Characterization in the third movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!

As I look around the board, I see sequels to various purist quibbles about the other films. Why not a sequel for my threads:
Characterization in the movie was absolutely PERFECT!!! and
Characterization in the second movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!
As in those previous threads, I would love to debate with the fine folks here the extent to which PJ changed the characters from the books. Was Gollum too villainous? Was Gandalf too mean to Denethor? Was Frodo still a whimp? Was the King of the Dead too green? Was Sam too fat? Well, let's discuss! Hopefully the thread will be as insightful as the title is inciteful, and please everyone, play nice. I promise to try and be more active on this thread than I was on the Two Towers version.

ps. One thing to keep in mind- the Two Towers and Fellowship of the Ring each have their own thread for discussion of this topic, linked above, so let's please try to keep this thread focused on characterization in Return of the King, at least as much as is possible.

Ah, aragil. Your love for PJ has made you delusional.

I will say that overall the characterization for this movie was heads above the others. There were only three big problems (and virtually the only three worth mentioning or having a NPW fit over):

1) Denethor (Need I say more? He almost makes the character of TTT's Faramir look untouched by PJ)

2) Gandalf - He was way to Stormcrow-ish and weak, never mind just the brutalization and deceiving scorn toward Denethor. His character was distorted at the expense of trying to redeem Aragorn and make him strong.

3) Frodo's siding with Gollum and sending him away. Though it works in the movie and something like could happen under the influence of the ring, Tolkien's Frodo would never do something like that to Sam. It was a distortion....but it worked for the movie unlike the others.

Pippin was ten times better than in the previous movies and Gimli wasn't just there for comic relief like TTT)

Gimli wasn't featured enough, but I have to say that his "It still only counts as one!" line was the funniest moment in any of the three movies.

Thanks
Morgaphry

If "perfect" means "similar to the book" (and not "ok for the movie"), then I'll add Sam to the list of "imperfectly characterized characters". He's too violent in the movie.

Denethor and Gandalf are also big "imperfections", which need no explaining (and Thorin already explained them anyway ). Frodo is too stupid (book Frodo would never fall for that ruse).

A point I haven't seen raised yet: Éowyn's motivation for riding with the Rohirrim. In the movie, she was "fighting for those she loved" (unlike the book, where she was seeking a glorious death). This is an "imperfection" that leads to a question: why didn't Éowyn go to the Black Gate, in the movie?

I think these "imperfections" are ok for the movie, the only exception being Denethor. He makes no sense.

Although I rarely agree with Purists, I do agree the characterizations, compared with the source books, are not all 100% accurate. They are very close, however.

Faramir is the only one who deviates from Tolkien's book, but only in The Two Towers movie. And he eventually releases the Hobbits and never takes the ring so it doesn't matter anyway.

Every other character was pretty much right-on, if not slightly exaggerated for effect.

Luckily for me, I can watch the movies without a pig-headed bias toward the books.

Gandalf comes to mind, as Thorin said:

Thorin said:

His character was distorted at the expense of trying to redeem Aragorn and make him strong.

Click to expand...

Eowyn.... Eriol mentions her motivation, but what bothered me most was that she was presumably not in despair...she was not bold enough. How much of this is a matter of my own imagination based on personal interpretation about the boldness of Eowyn? I'm not sure, but it bothered me in the movie... she was too affraid. I wanted bold and defiant... like we see in people such as Aragorn and Sam in the movie.

Eriol said:

If "perfect" means "similar to the book" (and not "ok for the movie"), then I'll add Sam to the list of "imperfectly characterized characters". He's too violent in the movie.

Click to expand...

NITPICKING
I think Sean Astin did a wonderful job with it. Sam in the movie was perfect. Sam did hate gollum that much, Sam did fight Shelob that well, and that violent, that was one of the great scenes in the movie actually, it was really moving. To see this small hobbit fighting with only his courage and will - that's something you don't see everyday, and it was executed perfectly in the film. So, Disagree with you on that

Denethor and Gandalf are also big "imperfections", which need no explaining (and Thorin already explained them anyway ). Frodo is too stupid (book Frodo would never fall for that ruse).

Click to expand...

I agree with the Denerhor thing, cause all he did was eat like a pig - but there was no time to insert him further. So that to me was done in good taste.

Gandalf was perfect in the third film, you have to realize he's not the main character of the movie, there are others that need to be in the spotlight, so although we would want to let him shine, the title of the third film is RETURN OF THE KING, Not RETURN OF THE WIZARD. Aragorn HAD to be in the spotlight.

As for Frodo, Elijah Wood deserves all the praises he's getting, he portrayed Frodo to a tea, and if you think the movie Frodo was weak, the book Frodo is even Weaker, and he was mean to Sam at one point in the book, and it was because of the influence of the ring. PJ wanted the viewers to see what the ring was doing to it's bearers. It was properly executed in every scene.

A point I haven't seen raised yet: Éowyn's motivation for riding with the Rohirrim. In the movie, she was "fighting for those she loved" (unlike the book, where she was seeking a glorious death). This is an "imperfection" that leads to a question: why didn't Éowyn go to the Black Gate, in the movie?

Click to expand...

There was not enough time to show the houses of healing. the movie was already running at 3.30. Besides the focus was supposed to be on Aragorn, Frodo and Sauron. She did not have to say the exact words, but I believe the meaning essence of the scene has captured that of the book.

I think these "imperfections" are ok for the movie, the only exception being Denethor. He makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one, though he did make me hungry.

Narya said:

Gandalf was perfect in the third film, you have to realize he's not the main character of the movie, there are others that need to be in the spotlight, so although we would want to let him shine, the title of the third film is RETURN OF THE KING, Not RETURN OF THE WIZARD. Aragorn HAD to be in the spotlight.

Click to expand...

So let Aragorn suggest the decoy... but why must Gandalf disagree then be over-ruled with such ease? If only to boost Aragorn it is more than a cheap trick... it is baffling even within the context of the movie alone.


Bollocks! For how long will the server keep going busy!

Nóm said:

So let Aragorn suggest the decoy... but why must Gandalf disagree then be over-ruled with such ease? If only to boost Aragorn it is more than a cheap trick... it is baffling even within the context of the movie alone.


Bollocks! For how long will the server keep going busy!

Click to expand...

It's not a cheap trick, its called FILMMAKING Basics. The context of the movie is only baffling to those who refuse to believe it's a good one, you obviously already have a closed door even before you watched the film, and so you see these "flaws". That's not PJ's fault at all. I didn't like what he did in TTT but kept an open mind when I watch ROTK, and so I got impressed.

Well, I believe to each his own is the best thing to do here.

Can we get an award in here for Narya's last post?

Excellent... beautiful.... wise words indeed. Not a trace of hypocracy or ignorance either!

Narya said:

Gandalf was perfect in the third film, you have to realize he's not the main character of the movie, there are others that need to be in the spotlight, so although we would want to let him shine, the title of the third film is RETURN OF THE KING, Not RETURN OF THE WIZARD. Aragorn HAD to be in the spotlight.

Click to expand...

Putting Aragorn in the spotlight does not mean that Gandalf has to be demeaned. Gandalf was weak in will and mind in the third. He showed contempt for Denethor from the beginning to culminate in him not only clocking him with his staff, but PUSHING him on to the fire pyre (when it looked like Denethor realized his doom and wanted off), he doubted the plans and made no bones about the futility of it all in front of everyone instead of being strong REGARDLESS of the odds if only to keep the morale of everyone else up. This is a perfect portrayal?

Narya said:

...and if you think the movie Frodo was weak, the book Frodo is even Weaker, and he was mean to Sam at one point in the book, and it was because of the influence of the ring. PJ wanted the viewers to see what the ring was doing to it's bearers. It was properly executed in every scene.

Click to expand...

How was book Frodo weak? PJ had Frodo rolling his eyes up from the very beginning, clutching his shoulder at every opportunity when the Nazgul came about and falling to the temptation to put on the ring all the way from the Shire and into the next two movies. This is being stronger than the book? PJ had Frodo snapping at Sam in Ithilien and this showed the power of the ring well and agreed with the book. But to take it to the extremes that PJ did was another example of dumbing things down for the audience. Tolkien's Frodo would never have done such a thing as side with Gollum and tell Sam to take a hike while behind the borders of Mordor. Who'se Frodo is weaker?

Thorin said:

I will say that overall the characterization for this movie was heads above the others. There were only three big problems (and virtually the only three worth mentioning or having a NPW fit over):

Click to expand...

Of course it was- that's why I expected you to like the show. That there are so few (IMO zero) problems in characterization is why I plan to be fairly active on this thread.

Thorin said:

1) Denethor (Need I say more? He almost makes the character of TTT's Faramir look untouched by PJ)

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you'll have to say more if you want me to disagree with you! I think there are certainly omissions which will be touched up in the EE, but nothing greatly different or representing 'mischaracterization', IMO.

Thorin said:

2) Gandalf - He was way to Stormcrow-ish and weak, never mind just the brutalization and deceiving scorn toward Denethor. His character was distorted at the expense of trying to redeem Aragorn and make him strong.

Click to expand...

I don't think I understand the objection. Stormcrow is an appelation from the book- difficult to say this then represents a deviation from that book. I also don't understand how G's actions towards Denethor effect Aragorn in any way. I'll need some specifics here.

Thorin said:

3) Frodo's siding with Gollum and sending him away. Though it works in the movie and something like could happen under the influence of the ring, Tolkien's Frodo would never do something like that to Sam. It was a distortion....but it worked for the movie unlike the others.

Click to expand...

The Ring corrupted Frodo- he had several similar 'episodes' in the book, under slightly friendlier circumstances. My take is that if circumstances were slightly dimmer (as they were in the movies) then book Frodo would have done the same thing.

Thorin said:

Pippin was ten times better than in the previous movies and Gimli wasn't just there for comic relief like TTT)

Click to expand...

I agree that Pippin was fantastic here, but I don't think he was so bad in the other films. Perhaps we should revisit one of the earlier "Characterization is Perfect" threads, either in the FotR or TT forum?

Eriol said:

If "perfect" means "similar to the book" (and not "ok for the movie"), then I'll add Sam to the list of "imperfectly characterized characters". He's too violent in the movie.

Click to expand...

"Perfect" here is used a little tongue-in-cheek, but I like it because it is a sure way to get purist-oriented folks to participate. As for Sam, I'll assume you're referring to his actions towards Gollum (perhaps towards the Orcs of Cirith Ungol?). This is bit tricky because the implication in the movies is clearly that the Ring is having an effect on him, causing him to act different. This is demonstrated after he attacks Gollum on the stairs- he seems to 'snap out of it' and apologizes for being too rough. I don't think that this is a case of the movie changing the way a character acts, but rather a case of the Ring doing it. And of course, again the situation is a little different in the movie than in the books. Sam hears Gollum plotting to kill Frodo, "from his own mouth." I think Sam in the book would have been a little more violent, if his suspicions of Gollum were confirmed in such an obvious way.

Eriol said:

Denethor and Gandalf are also big "imperfections", which need no explaining (and Thorin already explained them anyway ). Frodo is too stupid (book Frodo would never fall for that ruse).

Click to expand...

I can't argue with people over nothing. If anyone would like to give specific examples of how these two act differently in the movie than in the books, then I'll do my best to respond.

Eriol said:

A point I haven't seen raised yet: Éowyn's motivation for riding with the Rohirrim. In the movie, she was "fighting for those she loved" (unlike the book, where she was seeking a glorious death). This is an "imperfection" that leads to a question: why didn't Éowyn go to the Black Gate, in the movie?

Click to expand...

Hmm. This is interesting, but I disagree with you on why Eowyn didn't go. If EE rumors are correct, then Eowyn doesn't go to the Black Gates because she is injured in the House of Healing, exactly as per the book, so no problem there. However, regarding Pelannor- Eowyn in the books might expect death, but she doesn't just throw herself on her sword. She sticks close to her uncle, doubtlessly looking to fight for him (as also in the movie). In the movie, following her last confrontation with Aragorn she seems exactly as in the book- completely destroyed inside. And of course, in the movie she does some pretty crazy things, attacking a Mumak single-handedly. I think the movie does a pretty good job of motivating her to go to war, and that it is the same motivation as in the books, even if the 'seeking death' line is never used (and maybe it will be in the EE!).

Nóm said:

Eowyn.... Eriol mentions her motivation, but what bothered me most was that she was presumably not in despair...she was not bold enough. How much of this is a matter of my own imagination based on personal interpretation about the boldness of Eowyn? I'm not sure, but it bothered me in the movie... she was too affraid. I wanted bold and defiant... like we see in people such as Aragorn and Sam in the movie.

Click to expand...

I still need specifics on the Gandalf thing. If it is just one line then I won't bother to argue- general 'characterization' is built up through the entire movie, not just one sentene. As for Eowyn, think of the scene where she talks to Theoden in Dunharrow- my impression of that scene was exactly that she was in despair. One thing I didn't like in the book was how Dernhelm had no interaction whatsoever with Merry. If there was no mutual understanding between the two, why did she ever bother? The movie (IMO) did a good job of motivating the decision, but did so by making Dernhelm seem a little less stoic, and blowing the 'surprise' when she confronts the Witch King. To me the character as written by Tolkien seems a little too schizophrenic- compassionate and understanding to take Merry, but utterly impassive for the rest of the Ride of the Rohirrim. The movie picked one side and went with it, and I think it was the more important side- Merry had to be there, so it was better to motivate how he got there.

Morgraphy- omission is not the same as mischaracterization. Do you honestly think Gimli was more prominently featured in the books?

Narya- thanks for the help. I should point out though, that I think much of the characterization works out fine without having to resort to time constraints, sort of. I think much of the motivation for Denethor's madness will come with the revelation of his Palantir in the Extended cut.

Aragil... yes, I was speaking of a specific point in time when Gandalf is not in character... not that he was wrong throughout the movie... I do not think he was, and I am probably more happy with him than any other character in the movies.

Narya said:

I didn't like what he did in TTT but kept an open mind when I watch ROTK,...

Click to expand...

Well you "obviously" deserve a brownie-button.

Narya said:

...and so I got impressed.

Click to expand...

Well that is the only answer then! Is it a fact that the movie has no flaws, and that it is excellent in all points as well as impressive. Only someone who went in with a closed mind could think otherwise!

Narya said:

It's not a cheap trick, its called FILMMAKING Basics. The context of the movie is only baffling to those who refuse to believe it's a good one, you obviously already have a closed door even before you watched the film, and so you see these "flaws

Click to expand...

Is it because of a closed door that I am torn between giving a thorough answer to this, telling you how foolish the statement is, or just keeping my mouth shut out of the belief that to try to explain would be both in vain, and that its not nice to tell someone their post is foolish.

Thorin said:

Putting Aragorn in the spotlight does not mean that Gandalf has to be demeaned. Gandalf was weak in will and mind in the third. He showed contempt for Denethor from the beginning to culminate in him not only clocking him with his staff, but PUSHING him on to the fire pyre (when it looked like Denethor realized his doom and wanted off), he doubted the plans and made no bones about the futility of it all in front of everyone instead of being strong REGARDLESS of the odds if only to keep the morale of everyone else up. This is a perfect portrayal?

Click to expand...

I seriously disagree with anyone who thinks that Gandalf was "weak in will and mind" in RotK. Did you miss the entire seige of Minas Tirith, or Gandalf rescuing Faramir from the Nazgul? Gandalf was continually rallying the troops in the city, urging them to fight even when there was no hope of victory. Weak in will and mind is the exact opposite of what Gandalf did in the movie.
I get the impression that your entire complaint about Gandalf comes from his line to Aragorn: "Sauron will suspect a trap". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean- it is never followed up on, and I disagree with Nóm that Gandalf is over-ruled on the matter, because it is simply never mentioned again!! It seems to me quite inexplicable, and therefore easily ignored. In no sense is it representative of how Gandalf is portrayed in the third movie.
As for the Denethor incident, Gandalf is quite contemptuous of the Steward in the books as well, though he does not resort to using his staff. Gandalf does not push Denethor back on the pyre after the Steward begins to come around, he does so when Denethor physically threatens Pippin! What specifically is the problem here? The use of the staff?

Thorin said:

How was book Frodo weak? PJ had Frodo rolling his eyes up from the very beginning, clutching his shoulder at every opportunity when the Nazgul came about and falling to the temptation to put on the ring all the way from the Shire and into the next two movies. This is being stronger than the book? Who'se Frodo is weaker?

Click to expand...

LOL! Careful there Thorin!! PJ get's those 'weak' ideas from the books:

from the books, "Three is Company" (still in the Shire):
A sudden unreasoning fear of discovery laid hold of Frodo, and he thought of his Ring. He hardly dared to breathe, and yet the desire to get it out of his pocket became so strong that he began slowly to move his hand. He felt that he had only to slip it on, and then he would be safe. The advice of Gandalf seemed absurd. Bilbo had used the Ring. ‘And I am still in the Shire,’ he thought, as his hand touched the chain on which it hung. At that moment the rider sat up, and shook the reins. The horse stepped forward, walking slowly at first, and then breaking into a quick trot.
...
Once more the desire to slip on the Ring came over Frodo; but this time it was stronger than before. So strong that, almost before he realized what he was doing, his hand was groping in his pocket. But at that moment there came a sound like mingled song and laughter.
from the books, "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol":
Frodo waited, like a bird at the approach of a snake, unable to move. And as he waited, he felt, more urgent than ever before, the command that he should put on the Ring. But great as the pressure was, he felt no inclination now to yield to it. He knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king – not yet. There was no longer any answer to that command in his own will, dismayed by terror though it was, and he felt only the beating upon him of a great power from outside. It took his hand, and as Frodo watched with his mind, not willing it but in suspense (as if he looked on some old story far away), it moved the hand inch by inch towards the chain upon his neck.
from the books, "The Great River":
Fierce voices rose up to greet it from across the water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running through him and clutching at his heart; there was a deadly cold, like the memory of an old wound, in his shoulder. He crouched down, as if to hide.
from the books, "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol":
Surely there was the Lord of the Nine Riders returned to earth to lead his ghastly host to battle? Here, yes here indeed was the haggard king whose cold hand had smitten down the Ring-bearer with his deadly knife. The old wound throbbed with pain and a great chill spread towards Frodo's heart.

Click to expand...

Are we complaining about Frodo being weak, or complaining that movie Frodo is different than book Frodo?

Thorin said:

PJ had Frodo snapping at Sam in Ithilien and this showed the power of the ring well and agreed with the book. But to take it to the extremes that PJ did was another example of dumbing things down for the audience. Tolkien's Frodo would never have done such a thing as side with Gollum and tell Sam to take a hike while behind the borders of Mordor.

Click to expand...

I won't argue with PJ taking book characterizations to the extremes- this is not the same as mischaracterization. Sometimes PJ forgets that less is more, but as long as this stuff is coming either from the books or is at least in line with Tolkien's Middle-earth, you won't see me complaining!!

Nóm said:

Is it because of a closed door that I am torn between giving a thorough answer to this, telling you how foolish the statement is, or just keeping my mouth shut out of the belief that to try to explain would be both in vain, and that its not nice to tell someone their post is foolish.

Click to expand...

For one thing, our disagreement on certain matters doesn't mean that I am wrong and you are right or vice versa, it just means we disagree . Now, unless you are a filmmaker and can post in detail why PJ should be crucified for what he did, then I hold your opinion of his movie void. Plus if you are a filmmaker, I would need proof that you know what good filmmaking is (like maybe a blockbuster would do ) cause otherwise you haven't reached PJ-level yet to critisize his work.

All of us here can ramble about the good and bad points of the film(s) but one thing is for sure - the numbers don't lie. Many people seem to enjoy the films and they don't care nor do they give a hoot to matters which people here seem to nitpick too much on.

So to PJ and his crew, and to the great ACTORS who portrayed the characters in film with PERFECTION - I take my hat off to you all!!!

Denethor having the palantir(sp?) would better his case of being less psychotic and more ignorant of seeing the "future." I believe taking the palantir out was a big no-no when trying to even get close to the Denethor's problems

ChunkyLover53 said:

Denethor having the palantir(sp?) would better his case of being less psychotic and more ignorant of seeing the "future." I believe taking the palantir out was a big no-no when trying to even get close to the Denethor's problems

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this will be the case in the EE, else why Denethor's lines of "Do you think the eyes of the White Tower are blind" and his reference to Aragorn riding with the Rohirrim. Or, for that matter, what about the man (I assume Imrahil) who says that the force attacking from Osgiliath is "Just as Denethor has long foreseen". Or how does Denethor know in the TT EE that the Ring has been found? I'm pretty sure the Palantir will end up in the EE, otherwise there will be a lot of unexplained bits regarding Denethor.

ps. Nice Garth pic

Thanx,...

...and yeah, I truly hope that it is in the EE.

Often enough majority have bad taste, or make poor decisions Clearly a lot of people do love these movies and I know some who think they are the best movies made in a looooong time. That fact does not mean that anyone who thinks the movies are less than perfect or even poor, is wrong. They are in minority opinion is all. But just the same, someone can say the film has flaws without crucifying Jackson or thinking the movie stinks.

Bad opinions are void unless they come from a good film-maker? What of good opinions.

Hmm. Narya and Nóm, I would very respectfully request that further argument not regarding characterization be moved to PMs. I enjoy both of your contributions, and hope that you both realize that non professionals can have perfectly valid opinions, and that mass opinion is not necessarily bad opinion. Other than that, let's please stick to characterization, at least when posting in this thread.