Tell me I'm not seeing this...

You can't deny the fact that Eowyn was showing signs of longing both in the way she talked and acted. She wanted to go to war, and Aragorn knew it. The movie doesn't detract from that. For all we know PJ could still keept Dernhelm's identity secret.

Hmmmm........

Hey, whats wrong with Aragorn losing to girls?! I myself, being a girl, enjoy seeing him lose...

Sam ripping out with her S&M fantasies....

I have now seen the trailor, and am completely certain that Aragorn was NOT trying in that little duel. I know this because I have been swordfighting my brothers for 8+ years, and that little maneuver Eowyn did does not work unless the dude your fighting against's primary goal is to not hurt you. Not that I'm a professionnal fencer, but that trick just DOES NOT WORK.

Really? Thats kewl! Is it fun even? But, I still think that it's good for Aragorn to lose...

it would be cl if he looses! muhahahaha...

Exactly my point. Aragorn is all tough and strong that nobody could beat him. So when he lost, to a Girl might I add, it's kewl. And ya I understand the sneaking thing, but that would make him more alert, even if it is a friend or..ya. I mean any one of the FOTR could've stood up and killed him and he prob. would have been ready...

ok, arwen sneaking up on him didn't bother me. he wasn't paying attention and he had a lot on his mind. frodo, the ring, gettting the kingsfoil.................etc, etc, etc.
and i haven't seen any trailers, my stupid comp won't let me see them. well, i saw half of one. but i couldn't see the other half, which, surprisingly enough, was the half with the eowyn/aragorn thing. darn.
................................................................................................

Rule No.1 : You do not consider the girl you're kissing to be a threat to your life.
Rule 2: You do not consider a girl who gives of subtle hints that she's crushing on you to be a threat either.

poor aragorn. he gets swords at his throat cuz he's just too sexy!!!

Have any of you ever read Piers Anthony's series on the Incarnations? Or perhaps, as an alternative, you've read both 'Ender's Game' and 'Ender's Shadow'. If you have, it'll help to clarify what I'm trying to say, here.

Let's look at the LOTR story, for a moment, as a true-to-life tale, told from the viewpoint of the great bard Tolkien, as passed on to him by Frodo Baggins, with information and tales compiled from his companions in the fellowship... aged with time and fogged by memory. Do you think that this tale... this true tale... would be an exact document of what happened? Is it likely that none of the fellowship members would have exaggerated as they told Frodo's tale... is it likely that Frodo himself, telling this tale to the bard Tolkien, would have told the truth completely, without embellishing the facts?

An example, if you will... which would sound better, if you were telling of your flight from the ringwraiths as you slowly died?

"There I was, in pain and nearly spent... but I mustered up courage enough to defy those foul Nazgul!"

or...

"I was passed out and weak, crying for my mother and flopping bonelessly across the back of my rescuer's saddle."

My point is... different people will have different memories of events, even if they were both present and both viewing the exact same thing. People also have the tendency to exaggerate, embellish, adjust, and alter their stories to make themselves look better. On the same token, authors (journalists come to mind) often twist events enough to make them more juicy.. leaving items out to make the tale more interesting while maybe injecting some extra embellishment to make the tale more believable, or more epic.

What does this have to do with LOTRx3? Well... instead of looking at it like a massacring of Tolkien's work, why not look at it as the interpretation of the tale of the fellowship, as written by the pretty decent bard Jackson. Sure, there are differences... sure, he left things out, he added some things, he tried to make his tale more interesting... but isn't that what all authors do?

I like the movie. I like the books. I know there are differences in the implementation of the story, but the point gets across in both of them... mainly... "Underdogs with nary a chance in tartarus take on the Near Ultimate Evil in hopes of freeing their world from its grip once and for all."

But that's just my penny and a half. ;-)

I completely agree with your main point, at least in one respect: LotR is myth. Myth is never about the details. Its roots lie in a deep oral tradition, and that guarantees that details will be changed depending both on the storyteller and his audience. The point of the fireside tale is to both entertain and move those who experience it, while at the same time relating certain universal themes and messages. With FotR we are fortunate enough to have had the themes and messages from the book maintained. But more importantly, the vast majority of the audience would agree that it was both entertaining and moving. That is the scale by which I judge the movie, for that is the standard with which I believe PJ created the movies.

At one point or another PJ said that one his influences in both writing and directing these films was Braveheart. Having seen FotR I can see exactly where that comes into place. When Braveheart was released I remember many criticizing it for it's lack of historical accuracy. They missed the whole point of the film. It was about Scotish myth. The historical accuracy was completely irrelevant. It's aim wasn't to give an accurate portrayal of William Wallace and his times. It was to bring to life an old Scotish tale. Mel Gibson himself said that his goal was to make the cinematic equivalent of a fireside tale. In that sense he made an incredible movie.

I know we have all grown up on LotR being "history", and that such history shouldn't be altered. Indeed the whole fantasy/D&D culture has become overly obsessed with details. I'm not against these, and thank god Tolkien included them in bulk. But their role in the books, above anything else, is to engross us in Middle-Earth, and convince us that it exists. In movies such ends can be reached using much different means. Using the the power of music combined with detailed sets, costumes, and good acting, these details become far less necessary emotionaly. We can become engrossed without them, and as such these details become much more trivial.


That's basically where my argument stands in terms of defending the movies from critics claiming that they don't stick to the book.

Originally posted by Talimon
When Braveheart was released I remember many criticizing it for it's lack of historical accuracy. They missed the whole point of the film. It was about Scotish myth. The historical accuracy was completely irrelevant. It's aim wasn't to give an accurate portrayal of William Wallace and his times. It was to bring to life an old Scotish tale. Mel Gibson himself said that his goal was to make the cinematic equivalent of a fireside tale. In that sense he made an incredible movie.

Click to expand...

However, when you're dealing with something so far in the past, who's to say what was real and what was not? And who's to really know what details occured when and how they did? With such ambiguity, one can embellish the facts and create a myth out of truth. I would classify Braveheart with what was done with Johnny Depp's "From Hell". Incredible embellishments with Jack the Ripper, to the point of making what has proven to be a feeble suspect into the actual Jack the Ripper. However, being it so far back, there is much that we don't know that the director of "From Hell" has created his own story with the few facts that were given. In my opinion, he can't be faulted for that.

LoTR, however, was created in tact as it was. There was no oral tradition to skew and misinterpret or reinvent. That argument is irrelevant and cannot be compared as a "fireside tale". PJ was not making a movie off of legend, but an adaptation of a written epic. Big difference. All of this sounds like more mumbo jumbo to justify a director who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Originally posted by Talimon
I know we have all grown up on LotR being "history", and that such history shouldn't be altered. Indeed the whole fantasy/D&D culture has become overly obsessed with details. I'm not against these, and thank god Tolkien included them in bulk. But their role in the books, above anything else, is to engross us in Middle-Earth, and convince us that it exists. In movies such ends can be reached using much different means. Using the the power of music combined with detailed sets, costumes, and good acting, these details become far less necessary emotionaly. We can become engrossed without them, and as such these details become much more trivial.

Click to expand...

You're making a gratuitous assumption that there is a dichotomy between details and making an engrossing film. Actually, Hollywood is becoming even MORE detailed to create such an authentic ambiance for the exact reason of making a film engrossing. A detailed and mature plot is just as important as the bangs and thrills. PJ could have done both and made not only a visually stunning film, but a very mature and deep film as well. And you're contradicting yourself as far as PJ is concerned. This is what I don't understand. He goes through the painstaking detail of 250 000 links of chain mail because he wants it to be Tolkien authentic, yet he replaces Tolkien's mature and thought provoking dialogue with "Let's go hunt some orc"....? Where is the logic in that?

Originally posted by Thorin


LoTR, however, was created in tact as it was. There was no oral tradition to skew and misinterpret or reinvent. That argument is irrelevant and cannot be compared as a "fireside tale". PJ was not making a movie off of legend, but an adaptation of a written epic. Big difference. All of this sounds like more mumbo jumbo to justify a director who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that LotR, the tale, is more then just a written epic. To return to the Braveheart example, there is plenty of reliable historical information about William Wallace and Scotish rebellion. Had Gibson chosen to he could have created a much more historical film, delving much deeper into the politics of "Scotish nobles", and the hierarchy of the times. For example, we know that Wallace didn't "single-handedly" lead any rebellion, and that the Queen he supposedly meets on several occasions was only 10 years old when he died.

But such facts are changed, and as such history becomes myth. I already gave the reasons for why they are changed. And I think these reasons are as relevant, if not more relevant, for LotR. PJ is telling this tale in both a different medium and to a different audience. And I think that such changes as were made, given the context of the book and the motivations of the author, are perfect.

You're making a gratuitous assumption that there is a dichotomy between details and making an engrossing film. Actually, Hollywood is becoming even MORE detailed to create such an authentic ambiance for the exact reason of making a film engrossing. A detailed and mature plot is just as important as the bangs and thrills. PJ could have done both and made not only a visually stunning film, but a very mature and deep film as well. And you're contradicting yourself as far as PJ is concerned. This is what I don't understand. He goes through the painstaking detail of 250 000 links of chain mail because he wants it to be Tolkien authentic, yet he replaces Tolkien's mature and thought provoking dialogue with "Let's go hunt some orc"....? Where is the logic in that?

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with you on that point. What I don't agree with is people claiming that the plot is "cheapened" because a certain charachter doesn't call a flood, or another charachter who serves absolutely no role is cut. The vast majority of PJ critics claim that the essence of the plot lies in incredibly petty details, and thats something I can't agree with. Also, when you say a "detailed and mature plot", I hope you don't mean that the former is necessary for the latter. Details don't make a mature plot, at least not single handedly. And there is a big difference between having charachter detail and plot detail. I am all for charachter detail. But plot detail, if used excessivley, becomes like dust. It is so detailed and broken down that it gets in your eyes and you can't see the tale for anything else. When I say that the book is detailed I mean that in terms of the excess of place names, history, and minute references. I see these as being trivial in a film.

Originally posted by Talimon
I am all for charachter detail. But plot detail, if used excessivley, becomes like dust. It is so detailed and broken down that it gets in your eyes and you can't see the tale for anything else. When I say that the book is detailed I mean that in terms of the excess of place names, history, and minute references. I see these as being trivial in a film.

Click to expand...

But this is why I feel PJ is contradicting and I don't feel his changes can be justified on these points. You say that details (i.e. names, places, dates) are not really important as in making FoTR a good movie. PJ cuts out characters like Glorfindel to avoid confusion and unnecessary baggage in the film, and doesn't include the details in depth to avoid more confusion or having be bogged down for the audience....However, he has Gandalf at the bridge of Moria saying "Flame of Anor" WHAT THE HECK IS ANOR??? (I know this, but you see my point). He neglects to put in solid minor characters to avoid confusion yet sticks this in out of nowhere and confuses the heck out of the non-Tolkien audience. No explanation. Nothing. I think more meaningful detail could have been added elsewhere that added more to the story and explained a few things in depth.

I just feel that PJ has contradicted himself left and right according to your arguments, Talimon. I don't feel that his changes can be justified by these things.

Here is my prediction about how this whole thing will end up playing out. Once the movies have all been released Jackson is going to claim that New Line insisted that he add bunches of Arwen and stuff to the film, and that after the backlash from the people on the Internet he toned down her presence and changed things in the second and third films, but until he is done with his contract with them he is smart enough not to start saying things like this yet and may not get to say them for a while if he makes "The Hobbit".

well, i haden't read the books b4 i saw the movie. i read them right afterwards though. but anyway, "flame of arnor" didn't confuse me a bit. in fact, i pretty much just ignored it. but, what is the "flame of arnor"?? cuz i don't know.

Wrote this before reading previous post....

..and confuses the heck out of the non-Tolkien audience.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that this really confuses the non-Tolkien audience, in that, though the meaning is not clear, it’s meaning is not important to what is actually occurring onscreen, which is an obviously bad dude trying to ruin an otherwise enjoyable spelunk. I would even go so far as to even suggest that most of the “non-Tolkien”s probably forgot that line as soon as it was uttered. The whole “Flame of Anor (Udûn)” thing is handled largely the same way in the book with no more expansion about what the Balrog is or where it comes from until later. PJ probably felt he was throwing the purists a bone by including this arcane reference that would mean something only to them, but still you take him out to the woodshed. Kinda like the guy can’t win even when he tries to stay true and “pay homage” to the book.

This is also beside the fact that the whole story of Gandalf’s fall and resurrection has yet to completely play out and we don’t really know what might be included by way of explanation about the Balrog.

Originally posted by Parrot
The whole “Flame of Anor (Udûn)” thing is handled largely the same way in the book with no more expansion about what the Balrog is or where it comes from until later. PJ probably felt he was throwing the purists a bone by including this arcane reference that would mean something only to them, but still you take him out to the woodshed. Kinda like the guy can’t win even when he tries to stay true and “pay homage” to the book.

Click to expand...

But that's the whole point I'm trying to make, Parrot. Talimon and others defend PJ's changes by saying, "He is not trying to make a true adaptation, but a good movie." If that is the case, why throw inane references out that really adds nothing to the movie or explains things like the "flame of Anor", the three trolls from The Hobbit, and a shot of Gil-Galad at the beginning and yet change blatant dialogue and characters?

Does PJ think that these little "tidbits" will appease the purists? Give me a break. As a purist, I would rather have PJ stay truer to the characters and dialogue that was written, rather than "toss" me a minute detail that even a purist wouldn't miss. What a contradiction you all are making him out to be. "I'm not trying to make a good adaptation, just a good movie. Hmmm, I think we need to add one more link of chainmail to the 249 999 that are already there, not that we're trying to make anything authentic, of course. Oh yes, let's throw in a reference to the three trolls that virtually nobody will catch the first time around. That ought to make the zealot fans happy....Liv, get on your horse for the Ford scene, for crying out loud! Geez! Are you a warrior princess or not?!!"