Tell me I'm not seeing this...

[Gandalf_White]

Man if PJ does any of that stuff (maetioned at the beginning of the thread)he will ruin LOTR! HELP! I don't care if he is writing this in HIS interpretation. His interpretation is ALL WRONG! Arwen had like a sentence written about her in The Fellowship of the Ring and then didn't show up again until The Return of the King. How can PJ screw something up THAT bad. He just broke my heart. That stuff had better not be in the movie or PJ will be hearing from ME!

 

[Talimon]

First of all, the preview doesn't show Arwen at Helm's Deep. It shows her embracing Aragorn, but you have no way of knowing that it's at Helm's Deep.

Secondly, if she's at Helm's Deep, I can garauntee that she doesn't fight. PJ has said numerous times that she won't be fighting in the movies.

Thirdly, Eowyn doesn't defeat Aragorn, she just parries one of his strokes. There's a big difference. And as for Arwen catching him in the wood, she's the daughter of Elrond. She is of greater lineage then he is, and can be assumed to have at least the same ability in stealth. Just because she snuck up on him doesn't mean she could beat him in a sword fight.

 

[Gandalf_White]

That makes me feel soooo much better.

 

[Aerin]

If Arwen is not at Helm's Deep, does Aragorn return to Rivendell? To add to that, she looks like she has riding clothes on; perhaps she was just riding out in the forest one day and just happened to come upon Aragorn?

PJ guaranteed no fighting, hm? I seem to remember him guaranteeing he would keep the movie as close to the book as he could....
Maybe Arwen comes up, breaks a nail on a rock at Helm's Deep (instead of cutting her cheek on a tree branch), chants a few magic words, and the Orcs fall down dead? [/sarcasm]

I'm not sure what school of swordsmanship you are familiar with, but when one has one's sword at the throat of one's opponent, that usually means one has won the fight. The trailer showed Aragorn too close up to see his arms, but it did not look like he had his sword in any position other than some kind of surrender.

Arwen from greater lineage than Aragorn? Unless I have completely missed Aragorn's entire story, he's descended from Isildur, you know, the guy who defeated Sauron?
Comparing the lineage of Elves to the lineage of Aragorn is a little difficult, unless you are comparing the deeds of their forebears.

 

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Aerin
If Arwen is not at Helm's Deep, does Aragorn return to Rivendell? To add to that, she looks like she has riding clothes on; perhaps she was just riding out in the forest one day and just happened to come upon Aragorn?

I don't see what your logic is. Arwen could meet Aragorn at Edoras, Helm's Deep after the battle, or even Isengard for that matter. Obviously she's come down from Rivendell, but that doesn't automatically mean she's at Helm's Deep, let alone fighting.

Originally posted by Aerin
PJ guaranteed no fighting, hm? I seem to remember him guaranteeing he would keep the movie as close to the book as he could....
Maybe Arwen comes up, breaks a nail on a rock at Helm's Deep (instead of cutting her cheek on a tree branch), chants a few magic words, and the Orcs fall down dead? [/sarcasm][/B]

As close as he could while still leaving the movie accessible to new-comers. He never gauranteed that he'd keep the movie as true as the book. In fact, there's this great quote from him saying that his goal is to make 3 good movies, not 3 good adaptations. He'll keep as much as he can while still keeping the movie under his guidelines of "good".

Originally posted by Aerin
I'm not sure what school of swordsmanship you are familiar with, but when one has one's sword at the throat of one's opponent, that usually means one has won the fight. The trailer showed Aragorn too close up to see his arms, but it did not look like he had his sword in any position other than some kind of surrender.[/B]

Are we talking about Arwen or Eowyn? Arwen never fought Aragorn, and so there is nothing skillful about her getting her sword on Aragorn's neck. It merely shows she was stealthy.

If you are talking about Eowyn, she doesn't have the sword anywhere near Aragorn's neck. All she does is parry his strike, which means absolutely nothing. He for sure wasn't in a position of surrender.

Originally posted by Aerin
Arwen from greater lineage than Aragorn? Unless I have completely missed Aragorn's entire story, he's descended from Isildur, you know, the guy who defeated Sauron?
Comparing the lineage of Elves to the lineage of Aragorn is a little difficult, unless you are comparing the deeds of their forebears. [/B]

It may be difficult to compare, but I was only paraphrasing Tolkiens own words. From the Appendices:

"But as for Arwen the Fair, lady of Imraldis and of Lorien, Evenstar of her people, she is of lineage greater then yours, and has lived in the world already so long that to her you are but as a yearling shoot beside a young birch of many summers."

That's said by Elrond to Aragorn in regards to Arwen. So I think that says something about thier respective lineages.

 

[Aerin]

I don't see what your logic is. Arwen could meet Aragorn at Edoras, Helm's Deep after the battle, or even Isengard for that matter. Obviously she's come down from Rivendell, but that doesn't automatically mean she's at Helm's Deep, let alone fighting.

I was being sarcastic when I said that. Obviously the Amazing Arwen could ride out to Edoras and meet Aragorn there. Seeing the way in which PJ has already butchered her character, I don't doubt it.

As close as he could while still leaving the movie accessible to new-comers. He never gauranteed that he'd keep the movie as true as the book. In fact, there's this great quote from him saying that his goal is to make 3 good movies, not 3 good adaptations. He'll keep as much as he can while still keeping the movie under his guidelines of "good".

Now it's my turn to pick apart your words. "He'll keep as much as he can whlie still keeping the movie under his guidelines of 'good'."
I'm taking a wild guess and saying that 'keeping as much as he can of the books in the movies' means something different for you than it does for me. To do so, according to my view, would require not adding created characters and situations which the Fellowship never faced.
[sarcasm] Then again, PJ absolutely had to use up eight minutes of film on the Wizard's duel instead of showing Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts. Necessary indeed. [/sarcasm]

Are we talking about Arwen or Eowyn? Arwen never fought Aragorn, and so there is nothing skillful about her getting her sword on Aragorn's neck. It merely shows she was stealthy.

I was refering to Eowyn 'fighting' Aragorn. Refresh my memory, please, in which part in FotR did Tolkien write that Arwen wielded a sword, much less snuck up on a Dunedain?

If you are talking about Eowyn, she doesn't have the sword anywhere near Aragorn's neck. All she does is parry his strike, which means absolutely nothing. He for sure wasn't in a position of surrender.

Yes, Eowyn parries Aragorn's strike, but if you watch carefully, it shows Aragorn from the front with a sword pointed at him, and his weapon is not even attempting to counter hers. If it wasn't surrender, what was it?

I had forgotten what it said in the appendices. My mistake, and I acknowledge it as such.

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

I took some screen caps.
He looks pretty defeated to me.

http://www.iamsmeagol.net/images/eoywnfence1.jpg

http://www.iamsmeagol.net/images/eoywnfence2.jpg

So "ha!" to all of you.

 

[Talimon]

Screens don't explain it. I have the preview on my comp right here and you can easily tell that Eowyn's sword is a good 2-3 feet from Aragorn. It's hard to explain, but when you see it you can tell that Aragorn isn't defeated. That's just not the right word. You can't imply that were Eowyn and Aragorn to meet in the field Aragorn would die. At most Eowyn parried his sword in anger, while he was simply at ease.

 

[Thorin]

The fact is, is that it is a misleading, foolish fabrication once again......Regardless of the situation, she shouldn't be doing it anyway....Of course Aragorn could slaughter her, if she got the upper hand it was because he let her and she is showing her feistiness....that is the whole issue where it's wrong...

I've said before that showing Eowyn parrying a sword in anger or defiance is misleading the audience as to how Tolkien portrayed her....Tolkien kept her at bay to show not only her frustration in not being taken seriously, but to also deceive the king and everyone else that she could be a warrior and not a nurse maid....That is why she became Dernhelm and surprised them all like the reader was.....PJ has made it obvious that she is some sort of warrior and that we will probably see her in action soon enough....More dumbing down for the audience....

 

[I.am.Smeagol]

I enjoy ranting.

I just had to come out of lurking on this thread.
True, true. PJ had to dumb a lot of stuff down for the non-readers out there and to make a few bucks *sarcasm*. That’s basically the bottom line.
Was that right of him to do? That seems to be a big issue.
To many die hard Tolkien fans-no. The fact that PJ massacred some of the characters is unacceptable in many peoples’ eyes. I can see where they are coming from. In fact, until very recently I thought that way myself.
But to the eyes of a movie producer who is trying to make a huge (and expensive) undertaking become popular in the eyes of the masses, I think it is acceptable. Yes, he could have done it in a more sophisticated way, and stayed truer to the books, but I don’t think it would be possible to convey everything that can be picked up in Tolkien’s writing on a film.

 

[Talimon]

I completely disgaree about "dumbing down". That hardly described the changes made. By saying "dumbing down" you are implying that information the audience simply couldn't understand was cut. That's not the case. Lord of the Rings, in terms of plot details, is one of the simpler fantasy books around. Anyone can understand the tale. There is no "intelligence" required. You read the book, you understand it. You have all the time in the world to read it, and so things that might seem complex are actually very simple because you can reread them at no ones expense.

In a 3 hour movie it's simply a matter of time. You have so many elements you want to capture, that small details are often spared. The changes? They help stress certain points. PJ, being the creator, has the right to choose which elements of the books he thinks are most important. Just as every fan has a different view on the books, so does PJ. He's chosen, given such tight framework, to stress certain points that some might disagree with. In stressing these points he's created new scenes. But that's no reason for shunning the movie.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I completely disgaree about "dumbing down". That hardly described the changes made. By saying "dumbing down" you are implying that information the audience simply couldn't understand was cut. That's not the case.

I don't agree....To me, dumbing down here is assuming the audience won't "get it" and making it obvious for them instead of using suspense or surprise and allowing the audience to use deduction. I can only assume right now because none of us have seen TTT and that may not be totally fair to PJ, but for the sake of argument, let me explain my scenario:

It may seem difficult to show Eowyn's inner struggle with devotion to the king yet wanting to feel useful in battle...So PJ shows this in a blatant way by having her "fight" Aragorn and over emphasise foreshadowing by letting the audience know that she'll be doing her thing soon enough....He could use (and may still do so) shots of her face as she looks longingly after the company departing, comments and hints in the dialogue to the king etc. Little things that make the audience think that there is more than meets the eye with Eowyn, and allow room for some suspense and surprise at the end when Durnhelm reveals "himself"....To me not allowing the audience to figure things out for themselves is also dumbing down, and I think that PJ weakened Eowyn and the plot surrounding her by making her "fight"...Nevermind that it never took place anyway....

Originally posted by Talimon
The changes? They help stress certain points. PJ, being the creator, has the right to choose which elements of the books he thinks are most important. Just as every fan has a different view on the books, so does PJ. He's chosen, given such tight framework, to stress certain points that some might disagree with. In stressing these points he's created new scenes. But that's no reason for shunning the movie.

Sure, take liberties with the interpretation of the scenes with the details within those scenes, but don't totally change the scenes and characters so drastically beyond the written word and put your own invention in place of what is actually written! That is not director's interpretation, that is director's creation....

 

[Aerin]

Lord of the Rings, in terms of plot details, is one of the simpler fantasy books around. Anyone can understand the tale. There is no "intelligence" required. You read the book, you understand it.

Is there some comic book version someone made of LotR that I'm not aware of that you've read? Lord of the Rings, the books, mind you, has a very complicated plot and story line. The characters are in-depth and believeable; one might even say they are human instead of literary creations.
Not everyone can "understand the tale"; I have met too many people who completely missed the entire struggle between Frodo and the Ring or the courage showed by other members of the Fellowship. The main comments I hear roughly translate into: "The Hobbits are so cute" or "Legolas is so hot; did you seem him in the movie?" or even "I hear someone wrote a book after the movie...". Can you truly say that is 'comprehension' of LotR?
Intelligence is not the issue; it's the level of understanding one walks away from reading the books with. The most 'intelligent' person might read the books and not give a whit about what happens to the characters, while someone with a lower 'intelligence' would be passionately worried about Frodo and Sam in Mordor.

As for 'dumbing down', I really take offense when directors or writers try to write in such manner that 'I will understand it'. The movie was simplified to a painful extreme; so the movie-going masses would be able to 'understand the story line because who has time to read such a big book?'.
I realize PJ could not have put every single detail and description into his movie, but he could have made an effort to keep true to the feeling of LotR. Changing scenes is one matter; deleting and creating characters is another. I believe that steps over the line of 'modifying the work' to 'creating your own world'.

I have the preview on my comp right here and you can easily tell that Eowyn's sword is a good 2-3 feet from Aragorn. It's hard to explain, but when you see it you can tell that Aragorn isn't defeated. That's just not the right word. You can't imply that were Eowyn and Aragorn to meet in the field Aragorn would die. At most Eowyn parried his sword in anger, while he was simply at ease.

Aragorn may not be defeated per se, but he certainly isn't fighting her back. I claim no expertise in sword fighting, but it doesn't seem Aragorn was in any position to assert his authority as a swordsman....
I watched the trailer many times when I downloaded it; I couldn't believe how PJ had changed the characters and feel of TT. To lead into RotK, TT was a darker book then FotR, and had almost a more oppressive feeling to it. Who could have known PJ would have put comic relief in the movie with Eowyn and Aragorn fighting?

 

[Talimon]

You didn't enjoy TTT? I'm sorry to hear that. I thought it was a great movie. Really top notch. Wait... I didn't see it. My bad. I think I've seen enough trailers/previews to know that the only way to judge a movie is by watching it. Or maybe you can tell me otherwise.

For all we know Aragorn fighting Eowyn is a deep, sad scene in the movie. Who knows. I can't see how you assume it's comic relief. I mean, it hardly came off as comic in the preview, so I don't see how it would work out that way in the movie. Neither of them is smiling or laughing. In terms of comic relief, I'm willing to bet the movie will actually have less then the book. That's not to say I don't love Merry and Pippin in the book, but you can't say there aren't comic hobbit moments throughout.

I really hate that mentality of making up your mind before you've even seen the movie. I mean, I'm completely not surprised at people's reactions to the movie. Some people made up their minds months (dare I say years) in advance that no movie could capture LotR, and already planned out thier crusade to critique every last detail. And this was months before FotR was even released. People were already complaining. It just doesn't surprise me, but it slightly dissapoints, in a way.

I hope you go to the theatre trying to enjoy the movie, not critique it. No one needs your defense. Not even Tolkien. To attempt to defend Tolkiens written word from Jacksons movie shows a lack of confidence. Tolkien's books are too good and deep to be affected by an adaptation, good or bad. The books are already written in stone. Nothing can touch them. I think you'll find that the biggest Tolkien fans (indeed the members of the Tolkien estate itself) smile at the movie and enjoy it. They see the amount of love and passion that was spent in making these mammoth movies, and they realize that even if it didn't capture every last detail of Tolkien it was completely done in tribute. I really like that word. For me, that's what these movies are, a tribute, to Tolkien and his tale. Compare it to a tribute album. The songs are reworked, and sometimes the emphasis is completely changed, but it's always done in love for the source material.

Don't look at the movies as being the movies, or the tale. I've never looked at them that way and never will. That's not what they are, and that's not what they claim to be. This isn't Tolkien, and the moment you accept that you save yourself a world of hurt. Rather, look at these as a tribute by some 3'rd party to Tolkien. Appreciate what's there and move on. I'm surprised at the way some people go through every change. They are completely missing the point.

 

[Grond]

I find it funny that one would make a statement that the Fellowship of the Ring was a tribute to Tolkien. Were it to be considered that, it would have maintained the integrity of the works and not made me have to go into the theatre completely ignoring everything I knew about the book to enjoy it. Because... that is exactly what I had to do. I loved the movie... but not as a representation of anything that JRRT wrote. PJ was able to take a basic premise of the greatest Sci/fantasy in history (IMHO) and make a great movie with that.

The movie was many things to many people. To me, it captured the physical majesty of Middle-earth but completely missed in the characterizations. PJ was said to have read each chapter he was filming before the scene was shot. I feel maybe he should've simply paid more attention to what he was reading.

 

[Talimon]

"Integrity" is a word that means different things to different people. Like I've said before, for some people the integrity of the books is lost the moment it strays but a little from Tolkiens written word. For others it's a less conservative afair. You can't claim, however, that either group are less of Tolkien fans.

To me the movies capture the important themes from the books. Not all the themes, obviously, but a good number of them. It doesn't create any new themes, and that's the important thing to remember. Both the book and the movie share the same messages, and the book just happens to have a few more. In the case of FotR, however, I'd argue there aren't many themes that were cut. The only real big one would be Frodo defying the Nazgul, but I can see why PJ changed that for artisitic reasons. Gimili and Legolas would be another, but those scenes were shot and will be included in the DVD, so that's somewhat trivial. I can't see how you can't recognize the main elements of the book though. To me everything is there. Maybe we have different opinions on what LotR is really about, but some things are too obvious to argue otherwise: Frodo and Sam's friendship, Boromirs lust for the ring, Aragorn's uncertainty and final vow for Gondor, the elves sorrow... The list goes on. So much is included. Maybe that's why the changes stick out so much for you, I don't know. But to me it's distinctly LotR. It's different, sure, but that's part of it's appeal. It doesn't replace the books, not by a long shot, but it doesn't try to.

 

[Theoden]

Originally posted by Aerin
I am downloading the Two Towers trailer (and looking at the shots while it's loading), and I just saw something that made me stop cold.
Does Eowyn fight Aragorn and win?!?! It looks like they're doing another scene like Arwen had - with her sword pointed at Aragorn's neck, and he has his hands up in surrender.
Is that how a Ranger would act? He would not have lasted long in the wilds of Middle Earth if every time he came up against a girl with a sword he lost....

O my... I just got a little farther in the trailer.. and there is Arwen kissing Aragorn... AT HELM'S DEEP?!?

I beg you, tell me that Arwen does not fight at Helm's Deep... that would completely ruin the whole movie and completely sever any link there might be to the book!

All of us are just going to have to swallow hard and drink the bitterness of what PJ will do to TT.

-me

 

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Aerin
Yes, Eowyn parries Aragorn's strike, but if you watch carefully, it shows Aragorn from the front with a sword pointed at him, and his weapon is not even attempting to counter hers. If it wasn't surrender, what was it?

Well, a good friend of mine was a student of Kendo... and I will tell you what -- it is quite possible that Aragorn was demonstrating _amusement_ and _tolerance_, rather than anything such as surrendering.

If you have ever seen a trained swordsmen (such as a Kensei master) train with a student, you might see the same sort of 'oh, that was pretty good, I'll give you a little victory...' reactions when a student manages to execute a series of forms in the proper fashion.

Basically, there are a lot of people out there who are trained in their art to the point where it is not necessary to them to 'prove anything' or win. This could have been what ol' Strider was up to.

Edit to note: I've only seen still shots of that scene -- not an actual live action trailer... so my statements are based on that.

 

[Talimon]

That's very close to the impression I got. To me it seems like Aragorn is simply sighing at the fact that she can't come along. I really doubt that they both take out swords and have a match. That would be corny beyond words. By the trailer it simply looks like Eowyn is filled with rage while Aragorn is thinking about other matters.

 

[Thorin]

It doesn't matter to me what the context of the scene was, the fact is, is that either way, it detracts from keeping these traits of Eowyn hidden until the proper moment....PJ is giving it away by showing her fiestiness or sword fighting play and takes away from how Tolkien wrote her character....

Realisitically, in my opinion, I doubt Aragorn is in anyway submitting or being beaten by Eowyn, play wise or in anger....I will give PJ the benefit of the doubt that he would not continually make Aragorn seem weak to be bested by two girls in two different movies....