 AM	#11
Kath Everlasting Whiteness Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Perusing the laminated book of dreams Posts: 4,725	But surely if Treebeard did care for the trees and was active in his role as shepherd or caretaker, he would already know about the trees that had been cut down? His words about the orcs (as Boromir said) semm to show he is aware that this is happening, so for him to be suddenly so surprised by it is odd. It's almost as though he's been backed into a corner and only now that he can't argue his way out of it does he agree to fight. __________________ “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”

11-22-2005, 10:21 AM	#13
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,992	Well, if I understand your point correctly, my answer is yes. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

11-24-2005, 01:15 PM	#14
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,992	Anyway... The fact that books and films are different is a fact which I have not ignored, as indicated in the initial post. (Indeed, anyone ignoring this point obviously hasn't been paying much attention the Movies forum in recent years.) The question raised by making that point is: In which way did the unflattering (as I see it) portrayal of the Ents benefit the transition of the story from book to film? __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond Last edited by Eomer of the Rohirrim; 04-20-2007 at 08:04 AM. Reason: Badgers made me do it

11-24-2005, 01:36 PM	#15
AbercrombieOfRohan Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 386	Well, as I see it, there's absolutely nothing beneficial about changing the ents, though it doesn't destroy the movie either. The ents are one of the few things that I can truly seperate from the books and not overly complain about. Like (I think) you said Eomer, you had a hard time visualising the ents while reading the books, and so did I. Every time I read the Two Towers my visualisation changed; sometimes they looked more stone-like than tree-ish and othertimes more human than tree-ish and sometimes just tree-ish. So when I saw the movie, the ents were definitively Peter Jackson's version and I could easily differentiate between the two. So I'm not sure if I've answered your question, but here's my take on things. Nice thread, by the way.