A question about LOTR

[RoboDad]

I actually liked most of the changes made by PJ and co.

As did I.

and the near catastrophe of Arwen at Helm's Deep and Aragorn fighting Sauron --- phew, we avoided those!

Amen, brother, AMEN!

 

[pixletwin]

But that's just it isn't it, he wasn't trying to make any form of social critique or commentary, and certainly not in any allegorical sense - see the prologue. I do agree however that inevitably one's own world view and surrounds will be exhibited in their writings, that is unescapable.

Either way, I actually liked most of the changes made by PJ and co; with the exception of:

1) The elves at Helm's Deep

2) Gandalf's staff breaking

and the near catastrophe of Arwen at Helm's Deep and Aragorn fighting Sauron --- phew, we avoided those!

He he. Well I think whats in the prologue and what he actually did are two different things. I never take whores, drug pushers, or authors at face value (I kid... I kid....)

But Arwen at Helm's Deep was a narrowly averted disaster.

 

[Captain Faramir]

Dude... you write with such eloquence and such passion... yet it drives me nuts that you don't know how to write the beloved author's NAME!

TolkIEN, not Tolkein! (And BTW, your fave author was very peeved if people got that wrong... )

Beren

For that I sincerely apologize--I was writing in the middle of two finals and didn't have the text with me--I was deliberating over which was correct, and ignorantly, I chose....poorly.

i before e except after c! i before e except after c!!!!

Thanks dude, I appreciate the correction.

 

[The Josh]

Both are great story tellers and I don't think it's fair to compair the two because while it's the "same" story their different mediums. Therefore PJ had to change stuff because the moviegoer just can't deal with some of what we can.

As far as the changes PJ made I pretty much like all of them. Including the Elves at Helm's Deep (shows the bond that the Men & Elves had at the battle of the LA), Gandalf's staff being broken, and No Tom B. I didn't like all of them like Sam being sent home that irks me to this day but most of them as I said I like.

 

[LOTRFan]

As far as the changes PJ made I pretty much like all of them. Including the Elves at Helm's Deep (shows the bond that the Men & Elves had at the battle of the LA), Gandalf's staff being broken, and No Tom B. I didn't like all of them like Sam being sent home that irks me to this day but most of them as I said I like.

So then how exactly did Gandalf continue on in the order of wizards!?

Oh and good one with Sam, I REALLY disliked that!

 

[Amanaman]

So, basically Sauron pulled a Palpatine on Middle Earth... that's what I suspected.

 

[pixletwin]

So, basically Sauron pulled a Palpatine on Middle Earth... that's what I suspected.

I had never thought of it like that... but yeah. :emperor

 

[The Josh]

So then how exactly did Gandalf continue on in the order of wizards!?

Oh and good one with Sam, I REALLY disliked that!

Well, I would assume since he was in the defense of ME and doing GOOD he was given a new staff. Not to mention his time was just about over I don't think it was a big deal.

 

[Wetanut]

I didn't mind most of the changes...understood what Jackson was trying to do with them. (yes, even sending Sam away....a bit forced, but I understood). The only thing that got me (and still does) is WHY it was found neceessary to have Faramir take Gollum/Frodo/Sam to Osgiliath. THEN....have the meeting with Frodo and WK/Fell Beast. Still does not make sense to me.

 

[pixletwin]

Ok all you Tolkien scholars I have a question:

As Aragorn's star rose in middle earth was Gandalfs power diminishing?

 

[The Josh]

Ok all you Tolkien scholars I have a question:

As Aragorn's star rose in middle earth was Gandalfs power diminishing?

I would say yes. As Aragorn is rising to meet the challange laid down by his heritage Gandalf was needed but not at the same time. Aragorn goes through all he does to realize in order for ME to survive and when he gets there it's time for the age of men. Therefore Gandalf really isnt needed anymore and it's up to Elessar and those that come behind him to make ME something special.

 

[Wetanut]

I don't recall that even being an issue. All I can remember is that Gandalf and elves CHOSE to leave ME .... 4th age being the Age of Man, etc. and their work was done. Don't think his power was diminished really. Maybe I've missed something

 

[LOTRFan]

I don't recall that even being an issue. All I can remember is that Gandalf and elves CHOSE to leave ME .... 4th age being the Age of Man, etc. and their work was done. Don't think his power was diminished really. Maybe I've missed something

Nope, you sure didn't. Josh gave a movie answer, and you brought forth a book answer.

It is the same as how Gandalf would have never given that speech to Pippin in the books ... he wouldn't have seen that fate as he described it.

 

[Radagaster]

To address Pixle's question as to why the Scouring of the Shire was important . . . Tolkien wanted to show the viewer that war is ugly and its effects will pervade even one's home. Thus, when Sharkey (?) was found there to have corrupted the once beloved Shire, Tolkien drives home that point: nothing is sacred when wars come.

There is a reason why everything in the trilogy is written the way it is.

Case in point, some people felt that Tom Bombadil's presence was not needed. Tolkien's intention was to show people that there are other superbeings in ME (Tom being one of them) that could have reversed the course of the war as it unfolded. The hobbits tried to get Tom to see that, but he chose not to intervene. Tom's attitude is a pre-cursor to the original attitude the Ents took (which PJ changed in the movies). So, if anything, you have to treat the book as a great literary piece, multi-faceted at best.

PJ's delivery on the other hand is best for cinema because he only focused on culminating all the emotions we have towards the great climactic scenes. Had PJ inserted all the other things that enrich the story, it would only to further deliver the emotional impact he was after. Thus, Sam and using Galadriel's phial at the Watchtower was nowhere to be seen. Ditto with Ghan-buri-ghan or Prince Imrahil.

 

[FrodoEyes]

I didn't mind most of the changes...understood what Jackson was trying to do with them. (yes, even sending Sam away....a bit forced, but I understood). The only thing that got me (and still does) is WHY it was found neceessary to have Faramir take Gollum/Frodo/Sam to Osgiliath. THEN....have the meeting with Frodo and WK/Fell Beast. Still does not make sense to me.

I think I can answer that one. From the time of writing TTT screenplay, PJ and co realised they couldn't have Shelob at the end of the 2nd film, as when the ROTK comes round, there wont be much for Sam and Frodo to do. In the book that's ok because they spend the second half of the book mainly reunited with their friends, but you can't have half a movie like that. So they wanted a fitting ending to TTT, so they made up the Osgiliath bit. For the Wiki, I think they were just like: Hey, maaaaan. Wouldnt it be really cooooool, like.....to have.....the WITCH KING! facing Frodo! Yeaaaaah!
I think they were a bit high. Doesnt make sense, as surely the witch king, and then Sauron, would know that a hobbit is bearing the ring, and not Aragorn as Sauron is 'supposed' to fear.

 

[crazytrain]

Doesnt make sense, as surely the witch king, and then Sauron, would know that a hobbit is bearing the ring, and not Aragorn as Sauron is 'supposed' to fear.

That was my main gripe of all the changes too - the whole point was Frodo and Sam were going to Mordor in secret, yet in the movie Frodo showed the Wiki (and therefore Sauron) where he was with the ring - stupid, stupid, stupid....

None of the other changes irked me too much, and for me, the omission of Bombadil was a blessing - never enjoyed that part of the book at all - each to their own I guess, but I do find it interesting that in the Radio 4 serialisation of LotR they also cut Bombadil - to me he never really added anything to the story and I was just left wondering why the ring didn't work on him and what happened to him when it was all over. Seemed that he was built up to be an important part of the story and then he just disappeared - I just thought "weird, why bother?" but thats just me probably...

 

[gideon]

I agree with crazytrain about Bombadil. Having read the book at least a half dozen times, that part just sticks out like a badly bruised sore thumb. Why create this powerful being who is not impacted in any way by the Ring and then just have him do nothing? It makes not the slightest bit of sense nor does it advance anything in the plot or characterization. You could remove Bombadil from the story and it would not be diminished on iota.

As has often been said --- just put the Ring with Tom and have him transported to Mordor by Eagle and you could have ended the book very logically without the extra 1000 pages. And what fun would that have been? His appearance makes no logical or even emotional sense.

But it is valuable everytime a purist criticizes PJ for his changes. It shows that even the great JRRT was not perfect.... although LOTR is nearly that.

 

[Adoptedscot]

hi all,

So, im sorry to sound like a complete idiot but like many here ive seen and love the LOTR films but have not read the books,,,my bad I know.

So in what what order should these be read??

Is it better to start with the children of hurin, then the hobbit , then LOTR??

Sorry for sounding like an idiot but I get confused easily and if I'm reading a book that flows onto another thats much easier for me...

thanks

shell
x

 

[Wetanut]

Recommend reading Hobbit first -- by far the easiest to read of the bunch. Then segue into LOTR trilogy. The first part of LOTR (Fellowship of the Ring) starts out in the same vein as Hobbit and even reintroduces you to Bilbo (hero of Hobbit). Easy transition.

As for Children of Hurin (CoH)-- you might want to read that before you get to Silmarillion or Book of Lost Tales. The story in CoH is touched on in the Sil and Book of Lost Tales, but is basically sketched. You don't have to know about Middle Earth, Numeanor, etc., in depth to enjoy Hobbit and LOTR. The Sil and Book of Lost Tales gets really into the whole mythology of Tolkien's worlds and provide a very dense and complex backdrop to the Middle Earth you grew to know in LOTR.

 

[Vader AL]

Recommend reading Hobbit first -- by far the easiest to read of the bunch. Then segue into LOTR trilogy. The first part of LOTR (Fellowship of the Ring) starts out in the same vein as Hobbit and even reintroduces you to Bilbo (hero of Hobbit). Easy transition.

As for Children of Hurin (CoH)-- you might want to read that before you get to Silmarillion or Book of Lost Tales. The story in CoH is touched on in the Sil and Book of Lost Tales, but is basically sketched. You don't have to know about Middle Earth, Numeanor, etc., in depth to enjoy Hobbit and LOTR. The Sil and Book of Lost Tales gets really into the whole mythology of Tolkien's worlds and provide a very dense and complex backdrop to the Middle Earth you grew to know in LOTR.

thanks Weta, i'm reading The Hobbit right now and was wondering if LOTR was the next I should read, now i know..........and knowing is half the battle.