Lord of the rings question

[avaunt]

In the book, and the movie, Dernhelm was the name Eowyn took when she donned non-descript harness, borrowed a plain horse (hight Windfola), and rode with The Kings forces, to raise the seige on Gondor.<br /><br />She rode as close to the King as she could stay, Meriadoc up in pillion behind her. When The King clove through the shield wall of their ancient enemy, and stroked the Serpent Banners' bearer from crown to breastbone, she burst through beside him. <br /><br />And when the witch king comes forward to kill Theoden king as he lay trapped under Snowmane, she says<br /><br />"Begone, foul dimmerliak, lord of carrion! leave the dead in peace".<br /><br />A cold voice answered "come not between the nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where they flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind left naked to the Lidless Eye".<br /><br />A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will, but I will hinder it, if I may".<br /><br />"Hinder me? Thou fool. no living man may hinder me!".<br /><br />Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look apon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will SMITE you, if you touch him".<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I have no idea, how anyone dares draw pen, and attempt to write fantasy, to follow that.<br /><br />Shakespeare himself would be daunted!.

 

[JonClarke]

It certainly would be difficult more mere mortals to convey the elves. Tolkien's elves were tall, agile, strong, (Galadriel was over 6 foot, as I recall), and staggeringly beautiful. <br /><br />I would have preferred Kathrine Zeta Jones for Arwen myself.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Yep, I have read all of LOTR within 24 hours. Although I generally read them slower over a week or so.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree, Jackson created his own version of the story. The problem for me is his version is so fundamentally diverent from the original that I am unable to enjoy it. I want chocolate cake and I'll be blowed if I will accept coffee cake as an adequate substitute. If Jackson wanted to reinvent the story that much he should make made his own.<br /><br />Bland is an interesting comment. Perhaps the lack of Tokien's moral depth is the reason for this. It was only glimpsed in Jackson's version - Frodo saying "I will take the ring, although I do not know the way." or Sam following Frodo at the Falls.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

In contrast the only time that Legolas loses control in the book is at the sight of the Balrog. It's not just a big scary monster, it is incarnate spiritual evil - a corpreal demon if you will. In contrast, flood, fire, odds, enemies, the undead have no fear for Legolas.<br /><br />Self possession by the elves should not be confused with lack of emotion. Legolas grieves at the deaths of Boromir and Gandalf (I think Jackson caught this perfectly, although perhaps inadvertently), the elves are quick to laugh and know joy and love as well as grief. <br /><br />Jon<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Well said! Yes, Dernhelm does confront the Witch King in the film, but it is surpisingly how few people remember it, when it should have been one of the crowning moments of the story.<br /><br />No "Begone foul dwimmerlaik!" or "For living or dark undead I will smite you." That passage brings me to tears every time I read it. It's ommision is like having Henry the fifth without the Agincourt speech.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Each to their own when it comes to actresses <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jackson is not a subtle director, as far as I can tell, at least when interpreting some else's story. However he has a strong visual sense, which is why the films fork best at that level.<br /><br />I await TLTWATW with great trepidation. There is a story that with sensitive and subtle direction would become a cinematographic legend, or utterly horrible. I shall be satisifed with an adequate translation.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Way back before filming began on LOTR, there were discussions betweens the purists - "He Must Not Change a Single Word" and the pragmatist - "Well, you know, the movies are a business and you do what you gotta do."<br /><br />I very much dislike but grudgingly accept the major story line changes - Sam and Frodo at Osgiliath!!!??? - when I consider the real world. Back before filming began, the idea of a blockbuster fantasy film was radical and too risky. <br /><br />PJ went thru quite a journey to get those movies made - every producer wanted just two movies before DeLucca at NewLine - and that affected the result. It's truly a shame, because the movies were visually and culturally gripping enough that going with the source material would not have caused the problems they were worried about IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Jackson has been amply repaid for the effort he put into it by the squillions he has made.<br /><br />The fact remains that the characters in the film, with few exceptions are largely unrecognisable. They lack moral depth, dignity, and are in many cases are moved by motivations utterly different to the This is not a quibble, this is a fatal flaw in my view. I am hard put to think of any film adaptation of a book of the last 30 years which has so bastadised the original in these respect. Jackson was not only clearly out of his depth he also lacked the artistic integrity to reflect Tolkien's creative vision. His in your face cheesy approach is much better suited to horror movies and remakes of B grade creature features, which is his natural medium. I would have preferred the films not to have been made. Other are free to disagree of course!<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Yes. I have watched the extended versions and extras as well. And aspects of the extras troubled me. In particular it was the Legolas Oliphant surfing scene. Aspects of the battle lost reality turning it from something marvellous into a Hallmark Channel kids film. <br /><br />This was Jackson's idea. Let's have Legolas climb the Oliphant and surf down its trunk as it crashes to the ground. There was no discussion. It seemed that Jackson just thought this up and said do it, it'll look cool and we'll put it in the film. I think two months work by a large team went into this scene alone.<br /><br />I realise I am probably in the minority on this and most people thought the scene was great. But scenes like this and the absolutely stupid cheesy tallying banter between Legolas and Gimli in this battle, I believe lessened the film.<br /><br />I continue to have mixed feelings on the films. Aspect are brilliant and Jackson is to be comended, but others made me grind my teeth. Sort of like Jackson taking a shot at the basket from the halfway line without listening instead of working with a team to get a better result. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree, the quality was very uneven. Ignoring the book for the moment (gasp!) scenes like that were just so cheesy. And there were so many others. Sauron, the giant red eyeball intoning lines from a B (or C) grade horror flick <i>There is no life in the void"</i>! The wizard duel, the olympic torch bearing orc, radioactive Galadriel, saurman getting impaled in a spiked wheel......<br /><br />And yet there were moments of great beauty and power (the death of Boromir for example). With a director of greater subtlety, moral depth, and respect for the source material, this film could have been great. But it wasn't. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>It is obvious that you are totally a fan of the books so that you expect to find fault in anything else. t is noticable that in all your posts, you are basically repeating the same criticisms. I really don't believe that any movie version would satisfy the likes of you (not meaning to sound offensive) because you have built up your own movie version within your head. Anything that then differs from your imagination is always going to be sub-par. </i><br /><br />Not true. There have been a many very successful adaptations of good even great works of literature in the past decade. The Harry Potter films . The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Pride and Prejudice, Nicholas Nickleby, Htich-Hicker Guide. These are all stories I have enjoyed in book form and had high expectations and standards for the films which were overal very well met. It is Jackson's retelling of LOTR neither met expectations nor standards, and stands out in contrast to the others.<br /><br /><i>Moreover, there are things in the books that can never be translated into moving images, no matter how much technology that will ever be developed. Each of us reads a book and puts their own interpretation onto the actions and words of the characters. When reading a book we are free to take time out to analyze and digest what each character says and does, but in a movie the story has to continually flow past the viewer. It is therefore inevitable that in any movie the audience is going to be spoon fed to a certain extent even by the most subtle of directors. It is not necessarily a problem with the director, it is a simple fact that the medium is different so the way the story comes across will always be different. Trying to pitch the story to the masses must be the hardest thing to do in any movie, try reviewing the thread here on 2001: A Space Odyssey and you still see people that still cannot fully grasp it. </i><br /><br />This is true, and what makes a good adaptation of a book to film (as opposed to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There have been a many very successful adaptations of good even great works of literature in the past decade. The Harry Potter films . The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Pride and Prejudice, Nicholas Nickleby, Htich-Hicker Guide. These are all stories I have enjoyed in book form and had high expectations and standards for the films which were overal very well met.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is worth pointing out that for all of those films there are those who would level the exact same criticisms which you levy on "Lord of the Rings". The extended battle scenes in Narnia, the greatly abbreviated forming of the army at the Queen's castle, and many changes with respect to the characters' flight from the Beavers' house to the Stone Table. (The ice surfing bit was completely original to the movie, for instance.)<br /><br />And I've seen some really atrocious versions of those 19th Century classics....<br /><br />Hitch-Hiker is an interesting one to bring up, as the film adaptation is so different from the books (which are the *third* incarnation of the property, not the first) that to many fans, it is again unrecognizable. This was inevitable; dedicated fans know that this is something to expect from Douglas Adams.<br /><br />In the end, I don't think anybody can claim to have the "definitive" opinion of the film adaptations of "Lord of the Rings". Everyone has to come to their own opinion. And one is neither more or less of a Tolkien fan if you like them or dislike them.<br /><br /><b>Sauron, a hidden menance, becomes a cheesy bouncing eyeball mouth lines of Jackson's invention from a C grade movie.</b><br /><br />Well, you try to depict what Tolkien described! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Sauron was described as being basically a giant flaming eyeball, so I'm not sure there really was another way to do it. I'm just relieved he didn't try to anthropomorphize him.<br /><br /><b>Gandalf, the embodiment of</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

I don't agree with all Jon's points, but I share many of his misgivings. If a person creates a major work, it is useful to have some constructive criticism. It is a pity (and I get this from watching the extended extras) that Jackson was not a bit more open to it during the production.<br /><br />I notice again no mention of Gimli. I still shudder when I watch his scenes in the movies. I still don't know how John Rhys-Davies did it - playing a character assasinated fool for three years.<br /><br />Did they really need the dwarf tossing scene?<br /><br />Gimli: "Oh, come on, we can take them!" <br />Aragorn: "It's a long way." <br />Gimli: "......toss me." <br />Aragorn: "What?" <br />Gimli: "I can not jump the distance, you have to toss me.....oh, don't tell the elf." <br />Aragorn: "You have my word."<br /><br />or <br /><br />Gimli: "What's happening out there?" <br />Legolas: "Shall I describe it to you? Or would you like me to find you a box?"<br /><br />Like so many scenes and dialogues, these lessened the film. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[larper]

My biggest peeve was Gimli also. First they &%$#@!ized Moria, then then took away most of Gimli's purpose for being there.<br /><br />Gimli's story was one of transformation. His hatred of the elves turned to true love and kindredship with them. This was touched on only fleetingly throughout the films. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[border_ruffian]

"It all starts with a single, simple ring, experts say, and from there, can mushroom into strange behaviours and fetishes. Gollum, seen here, was once a simple, mild-mannered Hobbit, until he found The Ring. Says Gollum, "The Ring lead me down a path of debauchery and depravity that was unbelievable. No second breakfasts, or elevensies. I was out of control."

 

[rhodan]

border_ruffian,<br /><br />Your picture will somehow not approve; I get an error message. Please try resizing it or saving it under a different extension (jpeg).

 

[border_ruffian]

Thanks Rhodan. That's fine. People who want to see Gollum gone wild can just go here:<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerenm/167059653/<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

In Jackson's defense, Tolkein describes Sauron as having become discorporeal with the loss of the Ring. (It's not the loss of the finger which caused him so much grief. It was the loss of the Ring upon that finger that caused his "spirit to flee", as Tolkein put it. He had put a great deal of his own power into the Ring, you see, so being separated from it was very serious. It took a long time for him to gather himself back together.) He has reconstituted himself into something that resembles a gigantic, malevolent eye -- an eye which sees everything in Mordor, and much beyond. The searchlight effect is also right out of the book. It may seem cheesy, but I have a hard time thinking of a better way to interpret Tolkein's description. I'd say that of all the challenges presented by Lord of the Rings, coming up with a visual realization of Sauron which doesn't cause people to instantly collapse in paraoxysms of laughter is probably the hardest.<br /><br />Second hardest would be the Balrog, in my opinion. Tolkein describes it as being made of shadow and fire.<br /><br />The Balrog is also a Maia, incidentally. So is Gandalf. Not many people realize that these beings are all the same sort of creature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[avidgamer]

I must say that I enjoyed the movies.<br />Whenever possible I think of a film as an independant work even if it was based on a book as I believe there is no good way to make a book into a film, as they are very different forms of entertainment. (See also: video games that have been made into movies *sigh*)<br /><br />book/movie comparisons aside I found the movies great, despite the urge to walk out of the theater during the dwarf tossing sceen. How could anyone have thought that this was a great ide for a sceen in an epic battle?<br />

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Could an Eye have hand with four fingers only?</font><br /><br />The Eye of Sauron was a manifestation. That image was what he projected. When Frodo looked into the Mirror of Galadriel, he saw the Lidless Eye. When he sat upon AMon Hen wearing the ring, after Boromir tried to take the Ring from him, he "felt" the Eye searching for him.<br /><br />The orcs of Mordor bore the Eye on their shields as their standard.<br /><br />Sauron put all that he was into the Ring. I think that when Isildur cut the Ring from his hand, he became like a Ringwraith. No physical form.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I'm what you would call a "purist". I was given my first copy of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings box set for Christmas when I was 17.<br /><br />Every year, on Bilbo's birthday, I reread the Lord of the Rings. A stupid ritual I guess.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movies. I think the most memorable scene for me was after the Ring had been destroyed, Frodo and Sam had been rescued from Orodruin and had recovered, they were presented to Aragorn who had newly claimed his Kingship.<br /><br />They bowed to him, and he raised them up and he said, "You bow no no man". A VERY powerful scene.<br /><br />Having said that, Arwen's role in the movie, in my opinion, detracted from the story. Glorfindel was the hero of the Race to the Ford. Not her.<br /><br />Gimli was used as comic relief. I got a laugh out of the "dwarf tossing" scene, but I didn't like it relative to the story.<br /><br />Starting with the Two Towers, Jackson (and/or the writers of the screenplay) &%$#@!ized the story almost to the point of it being unrecognizable.<br /><br />In the books, there was tragic beauty in the absence of interaction between Arwen and Aragorn. It was poignant.<br /><br />But there were parts of the movies that were brilliant. The battle of Helm's Deep was <b>magnificent</b>. The interaction between Saruman and Gandalf (Christopher Lee was the PERFECT Saruman) was correct.<br /><br />One thing that disappointed me greatly was all of the content that occurred after Sauron was defeated, and Aragorn was crowned was left out.<br /><br />The discovery of a sapling of Telperion, the White Tree, the wedding of Arwen and Aragorn, Faramir and Eowyn, and the subsequent return of the Company to the Shire were excluded.<br /><br />The War of the Ring did not end until Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin cleared the Shire of its Scouring. <br /><br />The movie did not pay homage to the Last Journey of Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel to the Havens for their passage to the West.<br /><br />I think that the omission of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

That's one thing I was left wanting from after reading all the Tolkein authored works.<br /><br />Morgoth in and of himself is a book or two. And what <b>of</b> Harad, Umbar, and lands to the East?<br /><br />What of Bombadil? He was "first". Was he the stweard of Middle Earth per the plan of the Valar to populate the world? What herioc acts did he perform in the Dawn of the world?<br /><br />And while some of their history was indeed portrayed, what of the internal divisions that cause the Numenorians to go to war with one another?<br /><br />And Dragons. Smaug was not the only one, but rather the last of his kind. Ancalagon the Black was the only other dragon referred to. What of his exploits and the struggle of the inhabitants of Middle Earth against him?<br /><br />Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast were only 3 of the 5 <i>Istari</i>. What of the other 2, and what was their role?<br /><br />I could go on and on... I guess some stories are like that. They allow us to "fill in the blanks" in luxurious sessions of self indulgent imagination.<br /><br />I think that was the gift that Tolkein bestowed on us. At least for a while, we could divorce ourselves from war and worry, thereby recapturing the magic of childhood. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Concerning "fill in the blanks" : one even guy posted the extended Map of the Middle - earth in Wikipedia</font><br /><br />Very cool! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Considering the wealth of story content, and the huge gaps in Middle Earth history that exist, I'm very surprised that more literary works are not on the market. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>