What character DID PJ do right, in your eyes?

FRODO - PJ’s portrayal of this character is so pitiful that it makes me sick to think about it. [/B]

Click to expand...

Surprising to see such a strong opinion of Frodo...usually he gets ignored. I myself don't have anything against his portrayal, but don't have anything FOR it, either. Which is odd, since he's SUPPOSED to be the main character. He doesn't seem to do much but faint.....

AOL had a video about "Aragorn's Destiny" wherein Mr. Jackson waxes oratorical about his "vision" of the character. Unfortunately, Mr. Lee apparently agrees with him. It seems that bad old Isildur has forever ruined men in the eyes of elves and just about everybody else. Ergo, Aragorn has chosen to live in exile, frightened and ashamed of his "blood" and it is only through the unfolding of the story that he decides he must take his place as the leader of mankind in Middle-earth.

And would you like to know just whom Mr. Jackson believed would rule Middle-earth if Aragorn had not brought men to the level where they were "worthy" to do so? Why, orcs, of course! Apparently, in his love for and reading of the book, Mr. Jackson never learned that orcs were not able to rule themselves, much less Middle-earth! That the only way they would be in a position to "rule" anything would be if Sauron won because they stood or fell with him (useful slaves, but "untrustworthy" servants!).

And so, folks, this new "Aragorn" is what you have to look forward to in ROTK! Just makes your day, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
And would you like to know just whom Mr. Jackson believed would rule Middle-earth if Aragorn had not brought men to the level where they were "worthy" to do so? Why, orcs, of course!

Click to expand...

Well, that at least explains a few things...

Never before have I heard anyone with that angle, and this guy is the one who decided that he should make a film out of The Lord of the Rings.

All hail the glorious King Shagrat III !!!!

And so, folks, this new "Aragorn" is what you have to look forward to in ROTK! Just makes your day, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really...

It's obvious that Mr. Jackson has no understanding whatsoever of the story except at the most superficial level. He has no clue that orcs exist and function only through their Masters - Sauron and Saruman. Alone, they would quickly descend into chaos and bloody internecine warfare.

As well, by whom does Mr. Jackson believe men were being led while his "hero" was skulking about in Rivendell being chased by elvish maidens? I seem to recall at least two strong human kingdoms - Gondor and Rohan - which were functioning without either Aragorn's or Elrond's involvement - albeit Rohan was having a real problem with Saruman by the time of the story.

And so now we have in the Director's own words - and on video - his "vision" of Middle-earth. But, I ask, who is surprised by it? Certainly not me, nor do I believe any other purist will be astonished at the Director's purile understanding of the tale. Indeed, I believe that most FADs will be equally "unastounded" by the superficiality of Jackson's conceptual understanding of the story. But for them, his "story" is sufficiently entertaining so as to make no difference in their enjoyment of the films. How greatly I envy them!

If PJ only could have been superficial, then it souldn't have been so bad. The problem is that he obviously has misunderstood some very vital details, and this comes out clearly in most matters relating to Aragorn. Not how he acts in various fighting-scenes and such, but the overall impression of his character, and the over-emphasized affair with Arwen.
IMO, this is not The Aragorn we know from the book. Ancestor of Elendil, Chieftain of the Dúnedain, heir to the Throne of Gondor and Arnor. A Man who knows his background and is fast determined to claim the Kingship, or at least die in the attempt.
Not a doubtful whimp who doesn't know what to do next if Gandalf isn't there to guide him.

his "story" is sufficiently entertaining so as to make no difference in their enjoyment of the films

Click to expand...

I must have ended between two chairs here obiously. For though I think the films are nowhere near their spoken goal: to be The Lord of the Rings, on the silver screen, I am able to enjoy them as films.
It does bother me though, that they have destroyed the mental image I used to have when I read the book before.

What Jackson most missed in his "love story" and in his treatment of Aragorn was the dilemma under which Tolkien had his character labor, to wit: Aragorn could not marry Arwen unless he was King of Gondor (Arnor is not under consideration here since Jackson didn't include it and Elrond didn't consider it sufficient for his daughter in the book anyway!). Yet, Tolkien's Aragorn could not claim the throne of Gondor as it would have inflamed Sauron to learn that an heir of Elendil lived (remember, after his use of the palantir, he tells Legolas and Gimli that the Dark Lord did not know that he lived until he revealed himself to Sauron in the stone). Had Sauron learned that Aragorn lived, he would have launched an immediate war against Gondor and the rest of Middle-earth would have been engulfed in the conflict. Sauron's cost would have been much higher in such an "unplanned" war, but he would have been victorious, nonetheless. Furthermore, Denethor would not have yielded to his rival and Gondor would have been involved in civil war even before any attack by Sauron, thus assuring their defeat.

Given the above, Tolkien's Aragorn was really in a much greater "dramatic" position that Jackson's. If he wanted to marry his betrothed, he had to claim the throne. If he claimed the throne, all of Middle-earth would be plunged into a "no-win" war, ergo he couldn't claim the throne - and he wasn't getting any younger! Only the revelation of the Ring made it in any way possible for Aragorn to achieve his desires. Once the Ring was in play, immediate war was inevitable. Even so, he waited until almost the last moment to reveal himself and only because he required the knowledge that the palantir could provide for him.

Now, I summed up this plot thread in two rather small paragraphs. Why then was it impossible for Jackson to use it? It wasn't that difficult to understand and the exposition of Aragorn's impossible situation would have been easily dealt with at the time of the scenes in Rivendell. It sure beats all to heck and gone that silly business with reading a book in such a dark place and his nonsensical dialogue with Arwen simpering about his being Isildur's heir and not Isildur himself (as if this point had to be made!). Alas, Mr. Jackson appears to function at a much more superficial level and he just couldn't see the drama in such a conundrum. Too bad.

Mrs. M... You're right on. Complex plot can be compressed and explained in a couple of paragraphs... Why can't it be compressed into a film???

I think Saruman's character suffers almost as badly under PJ as poor Aragorn.

Greg Wright sums up the incoherency of PJ's Saruman:

Oddly, though, what doesn't come out much in Jackson's movies is exactly who (or what) Saruman is. Sure, he's Saruman "The White," and Gandalf shows him much deference. But the fact is that, in his spiritual nature, Saruman is Sauron's most natural enemy. Like Gandalf and the Balrog, Saruman and Sauron are both Maiar, a lower order of Tolkien's divinity. As the most powerful of the order of the Wizards, Saruman is (by original design and intent) the most potent active agent of good in Middle-Earth; and Sauron is the most potent active agent of evil.

But what happens? Saruman falls victim to temptation -- or, as Jackson, et al, would have it, despair and perhaps greed -- and becomes (on paper) allied to evil, even breeding the Uruk-Hai at Sauron's behest: an "army worthy of Mordor."

A Stooge For Sauron?

At least, that's the impression we get from Jackson's films. As the movies' scripts tell the story, Saruman has fallen prey to the influence of Sauron through the use of the Palantir. Funny things can happen when you "don't know who is watching," as Gandalf belatedly warns. The funny thing that happens to Saruman is that he sells out to the dark side pretty cheap. "Darn!" he thinks, "I guess I wasn't doing much good anyway. Guess I might as well team up with the bad guys; if you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em."

And so Saruman continues his regular conference calls with the Dark Guy, and they develop this really interesting but completely unexplained plan for waylaying the Fellowship. Saruman will send a band of marauding Uruk-Hai down to Anduin to bring back the Hobbits alive and... and... Well, they'll cross that bridge when they come to it, so to speak.

But where's Sauron's plan in all this? Why aren't there any of his forces involved in this little soiree? Or are there? There seem to be some in the pack of orcs lugging Merry and Pippin off to Fangorn; but where did they come from? Where are they going? What were Sauron's instructions? Was Saruman just passing along Sauron's instructions when he coached Lurtz?

Click to expand...

Full Article Here!

The scenes with Saruman-- his conversations with Gandalf especially in FotR and TTT (and with Frodo in RotK) are my favorite scenes in the book.

I so wanted to see Saruman's 'Coat of Many Colors'! Instead... we get a run-of-the-mill B-movie 'socerer' whose plans make no sense.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
AOL had a video about "Aragorn's Destiny" wherein Mr. Jackson waxes oratorical about his "vision" of the character.

Click to expand...

Please tell us more: what video, and how does AOL come into it?
A former contributor used often to refer to Mr J's "vision", and admire it. We couldn't work out then what that vision was; now, it appears, he has told us.

Here's Greg Write weighing in on Aragorn-- but this was written before TTT came out. (Sorry if everyone's read these allready...)

Now here we find Gandalf telling Elrond something that Elrond should also know full well, since Aragorn was actually raised in Elrond's household, and was even informed of his true identity as Isildur's heir by Elrond. But then, that was Tolkien's Aragorn: Estel, the Hope of Men, Elessar the Elfstone, foretold by prophecy, by vision and by name; the bearer of the shards of Narsil, and in whom it was said that the might and nobility of Numenor could be seen again. When Tolkien's Aragorn is introduced at Bree, he comes complete with credentials and introductions from Gandalf, even his own rhyme: "All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..." Jackson's Aragorn, however, only comes with a five-o'clock shadow, a nick-name and some clever repartee. We can at least be grateful that Jackson didn't revert to calling him 'Trotter,' as Tolkien originally did...

Why does Elrond speak so disdainfully of the Man who is pledged to his rough-and-tumble, stallion ridin' daughter Arwen? Why is it left to Legolas to stick up for Aragorn in the Council of Elrond? Why does Aragorn seem so, well, in need of therapy, instead of like Mad Max?

Aragorn the Heroic

One reason, of course, is the usual concern of compact efficiency in the narrative; another is the need to reduce the number of characters; and a third is the need to introduce historical background through the mouths of principal characters. But oddly enough, in a version of Tolkien's story where almost every act of faith is replaced by an act solidly supported by knowledge and fact, Jackson has elected to remove the certainty of Aragorn's fate with a Modern's portrayal of self doubt. And he has done this because he sees Aragorn as the central character of The Lord of the Rings : the third installment is called, after all, "The Return of the King." For Tolkien, Aragorn is heroic because he is a Hero. For Jackson, Aragorn is a hero because he becomes one.

Click to expand...

Full Article Here

Question by joxy: where does AOL come into it. The other day (Tuesday?) they had a blurb at the bottom of the AOL opening montage about LOTR/ROTK and Aragorn's destiny. I clicked on it and got that little video by Jackson. I am sure it must be available elsewhere, but I don't know where. I would think the "Aragorn's destiny" title might turn it up if you go looking for it.

Jackson had no need to completely change Aragorn (in fact, we really don't know that he has done so until the "sword at the throat" routine) except to make him more "human" and less "heroic". I would suppose that "heroic" to Mr. Jackson (in the same way as "noble") is not a virtue he wishes to portray. Whether it's because he cannot do it realistically or whether he thinks no one will believe it or whether he just doesn't care for "heroic" and "noble" characters in his films, I don't know. But "fer sher" as they say in the Valley, he has d****d few of them in his films!

i think Mery and Pippin where the best portrayed...

but im not gonna complain about the others because...every body has there own opinions on how the characters should appear.

For me it will have to be Galadriel and Gandalf....Those are the two that remain the same in both the Book and the movie...At least in my opinion.

IMO, PJ did:

Gandalf, Galadriel, Gollum, Boromir and Saruman perfectly, well, the actors played the parts perfectly, definatly capturing Mr Tolkien characters. I dunno if this was anything to do with PJ, but none the less, they were fantastic.

NO ONE!!! Peter Jackson is an awful disgrace to the books and he never does anything right! *Looks past her belief that P.J. probably didn't read the books* Well, he did do Gandalf pretty well, and Boromir too. But he made an awful mess out of Galadriel.

I think Boromir, Saruman, Gandalf, and even Frodo somewhat were all pretty good.

The not so good ones I'll not get into.

Originally posted by chrome_rocknave
I think Boromir, Saruman, Gandalf, and even Frodo somewhat were all pretty good.

The not so good ones I'll not get into.

Click to expand...

The problem with the admission that Mr. Jackson indeed did bring to the screen successfully some of Tolkien's characters means that he had no excuse not to be equally successful with the rest. If he had got them all "wrong", one might believe that he simply misread or misunderstood the book - if, in fact, he read it anytime after the age of 18 when supposedly he did read it! However, the fact that he could produce an extremely credible and creditable Gandalf and Bilbo - his best characters by far - and a reasonably good Boromir, Legolas, Galadriel and Gimli (in the first film), shows that a lack of knowledge was not the reason he did so poorly by the rest of the characters we have seen thus far in the films.

Of course, this means that there was quite another reason for his failure to recreate Tolkien's characters - or should we say his choice to produce different characters than Tolkien's. I have started a thread on this very subject: "What Happened and Why" for those who are interested in Mr. Jackson's motives.

You'd have to say the theatrical LOTR nailed Tolkien's Gandalf, and vastly improved Boromir (due in no small part to the talents of Ian McKellen and Sean Bean).

Saruman, however--and this is to take nothing away from Christopher Lee's performance--was, on the one hand, too powerful (his invocation of the snowstorm on Caradhras detracted from the idea that the mountain had a subjectivity all of its own, for instance), and on the other hand, too much the Sauron lackey. Tolkien's Saruman was certainly an ally of Sauron, but above all he desired the Ring for himself, and non-readers would have missed this.

I say Gandalf. Why well, most of you who picked him said it

* Well, he did do Gandalf pretty well, and Boromir too. But he made an awful mess out of Galadriel.

I have to agree with that. He probably would have messed up Boromir too if he was'nt only i the first book.

Originally posted by C496
He probably would have messed up Boromir too if he wasn't only in the first book.

Click to expand...

Well, he is in the second film EE and he certainly is messed up in that!