• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Introductions...

Ithilethiel

Member
Joined
May 6, 2018
Messages
388
In, The Two Towers film when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet Eomer and the Riders of Rohan in the Riddermark why does Aragorn identify himself and Gimli as, "son of..." but introduce Legolas only as being an inhabitant of the Woodland Realm?

Doesn't Aragorn know Legolas' father is Thranduil? He must bc prior to the forming of the Fellowship he was given the task by Gandalf of finding Gollum and delivering him to King Thranduil of Mirkwood. Plus Aragorn lived with Lord Elrond Half-elven and the elves of Rivendell so it is hard to believe he wouldn't have met Legolas' in the past or known who his father is.

In the book Lord Elrond reveals Estel is truly Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor but it gets confusing in the movie bc it is Legolas who does so. Still, despite Legolas not knowing Estel was truly Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Estel/Aragorn would surely have known who Legolas was. This bit of the film has always bugged me.

What shame was there in being Legolas son of Thranduil? None as far as I'm concerned but being an elf I am partial...
 
Last edited:
I have to say that if that's the only bit of the movies that bothers you, you're more tolerant than I am!

Seriously though, you'll notice that Aragorn first "introduces" himself in a very guarded manner:

'I am called Strider,' answered Aragorn. 'I came out of the North. I am hunting Orcs.

This is appropriate, given the situation; he is meeting, and being questioned by, someone whose allegiance and motivation he is unsure about. Upon being asked if his party are "elvish folk", he does name "Legolas, from the Woodland Realm in distant Mirkwood", but doesn't cite his lineage, which is in keeping with the tense atmosphere of the exchange.

But there is something else at work: Tolkien is following the medieval custom (at least in saga and romance), of declaring one's name and House oneself, often as part of one's "boast", as it is sometimes called. You'll notice, as an immediate example, Gimli's naming himself as "Gimli the Dwarf Gloin's son" in the series of challenges he exchanges with Eomer, who also gives his name, lineage, and title. The point being that it is normally the reserve of the person to give what he wishes to give.

Those are of course very abbreviated versions of "lineage"; in saga, this can extend through generations. We get a little of this when Aragorn later names himself. Upon which, not only the Riders, but Gimli and Legolas appear to be somewhat stunned, so that we never do get back to Legolas' s lineage.

If it's any comfort to you, you could look at it this way: that Legolas, as a superior being, sees no need for boasting to these "children", as he calls them.

Addendum: I should probably have made it clearer that I'm speaking only of the book.

Concerning the scene in the movie, I neither know, nor, to put it bluntly, care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Addendum: I should probably have made it clearer that I'm speaking only of the book.

Concerning the scene in the movie, I neither know, nor, to put it bluntly, care.

I am familiar with the books. I have read the series more than once. I was only speaking of the movie. The books are an entirely different matter. Ofc they are superior in every way. I was just wondering aloud what would motivate Jackson and his script writers to do this. That is why I posted the question in the film forum and not the Tolkien book forum.

It is not the ONLY thing in the film that bothers me but I have read the debates on other troublesome scenes. I understand why filmmakers often take license in some instances but this is such a strange exchange to me it really stands out.

It's your prerogative not to know or care about it but I was hoping for constructive input about the movie. That is why this forum exists isn't it?
 
My mistake. Apologies -- I saw the thread and responded without checking to see which forum it was on. You're quite right in taking me to task.

My only defense is that I rarely look at the film forums, as my interest is in the books. However, that is no excuse. Sorry for the flippant tone; your question deserves a serious answer. But it's one that I am not qualified to give.
 
Last edited:
My mistake. Apologies -- I saw the thread and responded without checking to see which forum it was on. You're quite right in taking me to task.

My only defense is that I rarely look at the film forums, as my interest is in the books. However, that is no excuse. Sorry for the flippant tone; your question deserves a serious answer. But it one that I am not qualified to give.

Thank you for your response. Ofc you are forgiven. After all, you are a self professed squint-eye and so could easily have missed the small print...

I'm new to this site and that's one reason I was so careful to post my question in the correct forum. I hoped to avoid being scolded for posting in the wrong forum as well as avoiding responses based on the book. Rookie mistakes.

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to doubt that I will ever receive any constructive replies. All I seem to be hearing is my own echo.
 
Don't lose hope! I'm sure there are many film lovers who have gone to great lengths to rationalize/justify the choices PJ and his cronies made. You can probably find some here by digging through the old threads on this forum. And if not, take a look at Theonering.net., which I believe was set up specifically to discuss/proselytize the films.

Many years ago, I had a roommate who could answer every criticism of Star Trek TOS with a plausible-sounding explanation. When I asked him how this was so, he said that in high school, he and a group of friends decided that, "instead of sitting around complaining about the show", they would spend their time coming up with reasons why things worked the way they did. This certainly explained how he had ready answers to any criticism; for me, it provided a clear line of demarcation between Nerd and Super-Nerd. I don't doubt that there are similarly dedicated film fans out there.

Though I must confess (if it isn't obvious by now) that I regard "out there" as The Outer Darkness; I lost any interest in PJ's self-justifications when I read an interview in Newsweek in which he gave, as the reason for his character-assassination of Faramir, his opinion that Tolkien's character was too "one-dimensional".*

Making alterations to adapt to a different medium can be justified, as Tolkien himself admitted; making changes because you consider yourself his superior in writing abilities is (in my opinion) the mark of inflated -- and deluded -- ego.

*I assume he meant two-dimensional, as a "one-dimensional" character would be invisible.
 
Don't lose hope! I'm sure there are many film lovers who have gone to great lengths to rationalize/justify the choices PJ and his cronies made. You can probably find some here by digging through the old threads on this forum. And if not, take a look at Theonering.net., which I believe was set up specifically to discuss/proselytize the films.

Many years ago, I had a roommate who could answer every criticism of Star Trek TOS with a plausible-sounding explanation. When I asked him how this was so, he said that in high school, he and a group of friends decided that, "instead of sitting around complaining about the show", they would spend their time coming up with reasons why things worked the way they did. This certainly explained how he had ready answers to any criticism; for me, it provided a clear line of demarcation between Nerd and Super-Nerd. I don't doubt that there are similarly dedicated film fans out there.

Though I must confess (if it isn't obvious by now) that I regard "out there" as The Outer Darkness; I lost any interest in PJ's self-justifications when I read an interview in Newsweek in which he gave, as the reason for his character-assassination of Faramir, his opinion that Tolkien's character was too "one-dimensional".*

Making alterations to adapt to a different medium can be justified, as Tolkien himself admitted; making changes because you consider yourself his superior in writing abilities is (in my opinion) the mark of inflated -- and deluded -- ego.

*I assume he meant two-dimensional, as a "one-dimensional" character would be invisible.

Thx for the ideas for finding an answer to my question on other sites. I will check them out. As far as Jackson and his ego he had to have an enormous one to even attempt filming the trilogy but that is no excuse for some of the decisions he made with plot or characters.

Still, I can enjoy the films but as always I prefer the books. That is true for mostly any book to screen interpretation I've seen. I rank the best interpretations to be that of the British films based on many of the Charles Dicken's books. The ones Produced/Directed by Hurst, Thomas and Lean. But even the great David Lean took liberties with beginnings and endings and what went between but it never seemed awkward or took away from the literary greatness of the original writings. You always knew you were watching a film based on Dickens'. Those responsible never attempted to re-write him or downplay his genius.

Now as great as the film, Gone with the Wind" may be it still pales in comparison to Margaret Mitchell's glorious book. Films are like Spark Notes and PinkMonkey (which are helpful if you've read the book and are still clueless of plot, characterizations, etc.) which I see as entertaining offerings which require little thought or imagination. Just sit back and let someone else do your thinking. Sorry but that's not for me. I staunchly believe that my imagination is superior to the, "magic" of film. How could it not be? In Tolkien's case he created a whole world, it's history and languages with enough room to accomodate the images, setting and characters within my mind's eye. To me Tolkien was a genius, Jackson a much less gifted student.

Sorry to go on and on but I'm passionate about great literature. Well, thx again. Looks like I have some research to do to get my answer.
 
Don't worry about it -- I'm sure you couldn't a bigger tech dummy than me on this forum!

I still haven't managed to figure out how the quote system works here.
 
Don't worry about it -- I'm sure you couldn't a bigger tech dummy than me on this forum!

I still haven't managed to figure out how the quote system works here.

Neither do I but I like it bc it only shows the first 10 or so lines or less instead of the entire post. Amazing how easy it is to please me Life's simpler that way...
 
On the subject of this scene, I'll add that my brother, as big a Tolkien devotee as I am, always considered the encounter with the Riders one of the sequences crying out for a thrilling film realization, and was waiting for it with great anticipation: Aragorn rising "as if out of the ground", and calling "What news from the North, Riders of Rohan?"; the line of Riders suddenly "with astonishing speed and skill" circling around the Three Hunters, and "drawing ever inwards"; Aragorn "standing silent", unmoving, like one of the great Chiefs of the American Indians. Needless to say, he was deeply dissapointed with the way the sequence was compressed and flattened.

I was similarly looking forward to seeing one of my favorite "cinematic" scenes get the epic film treatment: the final assault on the gates of Minas Tirith, and the confrontation between the Witch-King and Gandalf:

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled from his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

That sequence has given me chills every time I've read it over the years. Not even the most butter-fingered director could manage to flub such a cinematic scene.

Or so I thought. :(

Note to the writers and directors of the year 2035, who are searching through old TTF threads looking for good ideas (of course you are!): since the wise and generous people at HBO/Netflix/Amazon/Wherever have given you unlimited time and budget to make a miniseries faithfully and tastefully filming every chapter of LOTR (well, I can dream, can't I?), please be sure to show the parallels in the imagery between this scene and the assault on the house at Crickhollow. This is just one of the parallels in the book, of course, and I'm sure you, as gifted creators, will not have missed the many others, but it is an important one, which will resonate with your fortunate viewers, among whom, alas, I will probably no longer number.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of this scene, I'll add that my brother, as big a Tolkien devotee as I am, always considered the encounter with the Riders one of sequences crying out for a thrilling film realization, and was waiting for it with great anticipation: Aragorn rising "as if out of the ground", and calling "What news from the North, Riders of Rohan?"; the line of Riders suddenly "with astonishing speed and skill" circling around the Three Hunters, and "drawing ever inwards"; Aragorn "standing silent", unmoving, like one of the great Chiefs of the American Indians. Needless to say, he was deeply dissapointed with the way the sequence was compressed and flattened.

I was similarly looking forward to seeing one of my favorite "cinematic" scenes get the epic film treatment: the final assault on the gates of Minas Tirith, and the confrontation between the Witch-King and Gandalf:

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled from his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

That sequence has given me chills every time I've read it over the years. Not even the most butter-fingered director could manage to flub such a cinematic scene.

Or so I thought. :(

Note to the writers and directors of the year 2035, who are searching through old TTF threads looking for good ideas (of course you are!): since the wise and generous people at HBO/Netflix/Amazon/Wherever have given you unlimited time and budget to make a miniseries faithfully and tastefully filming every chapter of LOTR (well, I can dream, can't I?), please be sure to show the parallels in the imagery between this scene and the assault on the house at Crickhollow. This is just one of the parallels in the book, of course, and I'm sure you, as gifted creators, will not have missed the many others, but it is an important one, which will resonate with your fortunate viewers, among whom, alas, I will probably no longer number.

Your referencing the passages as Tolkien wrote them gives me goosebumps. I want to go back and re-read the books to re-live those perfect words again, totally immersed in his world.

I agree and guess one of my biggest complaints (there are others) about the movie vs the book is the total disregard of the hobbits going to Crickhollow, the Old Forest. One of my favorite passages is their meeting with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. By excluding this we lose the chapters, "The House of Tom Bombadil," "The Old Forest" and "Fog on the Barrow Downs" so the audience is left clueless concerning the encounters with Tom and the Barrow-wights and thus losing the dreams/premonitions of Frodo, Tom's powers and the story of Merry and how he came to possess the sword he used to eventually kill the Witch King. Too much lost.

I think the Barrow-wight encounter is one of the most frightening chapters of Tolkien's writings. How my imagination goes on overdrive when I reach that chapter in the book. How it might play out on film with so much given to us to bring it to life.

But Jackson believed it was unnecessary because it didn't advance the story! And another scriptwriter, I think it was Boyens only saw it as a rabbit hole, just a waste of time. The arrogance of these ppl astounds me. To second guess Tolkien...

Everyone familiar with Tolkien and true devotees of his understand the importance of Bombadil and the Old Forest. On top of fabulous narrative/dialogue it provides a great deal of history and back story as well as creating more tension within the story by showing the hobbits and we the audience that the world is very very scary outside of The Shire.

Plus, Bombadil's resistence to the One Ring is a great device to show that the Ring is not all powerful, that there yet exists powers older and more powerful and those resilient to it. What a wonderful creation is Tom Bombadil, older than the elves, "Master of wood, water and hill." A charachter whose deep mystery makes him the perfect character for a fantasy film.

The significance of the encounter at Barrow Downs needs little explanation to show its importance to the overall story. The Barrow-wights as agents of Sauron and as an explanation as to why the Dúnedain are ultimately defeated and cannot rebuild their domain in Cardolan.

Cardolan, a once great land that encompasses much of the actual story including Amon Sûl (Weathertop), Bree, The Great East Road and the Shire among many other places of great distinction. Cardolan has a long glorious but eventually sorrowful history whose telling explains much of the story of the LOTR. I don't expect it all told in the film but the film should ignite curiosity in filmwatchers to discover more. At the least Aragorn could have said more when he and the Hobbits approached Amon Sûl instead of merely calling it, "the once great watchtower". And if we cut out some of the other nonsense written into the film by Jackson, et al there would have been room for Bombadil and the Barrows.

Oh see, now you got me started! What we need future producers, directors and screenwriters are ppl who truly love Tolkien and recognize his genius. We need talented individuals who will honor his writings and not try to do better than the source material. Tolkien has given you everything you need to succeed. So, all of us who wait patiently for that day demand better treatment of his works and more respect shown to his devoted fans.
 
Last edited:
You're clearly a perceptive reader, Ithilethiel -- and I'm not just saying that because you were nice to me after my faux pas!

Yes, the sequence from the Old Forest to Bree is important, and not just to the plot, but structurally and thematically, as you've obviously noticed. I've mentioned it in a couple of threads; here:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/who-was-old-man-willow.23556/

And here:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/why-couldnt-they-get-through-the-redhorn-pass.23481/

As you can see, I agree on the significance of these episodes as "learning experiences" for Frodo (and the reader).

The only thing I find myself disagreeing about is PJ leaving them out of the film. Considering what he did to some of my favorite scenes, I shudder to think what he would have made of Tom and the Barrow-wight.

Well, I gave you goosebumps, and you gave me shudders; I guess that's a fair trade! :p

BTW -- since you mentioned it, I'll say that the short section of about a page and a half describing the approach to Weathertop is also a favorite of mine. Maybe I'll go into the reasons on another thread sometime.

PS: I don't know if anyone has welcomed you to the forum yet; if not, welcome, from another new member! Perhaps you'd like to post something about yourself and your particular interests on the New Member thread:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/his-hello-and-im-new-thread.3363/page-43

You may spark some discussion on topics you like to talk about.
 
Last edited:
You're clearly a perceptive reader, Ithilethiel -- and I'm not just saying that because you were nice to me after my faux pas!

Yes, the sequence from the Old Forest to Bree is important, and not just to the plot, but structurally and thematically, as you've obviously noticed. I've mentioned it in a couple of threads; here:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/who-was-old-man-willow.23556/

And here:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/why-couldnt-they-get-through-the-redhorn-pass.23481/

As you can see, I agree on the significance of these episodes as "learning experiences" for Frodo (and the reader).

The only thing I find myself disagreeing about is PJ leaving them out of the film. Considering what he did to some of my favorite scenes, I shudder to think what he would have made of Tom and the Barrow-wight.

Well, I gave you goosebumps, and you gave me shudders; I guess that's a fair trade! :p

BTW -- since you mentioned it, I'll say that the short section of about a page and a half describing the approach to Weathertop is also a favorite of mine. Maybe I'll go into the reasons on another thread sometime.

PS: I don't know if anyone has welcomed you to the forum yet; if not, welcome, from another new member! Perhaps you'd like to post something about yourself and your particular interests on the New Member thread:

http://thetolkien.forum/index.php?threads/his-hello-and-im-new-thread.3363/page-43

You may spark some discussion on topics you like to talk about.

You made me laugh out loud by your shudder...I never thought of that. How Jackson and company would have mangled wonderful Tom Bombadil! Lol

Well thanks for the welcome though CL did welcome me earlier. Still it's always nice to he welcomed. Welcome to you too. I guessed you had been a member for a while. Just the impression I got by your posts.

I guess I will stop by the newbie forum and post a few things about myself and check out the other pages. Just that right now I'm neck deep in some writing heavy on-line courses. I'm juggling so many assignments I'm a bit loopy just trying to keep it all straight. But if I survive I'll hopefully see some light by mid-July.

In the meantime, I'll be popping in whenever I can for fun and to relax and to have more interesting conversations. Thanks again...
 
You're welcome, and try to drop in to the forum when you have time.

And no, I've only been a member here about two months. But I'm a blabber mouth. I think I should cut back, so as not to wear out my welcome. At least enough so my ugly mug doesn't appear so much on the Recent Posts list.

Am I mistaken, or did you just have a birthday? If so, happy birthday!
 
Last edited:
In, The Two Towers film when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet Eomer and the Riders of Rohan in the Riddermark why does Aragorn identify himself and Gimli as, "son of..." but introduce Legolas only as being an inhabitant of the Woodland Realm?

Doesn't Aragorn know Legolas' father is Thranduil? He must bc prior to the forming of the Fellowship he was given the task by Gandalf of finding Gollum and delivering him to King Thranduil of Mirkwood. Plus Aragorn lived with Lord Elrond Half-elven and the elves of Rivendell so it is hard to believe he wouldn't have met Legolas' in the past or know who his father is.

In the book Lord Elrond reveals Estel is truly Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor but it gets confusing in the movie bc it is Legolas who does so. Still, despite Legolas not knowing Estel was truly Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Estel/Aragorn would surely have known who Legolas was. This bit of the film has always bugged me.

What shame was there in being Legolas son of Thranduil? None as far as I'm concerned but being an elf I am partial...


I don't think there is anything shameful about it, but it is presented the way Peter Jackson decided how it should be presented, as these movies were his fanfic.

And yes, so much was 'stuffed up' by PJ Boyens & Co in these movies, that really didn't have to be. I 'get' needing to make changes and sacrafices when making a movie, but to change swaths of the tale was totally unnecessary.

And yes, welcome! Good to see new folk here, for it has been too quiet too long!
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is anything shameful about it, but it is presented the way Peter Jackson decided how it should be presented, as these movies were his fanfic.

And yes, so much was 'stuffed up' by PJ Boyens & Co in these movies, that really didn't have to be. I 'get' needing to make changes and sacrafices when making a movie, but to change swaths of the tale was totally unnecessary.

And yes, welcome! Good to see new folk here, for it has been too quiet too long!

Thank you Halasían for the welcome! I've looked at other sites dedicated to LOTR and Tolkien but I was always merely, "window shopping" and never joined the other sites.

But when I happened upon this site I liked the simplicity and the friendly tone of the discussions. I'm sure it gets heated at times but it's mostly respectful and I like that. It's okay to disagree but ppl don't have to get nasty about it.

And when I say simplicity I don't mean silly or simple I mean the main forums make sense and it's easy to find an existing forum to add your topic to. Ofc, there's side forums but the list doesn't go on for page after page. By the time I'd find the forum on those other sites I'd forget my question or observation. There's more substance and less fluff here .

Obviously, I agree with your opinion that too much was lost bringing the books to film. And what bugs me the most is that anyone approaching the books for theatrical release realizes there are legions of dedicated Tolkien fans who know the story and the backstory frontwards and backwards. The decisions he and his production teams made are at times understandable but the vast majority were decisions purely based on ego...that he and his staff could, "improve" upon Tolkien. If it werent so sad it would be funny. And those changes feel like a slap in the face to devotees found here and on countless other sites around the world.

So thanks again for your kind welcome!

You're welcome, and try to drop in to the forum when you have time.

And no, I've only been a member here about two months. But I'm a blabber mouth. I think I should cut back, so as not to wear out my welcome. At least enough so my ugly mug doesn't appear so much on the Recent Posts list.

Am I mistaken, or did you just have a birthday? If so, happy birthday!

Yup, I'm a birthday girl! Thanks for noticing and your well wishes...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I noticed when I was trying to get a better look at your icon, a couple of times. Very nice, BTW, and I'll assume you chose it for the same reasons I chose mine: to show both your inner and outer qualities.

Though I admit mine is probably a little better looking than the reality. :(

Come here as often as you can. Your input is valuable.

But don't neglect your studies!
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top