Why dont Aragorn or 🧝Legolas wear helmets?

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

My question was just about whether Eomer was shown wearing a helmet in that sequence.

The film made a mess of the circling scene -- it basically didn't happen.

More information about the Rohirrim can be found in UT, BTW.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

My question was just about whether Eomer was shown wearing a helmet in that sequence.

The film made a mess of the circling scene -- it basically didn't happen.

More information about the Rohirrim can be found in UT, BTW.

I am quite sure he was. It does say that their hair was strewn about them like flaxen strands under their light helms, or something like that.

They did make a mess of it. It happened, yes, but it wasn't really to the extent that they made it appear.

Thanks-- I thought it might be in there.

 

[cart]

@Squint-eyed Southerner
In the extended release he does indeed remove his helmet after he gets off his horse and threatens Gimli.. After Aragorn calms things down by introducing themselves and saying they are friends of Rohan and of their King.. Eomer says "Rohan no longer recognizes friend from foe," (removes his helmet) and continues with "not even his own kin."

Which did not happen in the book and i have no idea about the theatrical release.. as I haven't seen that version... well since I saw it in the theatre.

Though the company being encircled by the Riders of Rohan did indeed happen as @Elbereth Vala Varda quoted correctly. It continues as follows:

"Aragorn stood silent, and the other two sat without moving wondering what way things would turn.

Without a word or cry, suddenly the Riders halted. A thicket of spears were pointed towards the strangers; and some of the horsemen had bows in hand, and their arrows were already fitted to the string. Then one rode forward, a tall man, taller than all the rest; from his helm as a crest a white horsetail flowed. He advanced until the point of his spear was within a foot of Aragorn's breast. Aragorn did not stir."

I'll add that the "encircling" as depicted in the book I did not envision it as it was in the movie (though I did think it was a cool bit in the movie.) Though I largely blame this on the fact that the movie didn't have the Rohirrim on set that day, nor their horses. And I envisioned this maneuver as something as fluid as a swirling flow of water or something of that sort.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Which did not happen in the book and i have no idea about the theatrical release.. as I haven't seen that version... well since I saw it in the theatre.

From what I remember, in the movie, Eomer threaten Gimli, for no reason.
Very poorly done.

It was something like:
Gimli: Give me your name horse master, and I shall give you mine.
Eomer: I would cut of your head...
LOL

Some people say, you can't put whole books, into the movies, and I agree.
However, from the other hand, you cut like 1 or 2 additional sentences which will give above dialogue some sense (and it's only additional 20-30 seconds, anyway), yet you spend half hour with pathetic sequence where Aragorn was almost drown in water, that wasn't in the books anyway.

 

[Olorgando]

However, from the other hand, you cut like 1 or 2 additional sentences which will give above dialogue some sense (and it's only additional 20-30 seconds, anyway), yet you spend half hour with pathetic sequence where Aragorn was almost drown in water, that wasn't in the books anyway.

That has been a major source of, yes, rage among JRRT book fans. No one (in their right mind) could have expected a 1-to-1-adaptation. The chapter "The Council of Elrond" will remain unfilmable, unless some filmmaker is allowed about an hour's time for flashbacks, while holding up any progress on the "action".
Now how likely is that?!?!?!?
OK, so things from the books have to compressed or cut. But to do that for their own "inventions", which in my opinion are 99% garbage (this is PJ's LoTR trilogy; I won't even get started on that bloated (and in the end ill-prepared) beached whale TH; it may be a passable hack 'n' slash pseudo-medieval generic product aimed at the bottom 5% of their assumed target audience by the trolls and orcs in control of Hollywood - they have got to stop looking in the mirror when imagining their "target audience" 😈 ). PJ, Boyens and Walsh combined don't have the writing talent of what JRRT would have found when (discreetly, I'm sure) picking his nose ...

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Still angling for that "Grump" badge, eh, Mr. O? 😅

 

[Olorgando]

Still angling for that "Grump" badge, eh, Mr. O? 😅

Not sure if you're familiar with the Bachman Turner Overdrive song from their 1974 album "Not Fragile".
But anyone gets that well-deserved badge before I do, and it's the refrain 😁

 

[d4rk3lf]

The chapter "The Council of Elrond" will remain unfilmable,

Not necessarily. imho.
Of course, it couldn't be like in the book, but a vast improvement could be done, over the Peter's version, that makes me puke, because of all unnecessary arguing, and Orlando Bloom bad acting, and Aragorn behaving like a whimp.. etc...
With clever writing, and perhaps some flashbacks, the scene could be 5-10 minutes and very interesting to watch.
Game of Thrones series had a Small Council meetings, that I think were done very well, and was very interesting to watch, despite the lack of action scenes.

Still angling for that "Grump" badge, eh, Mr. O? 😅

Hey,
I want one too!
😈

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

From what I remember, in the movie, Eomer threaten Gimli, for no reason.
Very poorly done.

It was something like:
Gimli: Give me your name horse master, and I shall give you mine.
Eomer: I would cut of your head...
LOL

This scene does occur in the book, with Eomer threatening, yet it is because of Gimli's defense of the Lady Galadriel, after Eomer had spoken some untrue thoughts, most likely rumors, of her.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

If it's of any interest, I gave my take on the exchange (in the book) here:
Post in thread 'Introductions...' https://thetolkien.forum/threads/introductions.23560/post-516762

And I agree with d4rk3lf that the CoE could be filmed, especially with the flashbacks; the footage existed, and could easily have been inserted in the proper places. For instance, Gandalf's visit to Saruman could have been shown in the context of the Council, which would have revealed the mystery of his disappearance to the audience at the same time as to Frodo. The same for showing Gandalf's trip to Gondor, the scenes of the battle with Sauron, Isildur's refusal, and other things. Tolkien was particularly concerned about anticipation in making a film; PJ&Co. paid no attention.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The film made a mess of the circling scene -- it basically didn't happen.

I should have clarified-- I meant it basically didn't happen in the movie. I recall Barliman saying how much he was looking forward to seeing this "cinematic" scene from the book -- and how disappointed he was by the result.

BTW, on the subject of wearing things, when a letter-writer questioned the idea that the hobbits were apparently tramping all over Middle-earth with bare feet, Tolkien confessed that he'd completely forgotten to mention they'd been equipped with boots in Rivendell.

Even Homer nods.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

BTW, on the subject of wearing things, when a letter-writer questioned the idea that the hobbits were apparently tramping all over Middle-earth with bare feet, Tolkien confessed that he'd completely forgotten to mention they'd been equipped with boots in Rivendell.

Even Homer nods.

I remember hearing about this and being completely shocked. I suppose we all can forget something at times.

 

[d4rk3lf]

This scene does occur in the book, with Eomer threatening, yet it is because of Gimli's defense of the Lady Galadriel, after Eomer had spoken some untrue thoughts, most likely rumors, of her.

But of course.
And that's exactly what they should have put in movies, instead of over-rushing that part, while spending tons of time on some parts that they invented or changed.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

But of course.
And that's exactly what they should have put in movies, instead of over-rushing that part, while spending tons of time on some parts that they invented or changed.

I agree. I loved the sequences in the books where Gimli defended the name if Galadriel. But these days, the only way they would include that is to invent a romance, sadly.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I don't think that's necessarily so, if the scenes in Lothlorien were handled well, as a set-up.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I don't think that's necessarily so, if the scenes in Lothlorien were handled well, as a set-up.

That is true, but it would be just the thing that they might invent, and for that reason I am somewhat thankful that they just omitted that part entirely.

 

[cart]

It's hard for me to tell if some of you are not mixing in some hyperbole into your opinions of the LoTR trilogy, particularly those of you whom seem most informed on the canon and lore (might even dare to say those who I'd maybe consider to be scholars of his work.)

I'll ask for another opinion however as it's the only opinion I'm really much concerned with and me being in middle school and then high school when the movies were released and some of you having had read and re-read the books and likely had been well equipped to answer questions of lore many years before the films were conceived.

Do you think an attempt to capture the spirit of the books and further elaborate and the vision of Tolkien was made at all? Or was in nothing more than another Hollywood attempt to shamelessly cash in on perhaps on the most valued treasure (at least to many) in literature? Or somewhere in between as most things tend to be.

I do think that attempt was made personally, even with it's shortcomings. All answers to this question are true in their own way.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Do you think an attempt to capture the spirit of the books and further elaborate and the vision of Tolkien was made at all? Or was in nothing more than another Hollywood attempt to shamelessly cash in on perhaps on the most valued treasure (at least to many) in literature? Or somewhere in between as most things tend to be.

Somewhere in between imho.
The guys from Weta did a spectacular job on visuals.
Practical effects + some CG + amazing costumes, great camera work... the mood... etc.

I actually think that the movies with little adjustments could be way better, way smarter in a sense, and way more serious.
This is why I am so mad about movies, they were already there for great adaptation, but ruined it with some stupid decisions.

It's not sticking blindly to the lore that I want from the movie (I understand that movie can not be 1:1 replica of the book)
Where Peter ruined feeling for me, is the characters.
I already said here, but will say it again, he ruined the most important character - Gandalf.
Instead of sharp, rhetoric, very charismatic, determined for whatever he do, Gandalf in the books, we got some good old grandpa that asks Frodo where to go, and is not able to open the Moria door.
Through out all the film, movie Gandalf feels tired, sad, hapless, it's completely opposite from the book.
Same for Aragorn.
In the book, he was determined to become king of Gondor, and spent his whole life preparing for it.
And how can I not feel pissed of when I see in the movies that Elrond says for him: "He abandoned that path long a go..." and then we see weak Aragorn and Arwen trying to confront him with his own words (from the book), You are not Isildur, just a descendant?
All characters are more or less missed, with exception of Bilbo, Boromir and Saruman imho.

Apart from characters, many scenes that should've been dramatic, are just pathetic looking.
I hate the scene when they cry after Moria, or whatever slow-motion scene where Peter wanted we audience to feel with characters - very badly done.
Gaaaandaaaal.... Froooodooooo.... Noooooooo...

Smeagol/Deagol scene was, for example perfect for me, and as I said in some other thread, I really doubt Peter directed that.
It's too good for his skills.

Hope this clarifies a bit.

 

[Olorgando]

Do you think an attempt to capture the spirit of the books and further elaborate and the vision of Tolkien was made at all?

No. There's no way you can capture a spirit if you mutilate so many characters, and scenes - standing a lot of them on their heads compared to the book, all supposedly for the "needs of film". To me, that's just a cop-out for Hollywood's apparent inability to not squash everything into my favorite, grimly stated term "cookie cutter" - which seems to me to be quite a sizable list of "must haves", the kind of list with boxes to tick off as "information" for people who appear to be among the most unimaginative on the planet, media industry suits.

 

[cart]

@d4rk3lf I have heard others often lament some of the decisions regarding how the character's were represented as being a big if not primary issue for them as well. Though, I always felt it was done to convey other meanings. I forget who I was speaking with and I agreed with him that the depictions of Denethor and his sons was rather unkind to their true character. Though, I felt it was a made in an effort to depict the weakness and failings of men in general as to an extent this was a major concern for the story as a whole. That men were too weak and have fallen too far from their ancestors of great to even be able to inherit the world the Elves were departing (to put it VERY bluntly.) While I disagreed with the depictions, I did feel like I could understand the reasoning (as this is the only thing I can reason as to why they were depicted this way.)

@Olorgando I would have you read my reply to darkelf in regards to what I* felt about some of the character decisions. Though I am interested to know if any other literature or story with such depth, a considerable number of characters while following one story line in particular has been better depicted in your view. The emphasis was quite clearly on Frodo and Sam and their venture to destroy the ring, with quite alot of Gollum mixed in as well. If they had been better at managing the screen time (aka minimizing the screen time of sam/gollum) so they would of had time for better presentations of the characters as they would have had time to simply demonstrate the failings of men more demonstrably rather than tot he sacrifice of some characters.

I'm not aware of really any lore/world that has the depth of and certainly not the clarity and precision of Tolkien's... for depth maybe the Warhammer 40k is at least in the ballpark and luckily for the caretakers of that lore the ambiguity is built in (they never nor will the ever need to be as precise as Tolkien is and was.) And if there is a lore that rivals tolkien's, has there been a better representation of something like the trilogy (the books) depicted on film?

Also, curious to know if you think they could have done better if they were granted something more. Say they were granted 6 movies or 5 and it was a pentaology, would they have failed still due to creative shortcomings? If it had been depicted with the same effort but in the format of how the Game of Thrones was do you think that would have cured many of your concerns? If all your answers are "no", is it possible for the LoTR to be depicted in a visual format to your liking? And if so, by whom and what format would you envision it?

(lol i just looked at my address bar to see what the title of this thread was called... hell of a tangent we're on(though i seem to live in the world of tangents to the displeasure of damn near educator i've ever had)

edited: for clarity