This is topic LOTR book question in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=054916

Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
 
I have what may be an impossible task.

I am preparing a talk for a group of high school students and want to use a quotation that I vaguely remember from FOTR. Gandalf and Frodo are discussing the fate of Gollum. Frodo expresses his feeling that Gollum would be better off dead but Gandalf suggests that perhaps Gollum still has a part to play.

Does anybody have any idea where I might this conversation? Or did I just totally dream this up?
 
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
<<Frodo: It’s a pity Bilbo didn’t kill him when he had the chance!>>

<<Gandalf: <glancing sharply at Frodo> Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?>>

<Frodo looks down, silently.>

<<Gandalf: Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill…>>
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Google says you're remembering right [Wink]

http://www.google.com/search?q=gandalf+gollum+part+to+play&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

edit: and beat to it, looks like
 
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
quote:
Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends.

One of my favourite quotes, from one of my favourite books.

On a side note, I've always wondered why Gandalf says that many that live deserve death, but only some that die deserve life...
 
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
 
One of my favorite parts of the book.
 
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
And you know what's awesome? That they kept that particular dialogue word-for-word in the movie. Although of course in the book it's said in Frodo's house rather than in Moria.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
And you know what's awesome?
In fact I do: Wynton Marsalis's playing of "Carnival of Venice".

Checkmate.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Yay, another LotR thread! I miss them so much. I was so happy to jump in here but it seems I caught it too late and it's all over now.

There are lots of favorite scenes and lines I have from the books (not the movie so much). I love it when they find Merry and Pippen at Isengard after it was destroyed. "... 'My companion, who alas, is overcome with weariness', here he gave the other a dig with his toe..." [Smile] )))))))))))) Such a great moment!

Another is Sam's discussion with Frodo about people in stories, and how we feel about the darkest parts, relating that to our OWN stories, and how things feel to actually be in them at their darkest parts. It sort of makes me tear up when I think about it.

And of course, the field of Cormallen, and the Grey Havens, and Scouring the Shire, and the moment when Eowyn revealed herself and killed the Witchking. That was so badass. I love Eowyn. Oh and when the Corsairs of Umbar turned out to be Aragorn and company. That one gives me chill bumps. [Smile] Oh, man, and when Frodo pulls out Sting and Galadriel's light and advances toward Shelob. More chill bumps. Wow it must be time for me to read it again.
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
Is this turning into a favorite passages thread? If so:

--
"You have frightened me many times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would - well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand."

"I see," laughed Strider. "I look foul and feel fair. Is that it?"

--
"This is what it is, Mr. Baggins," said the leader of the Shirriffs, a two-feather hobbit: "You're arrested for Gate-breaking, and Tearing up of Rules, and Assaulting Gate-keepers, and Trespassing, and Sleeping in Shire-buildings without Leave, and Bribing Guards with Food."

"And what else?" said Frodo.

"That'll do to go on with," said the Shirriff-leader.

"I can add some more, if you'd like it," said Sam. "Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools."
 
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 
"I can't burn snow."
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by neo-dragon:
On a side note, I've always wondered why Gandalf says that many that live deserve death, but only some that die deserve life...

I've always taken that as some theology sneaking through and applied to M.E., as in, only a fraction of the human race ever deserve life (not because of anything they did but because of Christ's sacrifice which they accepted) whereas ALL of humanity originally (before you take out that fraction) deserved death due to sin. But that's just me...


I really wish I had my quote book with me, because I'd pull out that awesome monologue from Sam from RotK (book). Darn, how does it go?
 
Posted by dragonscript (Member # 11964) on :
 
When i left my last job, i was laid off, i sent an e-mail to everybody in the office that, in part, said "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve".

I also liked this video at the end of the e-mail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knetbVx5A-Q
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Traceria:
quote:
Originally posted by neo-dragon:
On a side note, I've always wondered why Gandalf says that many that live deserve death, but only some that die deserve life...

I've always taken that as some theology sneaking through and applied to M.E., as in, only a fraction of the human race ever deserve life (not because of anything they did but because of Christ's sacrifice which they accepted) whereas ALL of humanity originally (before you take out that fraction) deserved death due to sin. But that's just me...

I always assumed a much simpler explanation -- Gandalf believes that some people deserve to die. No theology is needed for that belief.

--

Back in the days of the original Napster, there was an application that rode on that network called Bookster which would let you download and share ebooks through the Napster network. My dad was downloading some books from a user named Smaug, and through the chat my dad asked him some questions about his books.

After a short exchange, he sent to my dad the message "You have nice manners for a thief and a liar." My dad was kinda put out until he got the reference.
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
One of my all time favourites is Frodo at the Crack of Doom:

"I have come," he said. "But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!"

Wow, that is such a powerful moment.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katdog42:
I have what may be an impossible task.


You have clearly underestimated us. [Wink]

Nice to see you katdog. How was the talk? And how are you?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tatiana, you said a moment that gave you chills was "...when Frodo pulls out Sting and Galadriel's light and advances toward Shelob." But I think that was topped by the moment when SAM suddenly appears, bearing Sting and Galadriel's light which he had picked up inside the cave, and advances toward Shelob, saying "Get away from him, you filth!"

That is the moment when it first became clear to me that Sam was the real hero of LOTR. He had just been rejected and told to go home by Frodo, was heartbroken, and when he had climbed a long way down, sobbing, and found the food remnants Gollum had thrown down, he had a choice. He could have shrugged it off and left Frodo to his choice. But Sam chose to swallow his pride and go back up, despite his personal hurt feelings, and so was there to save Frodo. I think that was an even better moment than a little later when he said to an exhausted Frodo, "I may not be able to carry the ring, but I can carry you!" Then hoisted him onto his back and staggered forward. Samwise Gamgee, the Brave. The true hero.

In the end, formerly shy Sam even had the courage to walk up to Rosie Cotton and plant a kiss on her lips (we assume from the expressions on his friends' faces--he did it off-screen), and probably proposed as well. At least the next scene was their wedding.

Of course, in recalling all this, I am going by the extended release DVD version of the Peter Jackson-produced LOTR. I have only read the actual books twice, but have watched the DVDs many times. Honestly, I think Peter Jackson actually told the story a little better than did Tolkien. Tolkien had 50 years before Frodo had to leave, which Jackson compressed into a few days or weeks--much better logically and dramatically. And I agree that the "Scouring of the Shire" was way too anticlimactic.

[ February 19, 2009, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:
Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends.


Perfect! That's exactly what I was looking for. Can anyone give the chapter number where I can find that?

Kat - glad to know this wasn't too hard for hatrack. The talk's Saturday. I'm nervous - talking about life ethics with a bunch of high school kids. I hope they can listen with open hearts.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Ron Lambert
I may not be able to carry the ring, but I can carry you!" Then hoisted him onto his back and staggered forward. Samwise Gamgee, the Brave. The true hero.

My favorite part too.

I also totally adore when Aragorn recites the tale of Luthien.

quote:
originally posted by Ron Lambert
Honestly, I think Peter Jackson actually told the story a little better than did Tolkien.

And I agree that the "Scouring of the Shire" was way too anticlimactic

Someone disagrees with you.
quote:
The first and biggest of them was Jackson's decision not to include the Scouring of the Shire -- the time, after the great war is over, when the Hobbits come back to find their safe little homeland torn up and nearly ruined by a group of thugs. They drive them out, of course, but what matters is that without their realizing it, their own homes were in jeopardy.

They went away to war, yet the war came to their homes while they were gone. What made Jackson think this was not an important part of the story?

Yet in interviews Jackson has declared that he never cared for the Scouring of the Shire, apparently because it was anticlimactic. This only shows that ultimately he did not really understand Tolkien. Omitting this sequence robs the story of some of its meaning.

It would be like ending the movie Poltergeist after the little girl returns to her family, omitting the real ending of the movie!

Worse yet, it deforms the ending. Without this incident, the movie feels like it has four or five endings. Like it just won't stop ending. So it turns Tolkien's very-satisfying ending into a repetitive, tedious one.


 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katdog42:
quote:
Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:
Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends.


Perfect! That's exactly what I was looking for. Can anyone give the chapter number where I can find that?

Kat - glad to know this wasn't too hard for hatrack. The talk's Saturday. I'm nervous - talking about life ethics with a bunch of high school kids. I hope they can listen with open hearts.

It's near the end of Chapter II. It happened when Gandalf and Frodo were still talking at Bag End.
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
The Scouring of the Shire is one of my favorite chapters. The movie is slightly different than the book in that the movie is about the Quest of the Ring. Whereas the book is more about the changes that were effected in these four hobbits. In terms of the Hero's Journey, we need to see the hero return from his adventure and bestow his boon upon the mundane world. If he doesn't do that, there's no point to his returning.

The Hobbit is similar, in that it isn't really about the Quest of Smaug; it's about how the adventure changed Bilbo.

quote:
Tolkien had 50 years before Frodo had to leave
Actually, it was 19. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
 
I liked the scouring of the shire, but I understand why it wasn't put in the movie and why it seemed so anti-climactic.

Literarily, it describes exactly what OSC went on about. The four hobbits went to fight evil, and while they were gone, evil had wedged its way into their home. You could probably derive lots of parallels with that and in the real world....going out to fight and coming home to find that in some sense, your home has been overrun by cowards and thieves.

Cinematicaly - We have already seen the climax. There was a war Merry stabs the witch-king. Sam carried Frodo up a mountain. We saw the hobbits become more than they were. Doesn't it seem like Scouring the Shire is a little less than Saving the World?

Movies and Books are different mediums, and we perceive them in different ways, and what works in a book doesn't always work in a movie. Even if Jackson liked the scouring, he was better served not to put it in. The War and the Ring and Mount Doom drained us. We may have loved it, but after that we were drained. In the book, we could stop, we could put it down and ruminate. In a film, we'd have had to watch the scouring after having been sapped by the war.
 
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
The Scouring is great thematically in the book, but people who think another conflict introduced after the climax of a 9+ hour story would have been good idea clearly aren't able to look at it objectively.
 
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
 
Sean Monahan said what I wanted to say in more articulate terms I believe.
 
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
 
Thanks for all who helped with my original question.

Have fun discussing all things LOTR in this thread. I love reading your responses
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
For what it;s worth I hated that Jackson decided that Frodo had to reject Sam to increase the drama, or for whatever reason he did it. It was skilfully done but I thought it was unnecessary.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Yeah, I've read the books dozens of times and seen the movies once. I think the books are vastly superior to the movies, though the movies were fun to watch for the most part, and visually got almost everything exactly right. But the story was just way less in the movies, as one would expect from the compression required to fit it in. Also, all the ways they changed the characters made them less. They made Aragorn less noble, and Faramir less wise, the hobbits less intelligent, Gimli less dignified, Gandalf less powerful, and Frodo less kind and loyal to Sam. He would never ever have sent him away. That was horrible!

Sam was the real hero of the books, too, but it was a long time before I realized that for some reason.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
My favorite scene/piece of dialogue in the book off the top of my head (that hasn't already been mentioned) is probably the exchange between Eowyn and the Witch King. I bet I could come up with others if I reread the book, but it's been a couple years.

I think Jackson fairly well ruined this scene, both in the dialogue he changed, and in Miranda Otto's performance.


"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"

"Come not between the Nazgûl 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 thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

"Do what you will; but I will hinder it if I may."

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

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 upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund'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."

I don't mind changing some of the archaic language, especially the "houses of lamentation" bit, but I think word for word a lot of that could have been in the movie and it would have been ten times better. Otto and Jackson took a lot of the power out of it. Eowyn looks like she's terrified out of her friggin mind and is just hanging around waiting for someone to save her, and lucks out when Merry jumps onto the scene.

I think the book version shows a strong, powerful, braver Eowyn, and Jackson turns her into someone who gets herself into a situation that's way over her head.

Probably most of my favorite stuff though isn't from LOTR, it's from the Silmarillion, and in particular:

"Last of all Hurin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and he each time that he slew he cried: 'Aure entuluva Day shall come again!' Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive, by the command of Morgoth, for the orcs grappled him with their hands, which clung to him still though he hewed off their arms; and ever their numbers were renewed, until at last he fell buried beneath them."

The story of Hurin and Turin especially I think is the best in all of Tolkien's works, which is probably why that passage, and a lot of others dealing with their hardships strike me the most.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I got chills when Gandolf confronted the Balrog in Moria, though. It was so perfect it was scary. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
My favorite scene/piece of dialogue in the book off the top of my head (that hasn't already been mentioned) is probably the exchange between Eowyn and the Witch King.

That's part always gives me good chills. [Big Grin]
And if I had to pick one bone with Peter Jackson, it would be glossing over the Faramir/Eowyn stuff, just because I love it so much and not because I think including it could have improved upon the films. They're both rather unappreciated characters as well as misunderstood and misrepresented.
 
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
 
Thank you guys... you have inadvertantly provided me with a brainwave! I am now using LoTR as an example to illustrate a point in an essay that I just couldn't think of examples for... Hatrack rocks!
 
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
 
I 'unno Lyrhawn, the bit where Luthien walks into the halls of the dead, takes her husband, and walks out get me.
Actually, their whole tale gets me.
I am a sucker for romance.

Also, Tolkien doesn't do women often, but when he does I am happy they get the respect...unlike other authors of his time...*cough cough Susan cough cough*
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Traceria:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

And if I had to pick one bone with Peter Jackson, it would be glossing over the Faramir/Eowyn stuff, just because I love it so much and not because I think including it could have improved upon the films.

Yeah, I love that stuff too, and feel like the movie would have been stronger if it'd been left in.

I don't really think that Jackson exactly got the books, you know? Between what he does with Faramir's character and the complete absence of the Scouring of the Shire, it seemed to me like a lot of what made the books so great just went over his head. Or maybe he thought it would go over the audience's head, I don't know.

[ February 20, 2009, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by amira tharani:
Thank you guys... you have inadvertantly provided me with a brainwave! I am now using LoTR as an example to illustrate a point in an essay that I just couldn't think of examples for... Hatrack rocks!

What point are you illustrating, and what excerpt are you using to do so, out of curiosity?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mocke:
I 'unno Lyrhawn, the bit where Luthien walks into the halls of the dead, takes her husband, and walks out get me.
Actually, their whole tale gets me.
I am a sucker for romance.

Also, Tolkien doesn't do women often, but when he does I am happy they get the respect...unlike other authors of his time...*cough cough Susan cough cough*

There's a lot of good stuff in Beren and Luthien as well. And in Tuor's story, even though it isn't gone into as much. Maybe because Turin's is the most fleshed out I connect the most. I wish I wish I wish that he had had more time to work on the Silmarillion stories.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
There are two distinct and separate concerns--telling a good story as art and drama, and being true to Tolkien in every particular. I think that Peter Jackson made the right choice. It does not matter what metaphor Tolkien might have been trying to make with the Scouring of the Shire. If your primary concern is to tell the best story possible, Jackson made the right choice.

The omission of Tom Bombadil from the movie was something some lament, as well. But Bombadil was too powerful; he could have transported the ring and cast it into the fires of Mt. Doom in a moment, thus removing all drama from the story. It was hinted that Bombadil was too scatter-brained or something, and might not remember the proper thing to do with the ring, but that was just a rationalization to obscure the real reason Tolkien did not want Bombadil to be entrusted with the ring, as I said, that he was too powerful. Since Bombadil had nothing to do with the ring, he had no place in the story of LOTR.

Just to tweak the noses of some who object to Jackson's changes, I would go so far as to say that in omitting the Scouring of the Shire, and in omitting mention of Tom Bombadil, Jackson CORRECTED two MISTAKES that Tolkien made as a dramatic writer. I know, some will say that is blasphemy. But the many years that Tolkien had Frodo remaining in the Shire before he left, also was clearly a dramatic mistake--so obvious that I have yet to see anyone defend it and say Jackson was wrong to compress the time before Gandalf returned to only a few days or weeks. Tolkien was not perfect. He needed a good editor.

[ February 20, 2009, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't think it was hinted at like that at al, Ron. If anything, it was shown that Tom was very powerful IN HIS OWN REALM, but outside of it not so much. It is even said that if Sauron regained the ring that Tom's area of influence would last longer than any other, but would fall eventually.

Tom was outside of the creation of the world, not a part of it, and as such the ring had no effect on him, but I didn't see anywhere were it said Tom could teleport or anything like that. Tom refused the ring as well, one of only a few who were ever able to.


I think Jackson missed the boat by putting in several things not applicable to the story. I am sorry....but removing the entire POINT of the story so that he could place scenes that didn't actually fit into his films is not good film making.

If the Witch King had actually HAD the chance to destroy Gandolf, no horn in the world would have made him stop. Gandolf was a far greater threat, though many different ages, than all of Rohan ever was, plain and simple.

And that was only one example. [Big Grin]


He DESTROYED the character of Faramir, and ruined the element of surprise when he created a chance for a Nazgul to see Frodo and the ring so close to Mordor. If that had happened, nothing would have stopped Sauron from sending EVERYTHING at them RIGHT AWAY.

I LOVE the movies, but there was a lot of things not right about them, both from a Tolkien enthusiasts viewpoint AND from a film making perspective.


I mean, how much MORE would it have cost to make Glamdring glow in the mines of Moria? LOL


God, I love Hatrack. It's the only place I go where being THIS geeky makes me one of the crowd. [Smile]


Ron: The point of spending that much time between the Scouring and Frodo leaving was to show that some scars are so deep that even time can't fully heal them. It wasn't a mistake it was genius. The being said, Jackson was right to compress it for a movie.

Jackson did a great job of editing a HUGE book for the movies. I love the Forest, and it would have made Merry and Pippin less comedic and more important to the story....but it would have played too long for a movie. Tom is a GREAT character....but he would have not been a good addition to the movies either.


I DO believe that he could have done the Scouring of the Shire justice, and I am sad that we never got to see it on screen.
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
The thing that bugged me most (I think) was that PJ either didn't seem to be comfortable with moral absolutes or didn't think a contemporary audience would be, which is why, it seemed to me, he had to make Aragorn so double-minded about his role and Faramir missing the key evidence of his moral integrity, his ability to resist the call of the Ring. I don't think PJ really understood the nature of the Ring's call.

I remember in one of the extras on one of the dvds Fran Walsh saying it was ridiculous that if the Ring was supposed to be so powerful that Faramir could resist it. I think that lack of understanding was why they had Frodo turn against Sam.

And, yes, the books are WAY better, but then books usually are. And I also agree that the movies got most of the visuals right, except for the elves whose otherworldly ethereal nature was at odds with their laughing gaiety in the books. Individually, I liked Elrond and Arwen and Legolas, but the elves at Helm's Deep with their lockstep precision annoyed me. And too many blondes. They had black hair.

Which leads me to one of my favourite pieces from the books, the last paragraph from the Appendices, Tolkien's incredibly beautiful description of the Eldar:

"They were a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finrod; and their voices had more melodies than any mortal voice that now is heard. They were valiant, but the history of those that returned to Middle-earth in exile was grievous; and though it was in far-off days crossed by the fate of the Fathers, their fate is not that of Men. Their dominion passed long ago, and they dwell now beyond the circles of the world, and do not return."

I love that.
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
Kwea, I think you're right there about Tom and the nature of his power.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I think Jackson missed the boat by putting in several things not applicable to the story.

You couldn't be talking about a scene like the skull/cave collapse, now could you? *snicker*

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
God, I love Hatrack. It's the only place I go where being THIS geeky makes me one of the crowd.

He he he...
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Traceria
And if I had to pick one bone with Peter Jackson, it would be glossing over the Faramir/Eowyn stuff, just because I love it so much and not because I think including it could have improved upon the films. They're both rather unappreciated characters as well as misunderstood and misrepresented.

There's a scene in the extended eddition/directer's cut or whatever it's called about them.

quote:
originally posted by Ron Lambert
Just to tweak the noses of some who object to Jackson's changes, I would go so far as to say that in omitting the Scouring of the Shire, and in omitting mention of Tom Bombadil, Jackson CORRECTED two MISTAKES that Tolkien made as a dramatic writer.

I do not understand Tom Bombadil. The first time I tried to read LOTR I got stuck with him and could not understand why everyone is so into the books.

Then I saw the movies and was like how did Peter Jackson & Co make such a cool story out of something so boring?

Then I was watching one of the documentary extras on the DVDs and one of them mentioned why specifically they took out Tom Bombadil and suggested skipping that part when reading the books.

So I did and I do think they are amazing (minus Tom Bombadil) [Wink]
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
There's a scene in the extended eddition/directer's cut or whatever it's called about them.

It's still disappointing. You better believe I checked it out as soon as it arrived. *le sigh*
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
To me, Tom Bombadil seemed to be like the Creator. Nothing could threaten him; he could do anything. No chance for drama there.

Kwea, actually Jackson did provide a glimpse of the Scouring of the Shire, in the vision Frodo had when he looked into Galadriel's birdbath (or whatever it was) and saw what would happen if the quest failed.
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Ron, I don't think you bring quite the right note of REVERENCE to the discussion. Galadriel's BIRDBATH?!?! Please...
[Wink]
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
To me, Tom Bombadil seemed to be like the Creator. Nothing could threaten him; he could do anything. No chance for drama there.

Speaking of Creators... Ron, have you ever read The Silmarillion?
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
The main artifact of Jackson I see in the movies is a sort of obsession with possession. Whether it's Gandalf exorcizing Saruman from Theoden, or Frodo being possessed by the Nazgul at Osgiliath, or Frodo again possessed by the Ring on Mount Doom...in every case Jackson makes it a case of possession, rather than of temptation. IMO, this bespeaks a far different moral vision than that of Tolkien. I attribute it to Jackson's penchant for schlock horror (c.f. The Frighteners and Dead Alive).

I loved the movies visually, and thought the first film was sufficiently faithful to the book, but I think Jackson could've done much better with TTT and RotK.

As for Bombadil, IIRC there are textual clues that the Old Forest is a far older story than the rest of the Lord of the Rings. I believe Tolkien's formulation of the mythology of ME changed significantly from when he started writing (when there was more room for things like Beorns and Bombadils) to when he'd really forged a coherent view of the Creation, Fall and Ages of Middle Earth. Bombadil's place in Middle Earth is very much that of the "earth magic," the uncreated that is neither good, nor bad, but simply wild and free. It's a different sort of mythology than the sort of hierarchical Judeo-Christian/Manichean system Tolkien eventually emplaced, deriving instead from Indo-European pagan fertility gods and goddesses.
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I am part of the crowd that thinks the movies were not very wonderful. Some great visuals, a few great scenes, but too much weak junk added in an attempt to make them feel like blockbusters.

Legolas sliding down the stairs on his shield, shooting arrows at Helm's Deep.

Legolas taking down the oliphant.

Aragorn grabbing Arwen and frenching her right in front of Elrond.

Faramir selling out Frodo instead of doing the honorable thing and letting him go. That had me half out of my seat, about to leave the theater.

The idiotic BOO! chase through the woods with the Nazgul on the way to the ferry.

Gandalf and Saruman's ninja fight in the tower.

I was fine with leaving out Bombadil, but I don't think he is a liability in the story. I found it pretty clear that he was not going to help with the quest. He didn't seem to care about the ring. He lived in his own little world. Frodo hadn't really committed to going to Mordor at that point anyway.

I am coming up on 10 years since I last read the books. It's almost time again. I'm excited.
 
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Legolas sliding down the stairs on his shield, shooting arrows at Helm's Deep.

Legolas taking down the oliphant.

Aragorn grabbing Arwen and frenching her right in front of Elrond.

Faramir selling out Frodo instead of doing the honorable thing and letting him go. That had me half out of my seat, about to leave the theater.

The idiotic BOO! chase through the woods with the Nazgul on the way to the ferry.

Gandalf and Saruman's ninja fight in the tower.

Your list is tempting (not possessing) me to add on... Must resist. [Angst] (edited to..er...edit)
 
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 
I also disliked Jackson's interpretation of Denethor. I always read him as a great man undone by despair and sorrow. In Jackon's RotK he was merely an addled tyrant.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Advice for Robots
Legolas sliding down the stairs on his shield, shooting arrows at Helm's Deep.

Come on! It's a fight scene. What should he be doing instead? Asking the orcs if they want to stay in one place so he doesn't have to move to shoot them all?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
One thing I'll give Jackson credit for, actually two things: he absolutely nailed both the visuals and the music of Middle Earth. I guess you really have to give more credit for that to the set design people, the costume design people, the armor makers, and Howard Shore, but man, no matter how much the plot and dialogue might bother me at points, there isn't a single point at which it doesn't look and feel 10 times better than I could have possibly imagined it.

The way they weave the Sindarin lines into the music, especially in the Passing of the Elves in the Extended Edition of Fellowship is jaw droppingly amazing. Remaking LOTR someday, someone might be able to do the plot better, but I don't know if they'll ever be able to catch the same feel. I think in this sense, del Toro really has his work cut out for him in the Hobbit. He'll be able to get away with a lot because they're dealing with a slightly different time, and going to places that aren't really covered (once they get over the Misty Mountains) in LOTR, but he's going to be judged visually and musically against Jackson's work, and it's going to be a bitch if he tries to change a lot of it.

I'm glad people like Alan Lee and Richard Taylor are staying on for the next project. It should help with continuity to a LARGE degree. Without them I'd really fear for how drastic the changes would be.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Afr's list is pretty close to mine with the additions of the bad CGI Oathbreakers and the very bad idea of Arwen actually starting to leave Middle Earth. Never. And people (Eomer) should have recognized who Aragorn was when they heard his name.

Helm's Deep was too long and we didn't need the Aragorn going over a cliff nonsense.

On balance, though, I agree with Lyrhawn. The look (when PJ didn't get carried away with VFX) and music was spot on.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
To me, Tom Bombadil seemed to be like the Creator. Nothing could threaten him; he could do anything. No chance for drama there.

Kwea, actually Jackson did provide a glimpse of the Scouring of the Shire, in the vision Frodo had when he looked into Galadriel's birdbath (or whatever it was) and saw what would happen if the quest failed.

I agree, and think the movies couldn't have done him justice. The movies are better without him, as sad as that is.

And I loved the vision, although if he had done it right there wouldn't have been a need for it. [Big Grin]


I love the movies, but I love the books a lot more. The good thing is I have both. [Smile]
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Just to tweak the noses of some who object to Jackson's changes, I would go so far as to say that in omitting the Scouring of the Shire, and in omitting mention of Tom Bombadil, Jackson CORRECTED two MISTAKES that Tolkien made as a dramatic writer. I know, some will say that is blasphemy. But the many years that Tolkien had Frodo remaining in the Shire before he left, also was clearly a dramatic mistake--so obvious that I have yet to see anyone defend it and say Jackson was wrong to compress the time before Gandalf returned to only a few days or weeks. Tolkien was not perfect. He needed a good editor.

The many years Frodo spent in the Shire before leaving was not a dramatic mistake by Tolkien. Those years are necessary in the story, because the reader *must* get a sense of how mundane this unchanging, static, birth world is in the first couple of chapters. Because very soon, they are going to cross the river and enter an unknown, dynamic world of adventure, and the reader will be able to feel the sense of "extraordinary", because he has already been programmed into what is "ordinary", by, in a sense, living through the banal, routine, commonplace life of our hero before he becomes a hero. It's quite ingenious actually.

Yet Jackson was not wrong to compress the time in his movie. One does not follow from the other. Jackson's correct choice does not make Tolkien's literature mistaken.

The Scouring of the Shire was also necessary, as I mentioned in my previous post, we need to see the hero return and bestow his boons. Those being, among other things, the skills they've acquired in battle and war which allows them to rout their oppressors. Knowledge and interest in the wide world outside. Before the adventure, the Shire was an island unto itself. They knew nothing and cared nothing of the world outside their borders. They didn't even know much about the world *inside* their borders outside of their own lifetimes. After their adventure, they were a land esteemed by the King, with emissaries traveling between them, offices appointed, histories written. And then, more tangibly of course, there was Sam's box of dirt from Galadriel. The heroes returned and not only restored the Shire to its previous state, they improved it.

In the movie, the Shire they returned to was just the same, boring, unchanging Shire that it always was, and the heroes did nothing to change it. They brought nothing back with them except some nice clothes. How boring it would have been for the book to end that way.

(ETA: In a sense, the Shire, before the adventure, is like a baby in the womb. Moreover, it is like a baby in the womb that refuses to be born. The hobbits themselves are "babies" when they set out. During the course of their adventure, they all do their "growing up", and they bring back their "growing up" and they impart that to the Shire itself. They play the part of midwives and they birth the Shire into the world. In the movie, though the hobbits grow up, they do not impart that growing up to their homeland, and the Shire stays in the womb.)

(ETA2: And now that I think about it in those terms (the Shire being a baby pre- and post-birth), it actually makes the long boring years of Frodo's life at the beginning and the Scouring at the end relate to each other. They function as bookends to the story. I'm glad you have encouraged me to think about and talk about this, Ron. I think I'm gaining an even greater appreciation for the story than I already had!)

But again, Jackson was not wrong to omit it from the movie. One does not follow from the other. Jackson's correct choice does not make Tolkien's choice an error.

However, I personally never liked Tom Bombadil, and didn't miss him.

[ February 20, 2009, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Sean Monahan ]
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
To me, Tom Bombadil seemed to be like the Creator.

In Letters of Tolkien, #181 states: "There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology."

#211 states: "The One does not physically inhabit any part of Ea."

#19 states: Tom Bombadil is "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside..."

#144 states: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

#144 also states: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

He has no connexion in my mind with the Entwives. What had happened to them is not resolved in this book. He is in a way the answer to them in the sense that he is almost the opposite, being say, Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality."

#153 states: "He is then an 'allegory,' or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture."
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Advice for robots, in addition to the things you cited about Legolas, don't forget the fantastic way he slung himself with one hand up onto horseback. I also wonder how the arrows in his quiver kept being replenished. But all of this stuff--especially Legolas riding a shield down the stairs, shooting arrows as he went bumpty-bump--was just a bit of campy humor.

As for things Jackson did extremely well in the movie, there was the masterfully done soliloquy where Gollum/Smeagol is arguing with himself. Aided by switching camera angles back and forth, the sense of multiple personality disorder resolving itself (at least temporarily) was eerie yet hauntingly effective.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Lyrhawn, I think it is Howard Shore who should get credit for the wonderful music, since he wrote and conducted it--leading the orchestra while viewing clips from the movie where the music was to be played. And he wrote so many themes, that all meshed together! It takes about 12 hours to view the whole trilogy (on extended release DVD), yet there were so many musical ideas, some of them--including whole songs--are not heard until the credits scroll.

[ February 21, 2009, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Ron, I have to agree with your comments about the dialogue between Gollum-Smeagol. That was one of the most powerful things in the whole movie trilogy, and made my least favourite film (TT) compulsive viewing. Everytime I watch that scene I am literally on the edge of my seat it is so involving.
Overall, despite a couple of minor quibbles, PJ and Andy Serkis got Gollum perfect.
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I do think PJ lacked subtlety. He makes action pictures, horror films, that sort of thing. That's why he overdid so many things in the movies. The Balrog, though, was so freaking great it makes up for all the rest. I loved the Balrog!
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I especially missed all the cool hobbit stuff like the way they act casual in dire circumstances, or "sit on the edge of ruin and talk", eg, "Hello, Pippen, did you come on this little expedition too? I wonder what about bed and breakfast and all that?" when they'd been kidnapped by the orcs and beat unconscious, dragged, tossed on the ground, etc. That was something so cool about hobbits, their total bravery and essential toughness. The movies didn't show any of that.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I LOVE Howard Shore's music in those films, and I own all 3 in addition to all of the movies. I am a fan of both.


I think that Jackson did a PERFECT job of allowing us a glimpse of the inner workings of Gollum/Smeagol, and THAT is what raised the movies from very good to great, despite their flaws.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm only missing the third extended edition soundtrack. There are TONS of little goodies on the extended editions, in fact, the soundtracks have more music that even the extended edition movies in some cases. I downloaded a couple of the songs from the third extended soundtrack like the Houses of Healing number, and a couple others that weren't in the original soundtrack, but I ran out of money.

Well, technically I guess I could have spent less money buying the LOTR collectible reproduction swords from the movie...but they're so pretty! I can't wait until I can actually display them somewhere.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I am listening to Into the West now. Anne Lenox is perfect for that. [Big Grin]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2