Tolkien Fans: Comments and Questions

[StillStunned]

Sending him and his homies to Helm's Deep was one of the trilogy's two unforgivable mistakes.

I believe the idea was to show that there was still some sense of solidarity in Middle-Earth, and so provide a logical reason for why Theoden decides to help Gondor. I think it failed to do that - a single line of text would have reinforced the idea - and also does the elves a disservice. They go from being mysterious and cool in Lothlorien to helpless chumps just waiting to be slaughtered.

The Battle of Helm's Deep is incredible in the book, but the more I watch the movie version the more I dislike it.

 

[Voboy]

I believe the idea was to show that there was still some sense of solidarity in Middle-Earth,

I agree. I also think that's an un-Tolkien notion, where elves are concerned. The whole arc of their story is that they're specifically no longer the ones coming to the rescue of Men.

and so provide a logical reason for why Theoden decides to help Gondor.

I hadn't thought about that from a filmmaking perspective; I wouldn't have thought it was necessary, though of course I was biased when I saw the films. I knew the books far too well.

I think the useless bit about Aragorn getting Anduril at Harrowdale (also a stupid change, though not an unforgivable one) could have been replaced by the arrival of Hirgon with the Red Arrow to reinforce the Oath of Eorl. A few lines of dialogue, as you say, would have done the same.

I try not to nitpick Jackson; I am such a Tolkien fanboy that I realized, even then, that a movie that would completely satisfy me could not be made. So I went in with a relatively open mind. Given the stakes, me only finding two unforgivable flaws is probably the best he could have done IMO.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree. I also think that's an un-Tolkien notion, where elves are concerned. The whole arc of their story is that they're specifically no longer the ones coming to the rescue of Men.



I hadn't thought about that from a filmmaking perspective; I wouldn't have thought it was necessary, though of course I was biased when I saw the films. I knew the books far too well.

I think the useless bit about Aragorn getting Anduril at Harrowdale (also a stupid change, though not an unforgivable one) could have been replaced by the arrival of Hirgon with the Red Arrow to reinforce the Oath of Eorl. A few lines of dialogue, as you say, would have done the same.

I try not to nitpick Jackson; I am such a Tolkien fanboy that I realized, even then, that a movie that would completely satisfy me could not be made. So I went in with a relatively open mind. Given the stakes, me only finding two unforgivable flaws is probably the best he could have done IMO.

What's the other unforgivable flaw?

I cut Jackson some slack, because there was no way the books could be literally translated into a successful movie. I thought that, with a few exceptions, he did a remarkably good job realizing the story as a movie.

 

[Voboy]

What's the other unforgivable flaw?

Faramir.

 

[Statius]

He embraced his kingly destiny, and was simply biding his time.

He was also horny, and wanted some of that sweet sweet Arwen nookie. Becoming king of the reunited realm was the only way to get laid.

I had few problems with the casting of the LOTR films. I do agree that Haldir was miscast; he was also badly miswritten. Sending him and his homies to Helm's Deep was one of the trilogy's two unforgivable mistakes.

Certainly must've been difficult being an 87 yr old virgin in your prime

 

[StillStunned]

Certainly must've been difficult being an 87 yr old virgin in your prime

Don't forget that his sword was broken.

 

[old_prof]

What's the other unforgivable flaw?

I cut Jackson some slack, because there was no way the books could be literally translated into a successful movie. I thought that, with a few exceptions, he did a remarkably good job realizing the story as a movie.

My biggest issue with the movie (among many. many others) was cutting of the ending in the shire. To me the overall point of LotR was the hobbits leaving to save the shire, as it was. to preserve the quiet calm and safety of it. Against all odds, they actually manage to save all of middle earth, then come back to the shire forever changed.

Before you say he had to cut something, he added a ton of garbage that would have been better to leave out and parts he kept from the book, but poorly adapted. I also always thought that he should have made it in six slightly shorter movies, corresponding to the six books as written, as opposed to as published.

But I think Jackson fundamentally did not understand the books.

 

[Voboy]

But I think Jackson fundamentally did not understand the books.

I sort of agree, but the problem is that the last film had waaaay too many endings as it was. It was one climax after another. The Scouring would have added at least another hour, and another ending; it also would have come from out of nowhere, since the bit about Saruman trading with the tobacco farmers of the Shire wasn't stated in the movie and would have been non-sequitur if it had. Same with the significance of the Dunlendings coming up the Greenway toward Bree early in Fellowship. The books allow us to put these clues together so that the desperate state of the Shire makes narrative sense.

I appreciate that Jackson was working in an entirely different medium than Tolkien was, and a different commercial reality as well. That clearly drove several elements he chose to include in the films, which were universally admired and rewarded; the box office, the awards juries, and posterity all tend to validate his choices. That's why I choose to give him leeway. His films were better than I expected overall, so I have few complaints.

 

[SimonDoom]

My biggest issue with the movie (among many. many others) was cutting of the ending in the shire. To me the overall point of LotR was the hobbits leaving to save the shire, as it was. to preserve the quiet calm and safety of it. Against all odds, they actually manage to save all of middle earth, then come back to the shire forever changed.

Before you say he had to cut something, he added a ton of garbage that would have been better to leave out and parts he kept from the book, but poorly adapted. I also always thought that he should have made it in six slightly shorter movies, corresponding to the six books as written, as opposed to as published.

But I think Jackson fundamentally did not understand the books.

I see your point, but I don't agree. I think Jackson understood that there was no way to translate the books literally into movies. They had to be redone to work as films, and I think most of his choices worked.

There was simply no way the scouring of the Shire could have been included in the movie series, any more than the episode with Tom Bombadil could have been. It would have dragged on too long.

 

[SimonDoom]

Something you have to keep in mind, in evaluating the movies, is the overwhelming probability that they were going to be a huge clusterfuck. That they were not is a miracle. I always thought LOTR was unfilmable. I was gobsmacked by how well I thought the movies brought the story to the screen, and I was more than willing to overlook some things that could have been done differently.

 

[Britva415]

It would have dragged on too long.

*side-eyes a three movie series of The Hobbit*

 

[SimonDoom]

*side-eyes a three movie series of The Hobbit*

That was ridiculous. Obvious milking of the franchise for every dollar possible.

 

[Voboy]

Something you have to keep in mind, in evaluating the movies, is the overwhelming probability that they were going to be a huge clusterfuck. That they were not is a miracle. I always thought LOTR was unfilmable. I was gobsmacked by how well I thought the movies brought the story to the screen, and I was more than willing to overlook some things that could have been done differently.

Some of us remember how skeptical the world was when we heard this was being made.

It was relatively early in the history of the internet, but places like TORN were a snakepit at that time. Folks were speculating with great passion about how the films would screw everything up.

 

[old_prof]

Something you have to keep in mind, in evaluating the movies, is the overwhelming probability that they were going to be a huge clusterfuck. That they were not is a miracle. I always thought LOTR was unfilmable. I was gobsmacked by how well I thought the movies brought the story to the screen, and I was more than willing to overlook some things that could have been done differently.

Commercially it works much better as 6 films. If anyone in the studio knew that it was written as six books, they would rather have six somewhat shorter moves. The theaters absolutely would have preferred it. Summer and Christmas each year, keep the interest up. Long single movies like this was are a really tough sell to the money men because it's hard to keep people engaged for that long. It's the directors who almost always want the long movies. I put this one squarely on Jackson.

 

[old_prof]

Some of us remember how skeptical the world was when we heard this was being made.

It was relatively early in the history of the internet, but places like TORN were a snakepit at that time. Folks were speculating with great passion about how the films would screw everything up.

So the snake pit got it right?

 

[Voboy]

So the snake pit got it right?

Not in the opinion of most, I think it's safe to say.

 

[onehitwanda]

That was ridiculous. Obvious milking of the franchise for every dollar possible.

You know what's ridiculous?

Giving a hedgehog CPR.

 

[BeechLeaf]

That's why Jackson dropped it in the films. Tolkien thought it was crucially important for Frodo to stop arguing with Gollum and take care of this sinister black hedgehog they met in Ithilien. Fifteen pages of detailed CPR. But you can't let that drag on in a film, so I think Jackson's brave choice to truncate it to a quick kiss on the quills to make it better was a good, pragmatic decision.

 

[StillStunned]

I enjoyed the Hobbit movies. There, I said it.

The Extended Editions have better pacing than the theatrical versions. Even so, people complain about The Hobbit being shorter than LotR, but if you look at the stories, there's plenty of action packed into a small book. A lot of it is only given a few lines (the giants throwing rocks at each other in the Misty Mountains, for instance), but it's ripe for a visual medium. The Battle of Five Armies is one of the pivotal events of the Age, for example, and Tolkien glosses over it.

Honestly, if he'd published it here on Lit, we'd be telling him, "Slow down, don't be in such a rush to get to the end of the story, take your time to let the scenes breathe."

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's why Jackson dropped it in the films. Tolkien thought it was crucially important for Frodo to stop arguing with Gollum and take care of this sinister black hedgehog they met in Ithilien. Fifteen pages of detailed CPR. But you can't let that drag on in a film, so I think Jackson's brave choice to truncate it to a quick kiss on the quills to make it better was a good, pragmatic decision.

I do appreciate the inclusion of tongue in the Extended Edition.

I enjoyed the Hobbit movies. There, I said it.

The Extended Editions have better pacing than the theatrical versions. Even so, people complain about The Hobbit being shorter than LotR, but if you look at the stories, there's plenty of action packed into a small book. A lot of it is only given a few lines (the giants throwing rocks at each other in the Misty Mountains, for instance), but it's ripe for a visual medium. The Battle of Five Armies is one of the pivotal events of the Age, for example, and Tolkien glosses over it.

There were bits I liked in the Hobbit movies, though I'd need to re-watch them in order to remember what they were.

But one of my problems with post-LotR Jackson films is his addiction to The Chompers: an action scene that feels like one of those video game challenges where you have to remember the exact sequence of moves to get through some sort of environmental hazard.

In Fellowship of the Ring, there's the scene in Moria where the Fellowship is running/jumping along a staircase that's collapsing under them. I liked that scene! I don't remember him doing it again in LotR though I may have forgotten something in there.

In Kong, there's this scene where Our Protagonists are caught in a dino stampede. It could have worked for me but it dragged out too long, to the point where I started thinking thoughts like "gosh they keep on miraculously dodging by sheer luck" and remembering that I was watching a film where characters will only die if it serves a narrative purpose and not just because the laws of probability say that being caught in a dinosaur stampede is a very dangerous thing. The ending got to me emotionally, but it took a while for me to recover immersion after that stampede.

In Tintin, there's a "bouncing down rooftops" scene that did much the same. I don't remember much else about that movie except that that one sequence wore out its welcome.

And then in the Hobbit trilogy he did it over and over. The giants throwing rocks. The barrel ride. Running through collapsing Goblin Town and then another "running through a collapsing building" scene in the third movie. One of the sequences inside the Lonely mountain with...was it trying to pour molten gold on Smaug or something, I forget the details but it felt like a WoW boss fight. It feels like it's become Jackson's personal brand of action filler.

I'm not saying the giants throwing rocks should've been left out of the story, nor the barrel ride. Just that they could've been executed in some way that didn't feel like watching somebody else play a video game where they've memorised all the moves needed to make it through the Chompers.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Something you have to keep in mind, in evaluating the movies, is the overwhelming probability that they were going to be a huge clusterfuck. That they were not is a miracle. I always thought LOTR was unfilmable. I was gobsmacked by how well I thought the movies brought the story to the screen, and I was more than willing to overlook some things that could have been done differently.

This is pretty much where I stand. I firmly believe that nothing dooms an adaptation more surely than trying to adhere too meticulously to the original (Uwe Boll excepted). The original's still there, people can read it any time they want; what's the point of just trying to replicate that? Better to try something different, whether that's taking advantage of the things that film does better than text or appealing to people who found the books heavy going.

I don't like all of the changes that Jackson made, but for most of them I can at least see what he was trying to achieve. If we want creativity we have to let people take chances, and that means accepting that sometimes they're going to miss. There's a risk of being more precious about Tolkien's work than he was himself; cf. Glorfindel's accidental resurrection.

Those of us who grew up loving the books weren't really the target audience. We were always going to see it, if only to have something to complain about. The ones Jackson needed to sell it to are the ones who weren't up for reading a thousand pages plus appendices plus Silmarillion.

That doesn't mean I'd be delighted to see it reinvented as a Chuck Norris action film where Frodo delivers a snappy one-liner before punting Gollum into the lava. I think stories have a heart to them, and when you change the heart it's a different story altogether. But to me, the heart of the story is something about the courage of small people persevering against terrifying odds, the kind of quiet invisible power of kindness and growing things that eventually wins out against "minds of metal and machines", and that was still there in Jackson's adaptation, even if he broke some of the things that folk loved in the original.

Food for thought: Suppose you were to film LotR, adhering absolutely faithfully to the story as Tolkien wrote it. Glorfindel, Bombadil, Faramir, Scouring of the Shire, everything. Then show that to an audience who were familiar with modern fantasy and film, but had somehow never encountered LotR. What would they make of it? What would they criticise?

I think about 90% of the changes that Jackson made to the story would align pretty well with the criticisms of that audience.

(I say "Jackson" as shorthand for the entire creative team, including Walsh and others; nothing this scale is actually a single-person effort.)

 

[SimonDoom]

I enjoyed the Hobbit movies. There, I said it.

I liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo, because I like Martin Freeman, generally, as an actor. And that was about it, for me. I thought The Hobbit trilogy was a super-bloated cash grab. I disliked almost every single thing that the movies added to the book. The Tauriel-Kili romance. The interminable battle of 5 armies. Galadriel and her superpowers. Radagast and his rabbits. The excess of CGI. The ridiculous, physically impossible escape down the rapids. Gratuitously inserting Legolas into the story.

We all have our different opinions. That's what makes these discussions interesting.