Questio about LOTR, Aragorn and Arwen

[Bluegill]

A friend asked me some questions today, and I didn't have good answers. He hasn't read the books, but I have, but I'm not nearly enough of a Tolkienphile to more than speculate.

Elrond's depiction of Arwen's life with (and life after) Aragorn is pretty bleak. But he didn't seem to factor in the possibility of lots of little Aragorns and Arwens poppin' out, taking care of mom, that sort of thing.

They'd be incredibly long-lived too, right? Or immortal? Is Jackson's (and, ultimately, Tolkien's) bleakness dependent upon the likely scenario that these kiddos would eventually wander off on their own paths, maybe living a bleak existence of their own somewhere? Is there a time limit for taking ships back to Valinor? How long does Arwen have to depart? Does this "waning" of Arwen have a direct relationship to the waning of the elven magic and influence in Middle Earth?

Mark

[Marc]

The scene from the movie is taken from the apendicies of Return of the King. Aragorn is long lived, I believe well past 300, and they have several kids.

However by that time the elves have all left and there are no more boats leaving for Valinor. Also in the first film Jackson kind of refers to this when Frodo is dying and she says something like "what providence has given to me let it pass to him". So she kina gave him her ride to the west. Anyway, she leaves for the empty forest of Lothlorien where she eventually passes away.

In Silmarlion the story shows when the first half-elves were born the higher powers were rather confused. They hadn't expected that, so they left it to them to decide if they would live like elves or humans. Elrond chose to live as an elf. I would expect with the passing of the elves that Aragorns children would be as humans, though very long lived.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Marc
Elrond chose to live as an elf. I would expect with the passing of the elves that Aragorns children would be as humans, though very long lived. You would "expect?"

YOU WOULD "EXPECT?"

God's teeth, man - this is a skeptic's board: Where is your proof?!?!

[Doubt]

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

That is the Encyclopedia of Arda.

Good place to get answers about LOR universe.

[Marc]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
You would "expect?"

YOU WOULD "EXPECT?"

God's teeth, man - this is a skeptic's board: Where is your proof?!?!

!) Their children would likely be more than 50% human DNA as Arwen is the child of a half-elf

2) The children would be raised in a human city, with only one elf ever seen by them. The might have very little idea what true elf lifestyle would be like.

3) The magic has faded, and with it what makes an elf an elf. As Galadriel said "I shall deminish". Even if the kids choose to live as elves they would not be the same as what we know elves to be like, sort of a faded copy at best.

4) Choosing to be as elves is unlikely as they would be the only ones. That would isolate them socially.

5) They would be heirs to the throne, and as heirs they would be expected to produce heirs of their own, and with only human women to choose from they would more likely live as humans.

It's all rather logical. http://members.cox.net/draft2/Smileys/vulcan.gif :p

[Azathoth]

Originally posted by Bluegill
... the possibility of lots of little Aragorns and Arwens poppin' out, taking care of mom, that sort of thing.

They'd be incredibly long-lived too, right? Or immortal?

Elrond's brother was Elros (who chose to be human). Elros founded the human kingdom of Numenor, and he and the Kings of Numenor were indeed longer-lived than ordinary men. As time went on, their longevity was not quite so pronounced. Aragorn, of course, is at the end of the line of the Kings of Numenor (who moved to Gondor when Numenor sank beneath the waves) and Aragorn is so studly and cool that his longer life is a bit of a throwback back to the good old days of Numenor.

Here's a hyperdetailed lineage of Elros (http://tolkien.cro.net/humans/elrostre.html). Looks like the first few generations lasted about 400 years. A bit before the time of Elendil, 200 seems to be the average. By the time of LotR, I think Elrond comments that the lives of the Dunedain have dwindled to match those of other men.

[Mark]

Only a perv would have sex with an elf in the first place!!! I tells ya, it is an abomination before Eru!!!!!!

Except for Galadriel who is really hot. :D

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Bluegill
A friend asked me some questions today, and I didn't have good answers. He hasn't read the books, but I have, but I'm not nearly enough of a Tolkienphile to more than speculate.

Elrond's depiction of Arwen's life with (and life after) Aragorn is pretty bleak. But he didn't seem to factor in the possibility of lots of little Aragorns and Arwens poppin' out, taking care of mom, that sort of thing.

They'd be incredibly long-lived too, right? Or immortal? Is Jackson's (and, ultimately, Tolkien's) bleakness dependent upon the likely scenario that these kiddos would eventually wander off on their own paths, maybe living a bleak existence of their own somewhere? Is there a time limit for taking ships back to Valinor? How long does Arwen have to depart? Does this "waning" of Arwen have a direct relationship to the waning of the elven magic and influence in Middle Earth?

Mark

Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books is questionable at many points. In the book, Arwen does not rescue Frodo at the ford of Rivendell, Glorfindel does. Nor does she say at any point "what providence has given to me let it pass to him". The closest reference is in chapter 6 of The Return of the King where she says to Frodo "A gift I will give you. For I am the daughter of Elrond. I shall not go with him now when he departs to the Havens; for mine is the choice of Luthien, and as she so have I chosen, both the bitter and the sweet. But in my stead you shall go, Ring-bearer, when the time comes, and if you desire it" .

Elrond's bitter speech regarding the weakness of men and Arwen's future appears nowhere in the books, indeed, in Appendix A it is stated that "When Elrond learned the choice of his daughter, he was silent".

Also in appendix A, Aragorn says that "Eldarion our son is a man full-ripe for kingship" so there was at least one nipper produced. He also states that he has been given a life span "thrice that of Men of Middle-Earth", 210 sounds likely as Arwen dwelt with him for "six score years in great glory and bliss".

How long Eldarion would have survived, I have no idea and will not lose any sleep worrying about it.

Regards,

AC

[Mark]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books is questionable at many points. In the book, Arwen does not rescue Frodo at the ford of Rivendell, Glorfindel does. Nor does she say at any point "what providence has given to me let it pass to him". The closest reference is in chapter 6 of The Return of the King where she says to Frodo "A gift I will give you. For I am the daughter of Elrond. I shall not go with him now when he departs to the Havens; for mine is the choice of Luthien, and as she so have I chosen, both the bitter and the sweet. But in my stead you shall go, Ring-bearer, when the time comes, and if you desire it" .

Elrond's bitter speech regarding the weakness of men and Arwen's future appears nowhere in the books, indeed, in Appendix A it is stated that "When Elrond learned the choice of his daughter, he was silent".

Also in appendix A, Aragorn says that "Eldarion our son is a man full-ripe for kingship" so there was at least one nipper produced. He also states that he has been given a life span "thrice that of Men of Middle-Earth", 210 sounds likely as Arwen dwelt with him for "six score years in great glory and bliss".

How long Eldarion would have survived, I have no idea and will not lose any sleep worrying about it.

Regards,

AC

You know, I didn't have a problem with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen. It seemed to work, and provided what was probably a badly needed "sexual" updating for a work written 60+ years ago. However, the mangling of Faramir troubled me a lot, and, in fact, is making it hard to sustain my interest to a certain extent. It was completely pointless, from ANY standpoint.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Mark


You know, I didn't have a problem with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen. It seemed to work, and provided what was probably a badly needed "sexual" updating for a work written 60+ years ago. However, the mangling of Faramir troubled me a lot, and, in fact, is making it hard to sustain my interest to a certain extent. It was completely pointless, from ANY standpoint.

I read a pretty well thought-out little essay about Jackson's treatment of Faramir. The essay argued that the Faramir of the movie was, in attitude and behaviour, very much the Faramir portrayed in the book. It was very interesting--but I can't recall where I saw it! I think it might have been on the Rotten Tomatoes forum, but I'm not sure. Also, it was a long time ago. Last January, maybe. I'll see if I can find it.

The person who wrote it took the descriptions, actions, and quotes of Faramir from the book and matched them up to the movie portrayal. The point was that the Faramir in the book was very coercive, very threatening (albeit in subtle ways, much of the time), and very suspicious of the hobbits. Jackson took these attitudes and just packed them into the more constrained movie format.

I can't say that the essay was completely convincing, but it was pretty thoughtful.

And Doubt and Azathoth, thanks for the links.

[Marc]

From... somewhere... there were explinations for some of the changes. Like the Ents first not deciding to go to war. This was done because Merry and Pippin were not honestly doing anything but being passengers for much of the movie. Changing it so they figure a way to convince the Ents gave their characters something to do.

The argument for Faramir (I hated the changes too) was that in the book he was little more than exposition man. He didn't do all that much other than pass on information. This way he created a bit more conflict and tension, kinda needed for Frodo/Sam/Gollum since they put off the encounter with Shelob until next time.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Marc
From... somewhere... there were explinations for some of the changes. Like the Ents first not deciding to go to war. This was done because Merry and Pippin were not honestly doing anything but being passengers for much of the movie. Changing it so they figure a way to convince the Ents gave their characters something to do.

The argument for Faramir (I hated the changes too) was that in the book he was little more than exposition man. He didn't do all that much other than pass on information. This way he created a bit more conflict and tension, kinda needed for Frodo/Sam/Gollum since they put off the encounter with Shelob until next time.

Well, the tension could still have been there. In the book he wastempted to take the ring, but resisted the temptation because of his personal honor and integrity; he stood as a contrast to Boromir and Denethor. In the movie, he simply waffled and lost the opportunity through events not under his control. It was utterly unncessary IMO. I'm not nitpicking...most of the other changes I understood and (mostly) agreed with.

Now it will appear the entire "Denethor" family was a bunch of opportunists.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, the tension could still have been there. In the book he wastempted to take the ring, but resisted the temptation because of his personal honor and integrity; he stood as a contrast to Boromir and Denethor. In the movie, he simply waffled and lost the opportunity through events not under his control. It was utterly unncessary IMO. I'm not nitpicking...most of the other changes I understood and (mostly) agreed with.

Now it will appear the entire "Denethor" family was a bunch of opportunists. You are entirely correct. The difference of Faramir from Boromir is crucial to the story of this family. In the book he displays more of a 'nobility,' as it were, like Aragorn, in passing up the opportunity to get the ring.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, the tension could still have been there. In the book he wastempted to take the ring, but resisted the temptation because of his personal honor and integrity; he stood as a contrast to Boromir and Denethor. In the movie, he simply waffled and lost the opportunity through events not under his control. It was utterly unncessary IMO. I'm not nitpicking...most of the other changes I understood and (mostly) agreed with.

Now it will appear the entire "Denethor" family was a bunch of opportunists.

I don't think I agree with you. In what way, in the movie, did Faramir lose the opportunity to take the ring? I thought he let them go because Frodo and Sam finally convinced him that it was the right thing to do.

In the book, he threatened to kill them and held them captive for a while. Except for the fact that he made them come with him to Osgiliath in the movie, it doesn't seem fundamentally different.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Bluegill


I don't think I agree with you. In what way, in the movie, did Faramir lose the opportunity to take the ring? I thought he let them go because Frodo and Sam finally convinced him that it was the right thing to do.

In the book, he threatened to kill them and held them captive for a while. Except for the fact that he made them come with him to Osgiliath in the movie, it doesn't seem fundamentally different.

If I recall correctly, they got away while Osgiliath was being attacked (another odd change), and Faramir was too busy to deal with them. I bought the DVD yesterday and will watch it tonight!

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Mark


If I recall correctly, they got away while Osgiliath was being attacked (another odd change), and Faramir was too busy to deal with them. I bought the DVD yesterday and will watch it tonight!

Aha! I suppose you can be forgiven for being wrong...about a relatively minor detail in a three-friggin'-hour movie that you probably haven't seen since it came out eight months ago;)

I'm pretty sure that I recall correctly that Frodo and Sam were permitted to leave after Sam's stirring speech. (Though after Frodo's little freak-out, I think that Faramir would logically have been more inclined than ever to drag them back home with him.)

Faramir does come off as more brusque and demanding in the movie. But in the book, he has much more time to play mind games to get to the bottom of Frodo and Sam's mission. I suspect that in ROTK, Faramir will come off as much more sympathetic.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Bluegill


Aha! I suppose you can be forgiven for being wrong...about a relatively minor detail in a three-friggin'-hour movie that you probably haven't seen since it came out eight months ago;)

I'm pretty sure that I recall correctly that Frodo and Sam were permitted to leave after Sam's stirring speech. (Though after Frodo's little freak-out, I think that Faramir would logically have been more inclined than ever to drag them back home with him.)

Faramir does come off as more brusque and demanding in the movie. But in the book, he has much more time to play mind games to get to the bottom of Frodo and Sam's mission. I suspect that in ROTK, Faramir will come off as much more sympathetic.

You're probably right. I'll watch it tonight!

[hgc]

Originally posted by Bluegill


I don't think I agree with you. In what way, in the movie, did Faramir lose the opportunity to take the ring? I thought he let them go because Frodo and Sam finally convinced him that it was the right thing to do.

In the book, he threatened to kill them and held them captive for a while. Except for the fact that he made them come with him to Osgiliath in the movie, it doesn't seem fundamentally different. It just occurred to me that Jackson may have made this whole change for a plot device to set a scene in Osgiliath.

[Mark]

Originally posted by hgc
It just occurred to me that Jackson may have made this whole change for a plot device to set a scene in Osgiliath.

That's what I thought originally, but now I don't know what to think!!!! :eek:

[EdipisReks]

there are few things or people on earth that i hate, but peter jackson is one of them. i find his mangling of the Lord of the Rings to be abominable. i understand the decisions that had to be made in order to translate the books to film, but so many changes were made that were totally unnecessary and which turned what might have been half way decent movies (i think they should never have been made, myself) into excrement. maybe jackson should have written his own damn books if he wanted to make something original.

[hgc]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
there are few things or people on earth that i hate, but peter jackson is one of them. i find his mangling of the Lord of the Rings to be abominable. i understand the decisions that had to be made in order to translate the books to film, but so many changes were made that were totally unnecessary and which turned what might have been half way decent movies (i think they should never have been made, myself) into excrement. maybe jackson should have written his own damn books if he wanted to make something original. Other than the Faramir bungle, I think he did a great job. Can you elaborate about what you didn't like?

[Mark]

Originally posted by hgc
Other than the Faramir bungle, I think he did a great job. Can you elaborate about what you didn't like?

I agree completely. Most of the other changes seemed to make sense from a cinematic standpoint. For example, the elves being at Helm's Deep was a bit odd, but since in the book their involvement in the war took place mainly "off camera" in the appendix, it seemed a good way to bring them in without having the Two Towers be 4 hours long.

As for me, I would love to shake Peter Jackson's hand and just say, "You did it, man. Great job."

[Hexxenhammer]

Anytime you turn a book into a movie you have to make changes. Goes without saying. They are adaptations, retelling the same story in a different way. Movies could never focus on several different themes as you can in a book. It's nothing to be upset about, it can't be helped. Look at some examples. LA Confidential is a great freakin' movie. Top notch. I read the book after I saw it and realized that the movie focused on like 2 of the maybe dozen plot lines in the novel. They cut out Disney, a serial killer (or 2), and a huge prison train escape with gigantic shootout. Good book, good movie. Totally different. In Starship Troopers they took a different approach. They turned a serious political novel into political satire. I love the book, and like the movie for what it is. The closest adaptation I've ever seen is "The Outlaw Josey Wales". Eastwood actually added characters to his movie that weren't in the book. Other than that, it was dead on. He could do that because the story is pretty short. LOTR is anything but short. Major changes were bound to happen. Absolute adherence to the books would have made for a boring and confusing story. What's important is that the major characters, themes, and events are presented in an entertaining way. And boy-howdy has it been good so far. I couldn't care less if it's Arwen instead of some no-name elf that rescues Frodo. He's a character that would never have the screen time to matter. Elves at Helm's Deep? Great! Legolas would have been the only elf in the whole movie otherwise. And it furthers the story of the elves fading from Middle-Earth. Couldn't care less if Frodo oges to Osgiliath. So what? He's still going to Mt. Doom, how does it matter how he gets there as long it furthers the story, and going to Osgiliath showed how Sauron's forces were advancing. But by far the best change is cutting out Tom freakin' Bombadill. Thank god!

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Anytime you turn a book into a movie you have to make changes. Goes without saying. They are adaptations, retelling the same story in a different way. Movies could never focus on several different themes as you can in a book. It's nothing to be upset about, it can't be helped. Look at some examples. LA Confidential is a great freakin' movie. Top notch. I read the book after I saw it and realized that the movie focused on like 2 of the maybe dozen plot lines in the novel. They cut out Disney, a serial killer (or 2), and a huge prison train escape with gigantic shootout. Good book, good movie. Totally different. In Starship Troopers they took a different approach. They turned a serious political novel into political satire. I love the book, and like the movie for what it is. The closest adaptation I've ever seen is "The Outlaw Josey Wales". Eastwood actually added characters to his movie that weren't in the book. Other than that, it was dead on. He could do that because the story is pretty short. LOTR is anything but short. Major changes were bound to happen. Absolute adherence to the books would have made for a boring and confusing story. What's important is that the major characters, themes, and events are presented in an entertaining way. And boy-howdy has it been good so far. I couldn't care less if it's Arwen instead of some no-name elf that rescues Frodo. He's a character that would never have the screen time to matter. Elves at Helm's Deep? Great! Legolas would have been the only elf in the whole movie otherwise. And it furthers the story of the elves fading from Middle-Earth. Couldn't care less if Frodo oges to Osgiliath. So what? He's still going to Mt. Doom, how does it matter how he gets there as long it furthers the story, and going to Osgiliath showed how Sauron's forces were advancing. But by far the best change is cutting out Tom freakin' Bombadill. Thank god!

I agree with you except for 2 minor points:

1. I love Tom Bombadil.

2. Starship Troopers didn't just make changes in the book, it flat out contradicted almost all of the philosophical points Heinlein was trying to make. Agree with them or not (I mostly don't), it is not right, as far as I am concerned, to completely toss out the entire reason the book was originally written. "Starship Troopers" is a perfect example of how bad Hollywood producers can be. They should be ashamed, but are probably too ignorant and/or stupid to understand that. The movie was a total abortion. Right down to turning Juan Rico into some sort of Nordic Nazi.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
"Anytime you turn a book into a movie you have to make changes."

This would equally apply to turning a book into an audio play. The BBC Radio adaptation was far closer to the book and, to my mind at least, more enjoyable than Jackson's films.

Sadly, The Old Forest, Bombadil and the barrow downs were omitted from both versions. Oh well, it's only a story.

Regards,

AC.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mark


I agree with you except for 2 minor points:

1. I love Tom Bombadil.

2. Starship Troopers didn't just make changes in the book, it flat out contradicted almost all of the philosophical points Heinlein was trying to make. Agree with them or not (I mostly don't), it is not right, as far as I am concerned, to completely toss out the entire reason the book was originally written. "Starship Troopers" is a perfect example of how bad Hollywood producers can be. They should be ashamed, but are probably too ignorant and/or stupid to understand that. The movie was a total abortion. Right down to turning Juan Rico into some sort of Nordic Nazi.
Fair 'nuff.

I always catch flak for using Starship Troopers in a "book or movie" debate. It's a good example of extreme adaptation though. However, I think movie makers should be given some slack. It's their movie, they can focus on the themes or content they want. I'm not saying they always make the right choices by a long shot, but it is fair to use source material for a different purpose than the original author intended to make a point. And Paul Verhoven knew exactly what he was doing in his casting and script. These are the same themes he focused on in Robocop and Total Recall.

I think movies should be judged on their own merits and not the merits of the original work is what it comes down too. I think my attitude is pretty rare in that regard. Most people want books and movies to be the same. Here's a little example of how people's opinions of adaptations can differ. After my friends and I saw Starship Troopers we talked about it and I said I liked it, but boy did they make a lot of changes (not even considering powerarmor). My friend Jim said, "What? It was just like the book." After we saw Donnie Brasco, my same friend Jim was upset that the movie wasn't just like the book because Donnie had a mustache, and he didn't in the book.:confused:

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Fair 'nuff.

I always catch flak for using Starship Troopers in a "book or movie" debate. It's a good example of extreme adaptation though. However, I think movie makers should be given some slack. It's their movie, they can focus on the themes or content they want. I'm not saying they always make the right choices by a long shot, but it is fair to use source material for a different purpose than the original author intended to make a point. And Paul Verhoven knew exactly what he was doing in his casting and script. These are the same themes he focused on in Robocop and Total Recall.

I think movies should be judged on their own merits and not the merits of the original work is what it comes down too. I think my attitude is pretty rare in that regard. Most people want books and movies to be the same. Here's a little example of how people's opinions of adaptations can differ. After my friends and I saw Starship Troopers we talked about it and I said I liked it, but boy did they make a lot of changes (not even considering powerarmor). My friend Jim said, "What? It was just like the book." After we saw Donnie Brasco, my same friend Jim was upset that the movie wasn't just like the book because Donnie had a mustache, and he didn't in the book.:confused:

Well, I tend to agree with you. I mean, as I said before, I agreed with most of the LOTR changes, cinematically. And the LOTR is my all time favorite book. So I can embrace the concept. But then there is Starship Troopers. Good grief, they changed the main character from a short Phlipino, to a tall, blond Norseman. Considerably more than just a mustache issue, IMO.

But if they had called it "Nazi's Against the Bug People" I would have been OK with it, I think. :D

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mark
But if they had called it "Nazi's Against the Bug People" I would have been OK with it, I think. :D
I would go to a movie called "Nazi's Against the Bug People". ;)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Mark

1. I love Tom Bombadil.


Pheh, Jar-Jar Binks of the Fantasy setting. Jackson was right to toss him aside.

I find Jackson's adaptation to be quite effective and I will say that those who stayed "closer" haven't impressed me. (*cough*Bakshi*cough*) At times Jackson has improved upon the storyline IMO. The ring is genuinely scary in Jackson's story, wheras in the book it never really impressed me with its minimalist evil.

Faramir didn't bother me much either, since he doesn't so much introduce a nobler counterpart to his corrupted brother as much as yet-another-person-who-easily-resists-the-ring. In fact, I found Faramir in the movie to be more believable.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by hgc
It just occurred to me that Jackson may have made this whole change for a plot device to set a scene in Osgiliath.


That something else that occurred to me. I think Jackson might have wanted a scene where the "Enemy" saw the ring in the possession of the Men of Gondor.

That would help make it clear to the audience that Sauron doesn't suspect that the good guys are trying to destroy the ring, and that he thinks it's headed to Minas Tirith.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Pheh, Jar-Jar Binks of the Fantasy setting. Jackson was right to toss him aside.



I thought Tom Bombadil in the book was all just fine. I enjoyed it. But I think that whole section was unfilmable. In my opinion, there is no way that Tom Bombadil could be presented as anything like he was in the book, and not have audiences groaning, feeling embarrassed, questioning Jackson's sexuality, rolling their eyes, etc. It just would not have registered for anyone but hardcore "Rings" devotees.

I think the barrow-downs scene would otherwise have been great on film, but had to be cut for streamlining purposes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Bluegill


I thought Tom Bombadil in the book was all just fine. I enjoyed it. But I think that whole section was unfilmable. In my opinion, there is no way that Tom Bombadil could be presented as anything like he was in the book, and not have audiences groaning, feeling embarrassed, questioning Jackson's sexuality, rolling their eyes, etc.

I think Tom Bombadil was the book's example of ultimate authority turning inward, self-absorbed, and senile.

I am not sure how you'd ever represent it in the movie.

I'm somewhat +- it in the book.

[Dogwood]

I absolutely love Tom Bombadil. And although I missed him in the movie I understood why he was taken out. It just would have been too confusing for the non-Tolkeinphile movie goer. The only thing that really bugged me about Two Towers the movie, was Aragorns weird "getting lost" episode. I just didn't see what it added.

The only thing that disturbed me in the first film was that the Horn of Gondor sounded like a beep on a Volkswagon. It was suppossed to be heard in Gondor for cri-yi. (And it annoyed me that Sam didn't get his dirt. Not even on the DVD!)

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
I The only thing that really bugged me about Two Towers the movie, was Aragorns weird "getting lost" episode. I just didn't see what it added.



Yeah, the Aragorn-over-the-cliff scene was my least favorite part of the movie. I think I could have done without that.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Bluegill


Yeah, the Aragorn-over-the-cliff scene was my least favorite part of the movie. I think I could have done without that.

It is a painful plot device to allow a scene with Arwen. So I can see why it had to be done. Wish it could have been handled better.

Although they did make me laugh, I thought the "Short jokes" got wearisome, at least by the time of the tossing. The chain mail and battlement jokes weren't so bad.

[Mark]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
I absolutely love Tom Bombadil. And although I missed him in the movie I understood why he was taken out. It just would have been too confusing for the non-Tolkeinphile movie goer. The only thing that really bugged me about Two Towers the movie, was Aragorns weird "getting lost" episode. I just didn't see what it added.

The only thing that disturbed me in the first film was that the Horn of Gondor sounded like a beep on a Volkswagon. It was suppossed to be heard in Gondor for cri-yi. (And it annoyed me that Sam didn't get his dirt. Not even on the DVD!)

I agree, especially about the dirt. It was Sooooo crucial to the end of the book, I can't imagine what is going to happen in the movie version. I have a feeling the ending is going to be somewhat butchered. Don't get me wrong! Overall, I think Peter Jackson has done an amazing job...but I can't understand why he eliminated that very short, yet crucial scene.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by jj


I think Tom Bombadil was the book's example of ultimate authority turning inward, self-absorbed, and senile.

I am not sure how you'd ever represent it in the movie.

I'm somewhat +- it in the book.

I took the Bombadil, Old Forest and Barrow Downs episodes to be an illustration of the hobbits' naivety. Given that one is required to enter Tolkien's world in order to obtain any enjoyment from the tale, I don't see why Bombadil should be particularly difficult to represent in the movie. Magic rings, wizards, orcs, elves, dwarves and balrogs are equally unlikely but Jackson manages to include them in the films.

Regards,

AC.

[swellman]

Originally posted by Mark


I agree, especially about the dirt. It was Sooooo crucial to the end of the book, I can't imagine what is going to happen in the movie version. I have a feeling the ending is going to be somewhat butchered. Don't get me wrong! Overall, I think Peter Jackson has done an amazing job...but I can't understand why he eliminated that very short, yet crucial scene.

IIRC, on the FOTR extended DVD, Jackson comments that the movies will not return to the Shire at the end of the story. There is a homage to the scouring of the Shire when Frodo looks in the mirror of Galadriel, with images of the Hobbits being held in chains. But expect no more than that.

I'm expecting a wedding/hero's welcome for everyone in Gondor, then it's roll credits.

That said, I can hardly wait for the ROTK. Bring it on, Shelob!

[Soapy Sam]

There's an awful lot to pack into RotK.

I was sorry at the absence of Bombadil. I think he represents a much older element in Tolkien's mythology; a sort of "green man" figure. In the end, he was not crucial to the story of Frodo's journey, but I missed him just the same. I do like the way the Smeagol / Gollum dichotomy has been handled.

But a platoon of Vulcans with bows and arrows at Helm's Deep?
This was necessary?

As for Starship Troopers- In fairness, the story did support Heinlein's right wing and paternalist politics. That we now see that as akin to Naziism may indicate how short are our memories of what real fascist stormtroopers are actually like.

Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" seemed to me an excellent counterpart to S.T. Darn good yarns, both.

I'm not R.H.'s #1 fan, but I'm glad he was spared seeing the movie. I don't think he would have seen Dizzy Flores' sex change as a cinematic necessity. Or what happened to the "Rodger Young".

[gnome]

The biggest problem for me, was the Ent council...

Why in the world wouldn't they know what Sauron was doing to their own forest?

And I can see they were trying to get Merry and Pippin something important to do, but it really came out kind of lame... I liked the original writing better and it had the feel of the visiting hobbits being swept up in a tide of events they couldn't control--the same elemental feel as the assault on Sauron's tower itself.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Mark


I agree, especially about the dirt. It was Sooooo crucial to the end of the book, I can't imagine what is going to happen in the movie version. I have a feeling the ending is going to be somewhat butchered. Don't get me wrong! Overall, I think Peter Jackson has done an amazing job...but I can't understand why he eliminated that very short, yet crucial scene. Can someone remind me about the "dirt?" I haven't read LOTR in a few years, and this escapes me.

[hgc]

Originally posted by swellman


IIRC, on the FOTR extended DVD, Jackson comments that the movies will not return to the Shire at the end of the story. There is a homage to the scouring of the Shire when Frodo looks in the mirror of Galadriel, with images of the Hobbits being held in chains. But expect no more than that.

I'm expecting a wedding/hero's welcome for everyone in Gondor, then it's roll credits.

That said, I can hardly wait for the ROTK. Bring it on, Shelob! Good move. The return to the Shire/Sharkey episode is very anticlimactic to the story. But I hope they do handle the passing of the elves and you-know-who into the west.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
There's an awful lot to pack into RotK.

I
As for Starship Troopers- In fairness, the story did support Heinlein's right wing and paternalist politics. That we now see that as akin to Naziism may indicate how short are our memories of what real fascist stormtroopers are actually like.



While I don't agree much with the political viewpoint in ST, I would not really call it "right wing." Libertarian, certainly, but that is not at all the same thing (just look at abortion rights).

ST the movie, was indeed "right wing."

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by hgc
Can someone remind me about the "dirt?" I haven't read LOTR in a few years, and this escapes me.

If I recall correctly, when the Fellowship left Lothlorien, Galadriel gave Sam a small packet of soil. Later, after the bad guys were driven from the Shire, there was a lot of devastation to repair (all the Gaffers favorite plants had been hewd down and all.) Sam sprinkled tiny amounts of the soil all around the place, and things grew back beautifully.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Bluegill


I read a pretty well thought-out little essay about Jackson's treatment of Faramir. The essay argued that the Faramir of the movie was, in attitude and behaviour, very much the Faramir portrayed in the book. It was very interesting--but I can't recall where I saw it! I think it might have been on the Rotten Tomatoes forum, but I'm not sure. Also, it was a long time ago. Last January, maybe. I'll see if I can find it.

The person who wrote it took the descriptions, actions, and quotes of Faramir from the book and matched them up to the movie portrayal. The point was that the Faramir in the book was very coercive, very threatening (albeit in subtle ways, much of the time), and very suspicious of the hobbits. Jackson took these attitudes and just packed them into the more constrained movie format.

I can't say that the essay was completely convincing, but it was pretty thoughtful.

And Doubt and Azathoth, thanks for the links.

You´re thinking of a thing on the site www.theonering.net . Look it up there.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by komencanto


You´re thinking of a thing on the site www.theonering.net . Look it up there.

Thank you so very much. I think I found it...

Essay (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1040683523)

It's a good read.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by hgc
Good move. The return to the Shire/Sharkey episode is very anticlimactic to the story.

I have to disagree. The scouring of the Shire is absolutely crucial, in my opinion. It was the passing of the Third Age, and no place in Middle Earth was exempt from the change, including the Shire.

Tolkien also stressed throughout that happy endings are very rare, and this particular story was no different. It would have ruined the story, in my opinion, for the Shire to remain as it was, and for the hobbits to return to the idyll of their previous lives.

Originally posted by Bluegill
If I recall correctly, when the Fellowship left Lothlorien, Galadriel gave Sam a small packet of soil. Later, after the bad guys were driven from the Shire, there was a lot of devastation to repair (all the Gaffers favorite plants had been hewd down and all.) Sam sprinkled tiny amounts of the soil all around the place, and things grew back beautifully.

The box also contained a mallorn seed, which replaced the Party tree outside Bilbo's house, and was the first mallorn west of the Misty Mountains. Which brings me to my biggest gripe about the movies - Tolkien had a serious jones for trees, and these are teh parts which are torn out of the Jackson version.

Old Man Willow and the Old Forest figure prominently in FOTR, and they got tossed out with Bombadil. I can go along with this cut, because I think that Bombadil would be difficult to translate to the screen.

Then we move on to the Ents and Fangorn forest. I have to agree with someone earlier who said there's no freakin' way that the Ents would not know that Saruman was clear-cutting part of the forest (Saruman, not Sauron, although in the movie Saruman seems entirely the lackey of Sauron, whereas in the book Saruman at least thought he was striving to get the Ring for himself - but I digress).

And WHERE were my boys, the Huorns? They put a whuppin' on the orcs at Helm's Deep, not some fancy-pants elves!

We already know that the Scouring of the Shire is not going to be in ROTK, and the destruction of the trees in the Shire is the most obvious outward manifestation of the evil that has taken over.

Al in all, Jackson has eliminated all the "green" from LOTR.

[Mark]

I always thought it would be funny if Sam took one look at the Mallorn seed and ate it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by juryjone

Then we move on to the Ents and Fangorn forest. I have to agree with someone earlier who said there's no freakin' way that the Ents would not know that Saruman was clear-cutting part of the forest (Saruman, not Sauron, although in the movie Saruman seems entirely the lackey of Sauron, whereas in the book Saruman at least thought he was striving to get the Ring for himself - but I digress).

Sorry, yes, Saruman. I always mix that up. Why in heck did he have to give such similar names to those two guys?

:confused:

[diddidit]

Originally posted by juryjone

And WHERE were my boys, the Huorns? They put a whuppin' on the orcs at Helm's Deep, not some fancy-pants elves!


I believe they do their good work in the Special Edition DVD, which will be released in November...

did

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by gnome


Sorry, yes, Saruman. I always mix that up. Why in heck did he have to give such similar names to those two guys?

:confused:
"It's a conspiracy of S's" I think Aragorn or Gandalf says something like that.

[Ipecac]

Yep, The Huorns are in the preview of the Extended Edition DVD so they'll definitely be included. All told, the EE will include an additional 45 minutes of footage, much of which deals with the Ents!

I love the movies. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job.

The Faramir "changes" don't bother me that much. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to have everyone tempted by the ring but this one guy. The fact that he's tempted, and that bringing the ring to Gondor will square things with his father, and he decides to let Frodo go, makes his nobility stronger, IMO.

I think the Extended Edition will make Faramir's decisions much more clear.

[Cinorjer]

If I can throw my 3 cents in, I really liked the character of Bombadil in the book, but realize that he doesn't really do anything for the story. All you learn is that the ring has no power over him. His character makes a brief appearance, then exits. It would have been a mistake to include the character in the movie.

I think the story has been told pretty good so far, bearing in mind the limitations of the screen versus the written word. And let's face it: in spite of LOTR being a classic, it has its problems even as a novel. Tolkein could have used an editor. But it's such a grand, wonderful world he created, we overlook its faults.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Yep, The Huorns are in the preview of the Extended Edition DVD so they'll definitely be included. All told, the EE will include an additional 45 minutes of footage, much of which deals with the Ents!

I love the movies. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job.

The Faramir "changes" don't bother me that much. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to have everyone tempted by the ring but this one guy. The fact that he's tempted, and that bringing the ring to Gondor will square things with his father, and he decides to let Frodo go, makes his nobility stronger, IMO.

I think the Extended Edition will make Faramir's decisions much more clear.

Aah, all becomes clear. Marketing par excellance. See the film, buy the DVD, wait a year to see the next film and then buy that DVD. Wait a few months and then buy the "extended DVDs" just before film 3 is released. May I guess at August 2004 before the DVD version of "The Return of the King" is released ? Maybe November 2004 before the extended DVD version is available?And then "The Director's Cut" version of all three a few months later, when the cash flow has declined ?

Cynically,

AC.

[Diamond]

I've read LOTR some 30 times. I love the book. It both started and ended the fantasy genre for me.

That said, I think the movie adaptation by Peter Jackson is simply miraculous. LOTR is first and foremost a linguistic novel, and I wondered how on Middle-Earth anyone who had not read the books coould understand a film adaptation of it, but Jackson got to the essentials of the story. He also manages to make us care about a lot of characters without too much sentimentality. The sheer evil power of the ring, and the danger it represents to everyone near it, especially to the good people (and Frodo in particular), is very well portrayed.

The visuals of Middle Earth were exactly what I wanted to see. When I saw "The Two Towers" with a friend, there was an interlude half way through, just after the battle of Helms' Deep and I remarked to him "Now THAT was a battle scene!"

There had to be changes to fit three densely plotted books into 9 hours of cinema, and though I'd like to have seen more of Middle Earth, the plotting and pacing of the films (so far) has been very good.

One minor quibble: The best scene in "The Two Towers" book was the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard. I was disappointed that it wasn't in the movie. Perhaps it'll be at the beginning of "ROTK"?

[Marc]

The endings of TT will be the beginnings of RotK. Gollem made the mysterious comment about giving Frodo to 'her' (shelob). Merry and Pippin will still have to link up with the rest of the group, so we will have the confrontation with Gandalf and Sauruman next time.


BTW,

Dec. 5th, in about 100-150 theaters the Extended version of Fellowship will hit the big screen! A week later the Extended Two Towers will also be shown. Then on Dec 16th selected theaters will show Ext Fellowship at 3, Ext TT at 7, and of course the 12:01 premier of Return of the King.
:eek:


Heard this news from CHUD (http://www.chud.com/news/aug03/aug22extendedlotr.php3)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Aah, all becomes clear. Marketing par excellance. See the film, buy the DVD, wait a year to see the next film and then buy that DVD. Wait a few months and then buy the "extended DVDs" just before film 3 is released. May I guess at August 2004 before the DVD version of "The Return of the King" is released ? Maybe November 2004 before the extended DVD version is available?And then "The Director's Cut" version of all three a few months later, when the cash flow has declined ?

Cynically,

AC.

Nah.

You have to keep in mind that before Fellowship came out, the studio, which had risked about $300 million on fliming all three movies at once, had little idea how it would play. A failure would likely have ruined New Line. So they were conservative and kept the film "down" to three hours. Long movies are a hard sell and limit the number of showings a day.

But Peter Jackson knew that the die hard fans would want to see all the additional footage he shot and wouldn't care about the length. So after the first movie was a huge success, he released the Extended Edition to near universal acclaim. Not a cynical, money-grabbing move but a way to satisfy the non-die hards with the 3 hour theatrical release and give the die-hards longer versions with even more Tolkieny goodness. No one is forcing anyone to buy the Extended versions.

The Extended versions ARE the director's cut.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Nah.

You have to keep in mind that before Fellowship came out, the studio, which had risked about $300 million on fliming all three movies at once, had little idea how it would play. A failure would likely have ruined New Line. So they were conservative and kept the film "down" to three hours. Long movies are a hard sell and limit the number of showings a day.

But Peter Jackson knew that the die hard fans would want to see all the additional footage he shot and wouldn't care about the length. So after the first movie was a huge success, he released the Extended Edition to near universal acclaim. Not a cynical, money-grabbing move but a way to satisfy the non-die hards with the 3 hour theatrical release and give the die-hards longer versions with even more Tolkieny goodness. No one is forcing anyone to buy the Extended versions.

The Extended versions ARE the director's cut. I have a couple of quibbles with this account:

Peter Jackson says in the commentary on the extended version DVD of FOTR that he removed scenes the deleted scenes for the benefit of dramatic pacing. This doesn't mean that the studio wouldn't have wanted to keep the length down to 3 hours anyway, but it wasn't apparently over the filmmaker's objections.

I can't explain the release of the non-extended version in August, and then the extended version a few months later (for both FOTR and TTT) but that they are trying to make more money by getting people to pay twice.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Diamond
I've read LOTR some 30 times. I love the book. It both started and ended the fantasy genre for me.

...

The visuals of Middle Earth were exactly what I wanted to see. When I saw "The Two Towers" with a friend, there was an interlude half way through, just after the battle of Helms' Deep and I remarked to him "Now THAT was a battle scene!"

... I had first read LOTR at the age of 12, and for the 2nd time in 2001. I always had a picture in my mind of Middle Earth and the scenes in the book. As I watched FOTR, in the scene where they are trying to cross Misty Mountains and are stopped by the storm, I always pictured them on the north facing side of a mountain, but in the movie, they were on the south facing side. Everything else matched up perfectly.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hgc
I have a couple of quibbles with this account:

Peter Jackson says in the commentary on the extended version DVD of FOTR that he removed scenes the deleted scenes for the benefit of dramatic pacing. This doesn't mean that the studio wouldn't have wanted to keep the length down to 3 hours anyway, but it wasn't apparently over the filmmaker's objections.

I can't explain the release of the non-extended version in August, and then the extended version a few months later (for both FOTR and TTT) but that they are trying to make more money by getting people to pay twice.

You're right. I wasn't meaning to imply that Peter Jackson wanted the cut to be longer than three hours any more than the studio did.

I don't see it the way you do. I would imagine that most people, the non-Tolkien fans, would want the three hour, theatrical cut. People want the movie they've seen. That's why they released the theatrical version. But the die-hards would definitely want the extended edition to see more of the story. To a large extent, the two versions are aimed at different audiences.

That being said, I, being a die-hard fan, did buy both versions. Why? Because I want to see the theatrical cut when it comes out and the extended edition later. I suppose they could have released both in one set, but a six DVD set would be pretty much as expensive as the four and two disc sets anyway. Seeing as I paid only $15 for the theatrical cut and will pay $20 for the Extended Edition, I'm not at all bothered by buying both.

Would you have had them not release one of the two cuts?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ipecac


You're right. I wasn't meaning to imply that Peter Jackson wanted the cut to be longer than three hours any more than the studio did.

I don't see it the way you do. I would imagine that most people, the non-Tolkien fans, would want the three hour, theatrical cut. People want the movie they've seen. That's why they released the theatrical version. But the die-hards would definitely want the extended edition to see more of the story. To a large extent, the two versions are aimed at different audiences.

That being said, I, being a die-hard fan, did buy both versions. Why? Because I want to see the theatrical cut when it comes out and the extended edition later. I suppose they could have released both in one set, but a six DVD set would be pretty much as expensive as the four and two disc sets anyway. Seeing as I paid only $15 for the theatrical cut and will pay $20 for the Extended Edition, I'm not at all bothered by buying both.

Would you have had them not release one of the two cuts? I would have them release as much as possible within the shortest timeframe, generally speaking.

There's no problem putting the theatrical and regular versions on a single disc, as the deleted scenes are easily inserted by the program if the viewer chooses to watch it that way. What reason then for the staggered release of DVD's? Is it the other extras (commentary tracks, etc) that take so many more months to pull together? Between theatrical release in Dec and theatrical version DVD release in Aug, they can't get all the extras into the kit, but they can by Oct? (I don't know if that's the stated reason for the staggered release, just guessing.) Sounds fishy. But then they have their commercial interests to attend to, and that's fine.

I wouldn't buy the Aug release with the extended one just around the corner. Last year I got regular FOTR (fullscreen, ugh!) for my birthday, so that doesn't count, and this year someone passed along to me a TTT DVD (or copy) that had been distributed for Oscar consideration, so I got my cake and ate it too.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hgc
What reason then for the staggered release of DVD's? Is it the other extras (commentary tracks, etc) that take so many more months to pull together? Between theatrical release in Dec and theatrical version DVD release in Aug, they can't get all the extras into the kit, but they can by Oct? (I don't know if that's the stated reason for the staggered release, just guessing.) Sounds fishy. But then they have their commercial interests to attend to, and that's fine.


Can't say for sure, but the answer might be yes. The theatrical version of the movie can pretty quickly be put onto the disc along with the prerecorded trailers and documentaries. But the extended editions add 30 to 45 minutes of new footage. For TTT they say there are hundreds of additional SFX shots that have to be rendered, not to mention that the score has to be redone and rerecorded. And all of this while preparing the next movie for theatrical release.

I don't find it at all fishy that it would take an extra couple of months to prepare the extended editions.

[Cinorjer]

. What reason then for the staggered release of DVD's? Is it the other extras (commentary tracks, etc) that take so many more months to pull together?

Marketing, of course. The key to building might be "Location, location, location," but when it comes to releasing a product like this, the mantra is "Timing, timing, timing." After all, you don't want several versions of the same DVD competing with each other. You want people to buy the regular edition, then the special edition, then the super-special edition, etc. Does anyone here have more than one version of LOTR on DVD? Then you're the marketer's target.

Jerry

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by hgc
I can't explain the release of the non-extended version in August, and then the extended version a few months later (for both FOTR and TTT) but that they are trying to make more money by getting people to pay twice.
Here's your answer:
http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20020812

[Mocker Wall]

I had first read LOTR at the age of 12, and for the 2nd time in 2001. I always had a picture in my mind of Middle Earth and the scenes in the book. As I watched FOTR, in the scene where they are trying to cross Misty Mountains and are stopped by the storm, I always pictured them on the north facing side of a mountain, but in the movie, they were on the south facing side. Everything else matched up perfectly.

Uhhh....how could you tell? :confused:

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall


Uhhh....how could you tell? :confused:

I suspect that there is an implied smiley in hgc's post...

[hgc]

Mocker Wall

Uhhh....how could you tell? Hey, you read a book, you build a mental picture ... sometimes that picture sticks with you. For some reason that's how I pictured it. Why I remembered after all those years how I originally pictured it -- especially such a minor point -- is a mystery of the workings of the brain.Bluegill

I suspect that there is an implied smiley in hgc's post...Truth be told, I said this with all seriousness. In retrospect it deserves a smiley, because, well, it's absurd. :)

[Mark]

Originally posted by hgc
Hey, you read a book, you build a mental picture ... sometimes that picture sticks with you. For some reason that's how I pictured it. Why I remembered after all those years how I originally pictured it -- especially such a minor point -- is a mystery of the workings of the brain.Truth be told, I said this with all seriousness. In retrospect it deserves a smiley, because, well, it's absurd. :)

I don't know how absurd it is. I have read LOTR at least a couple of dozen times, and no matter how hard I try, I always picture the Fellowship marching West. Go figure.

[LW]

Originally posted by hgc
I always pictured them on the north facing side of a mountain,

Me too.

[Ipecac]

I always thought Cirith Ungol was on the northern mountain range surrounding Mordor. I have a lot of trouble picturing them going south past the Black Gate.

[Ipecac]

The worst disconnect I've ever had like this was in Star Wars: X-Wing, the video game. You finally get to the last mission and have to make the trench run on the Death Star. You approach the trench and then bank LEFT to enter it. Huh? In the movie, they bank to the right.

That bugged me every time I played it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Mark


I don't know how absurd it is. I have read LOTR at least a couple of dozen times, and no matter how hard I try, I always picture the Fellowship marching West. Go figure. It's absurd in the sense that it's the only thing I could think of that's out of place, in the entire movie. But then I'd only read the trilogy twice in my life, not dozens of times.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Ipecac
The worst disconnect I've ever had like this was in Star Wars: X-Wing, the video game. You finally get to the last mission and have to make the trench run on the Death Star. You approach the trench and then bank LEFT to enter it. Huh? In the movie, they bank to the right.

That bugged me every time I played it.

I played that mission at few dozen times. Damn it was tough. Finally one time I'm in a frenzy trying to maintain speed, watch the power to the shields, forget trying to shoot anything! Then I see something on the screen... huh?? what's that? OH!! The ventilation port!! Where's the torpedo firing button!?!?!

Just so taken by surprise that I finally reached the end that almost blew it. But I got it! without any cheat codes.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Marc
I played that mission at few dozen times. Damn it was tough. Finally one time I'm in a frenzy trying to maintain speed, watch the power to the shields, forget trying to shoot anything! Then I see something on the screen... huh?? what's that? OH!! The ventilation port!! Where's the torpedo firing button!?!?!

Just so taken by surprise that I finally reached the end that almost blew it. But I got it! without any cheat codes.

Me too! Quite a feeling of accomplishment.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Mark


I agree with you except for 2 minor points:

1. I love Tom Bombadil.



You did? Why? I found his character to be silly and inane and completely useless to the plot. And his rhyming was atrocious, but then again, Tolkien should have stayed away from all manner of rhyming, poetry and song lyrics, the man didn't have a clue and didn't write them well.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


You did? Why? I found his character to be silly and inane and completely useless to the plot. And his rhyming was atrocious, but then again, Tolkien should have stayed away from all manner of rhyming, poetry and song lyrics, the man didn't have a clue and didn't write them well.

Well, the poetry works better if you put it to music (I have done that, just as a lark; sometimes I have way too much time on my hands!).

I found him interesting as a representation of the natural world, outside of human influence. In other words, friendly, sort of, but also with his own agenda that sometimes coincides with ours, and sometimes not. Unpredictable. Friendly, helpful, but also potentially dangerous.

hgc
But then I'd only read the trilogy twice in my life, not dozens of times.

OK, say it: I have no life. :D

[Tony]

Remember the prolog at the beginning of FOTR?

Well, I predict that there will be an epilogue at the end of ROTK.

[azidhak]

I always thought Cirith Ungol was on the northern mountain range surrounding Mordor. I have a lot of trouble picturing them going south past the Black Gate.
Cirith Ungol is in the Morgul Vale directly east of Minas Tirith and Osgilliath. Link: http://www.jrrtolkien.org.uk/LOTR_Journey_Maps/LOTRmap12b12.jpg
Haakon

[Tony]

What country do the Easterlings come from?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
What country do the Easterlings come from?

Harad.

Edited to add:

Actually, I may be wrong about that...it seems in the back of my mind that T. made a distinction between them. Hmmm, now I have to go look it up!

Edited to add again:

Yep: on page 286 of the single volume harcover: "The wild easterlings and cruel Haradrim."

Edited yet again:

Got it!!!! (I think). Khand. It's mentioned in the appendix and doesn't (I don't think) appear on the map itself. Must be east of Mordor, though, given that they were alligned with Harad.

I have no life.

[Tony]

What race was Gollum before the ring corrupted him?

Why is the "time of the elves" over?

Why are they going to the Gray Havens?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
What race was Gollum before the ring corrupted him?

Why is the "time of the elves" over?

Why are they going to the Gray Havens?

Stop it! This is addictive!

Gollum was from a race closely related to Hobbits who lived by the banks of the Anduin.

It is now the time of men, and elves (who rebelled against the "Gods" in ages past) are leaving to return to their original home (sort of; they actually started in Middle Earth, and left for Valinor. But that is really their home.) and be forgiven.

The Gray Havens is a place where Elvish ships depart to travel by "the straight road" back to Valinor.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mark


Stop it! This is addictive!




Mwoohooohahahahah.
:p :p

Gollum was from a race closely related to Hobbits who lived by the banks of the Anduin.

Where is the Anduin located?

It is now the time of men, and elves (who rebelled against the "Gods" in ages past) are leaving to return to their original home (sort of; they actually started in Middle Earth, and left for Valinor. But that is really their home.) and be forgiven.

So the elves are seeking forgiveness from the Gods they rebelled against? Why did they rebel?

The Gray Havens is a place where Elvish ships depart to travel by "the straight road" back to Valinor.

Valinor??

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mark


It is now the time of men....



Why is it the time of men?

[Mark]

Why is it the time of men?

Because the elves have left.

So the elves are seeking forgiveness from the Gods they rebelled against? Why did they rebel?

The is the main tale in "The Silmarillion." Essentially, Feanor (an Elf Lord) made 3 jewels of incredible beauty, which were stolen by Morgoth (the devil, more or less) and taken to Middle Earth. The sons of Feanor swore a blasphemous oath that no one, not even the Gods would stop them from recovering the jewels. So they left Valinor (a paradise where the Gods dwell on Earth, sort of) and came to Middle Earth where they pretty much endured one tragedy after another (The "Long Defeat" mentioned in LOTR) as a result of the oath, and because they killed some of their own people when they left. Galadriel was among them, but didn't participate in the "kin-slaying."

The Anduin is west of Gondor, more or less. It runs for hundreds of miles.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony

Why is it the time of men? That's a question I can sink my teeth into. Now, I've only read the trilogy a couple times, and only once as an adult, but this issue really stands out for me.

The simple answer is that the elves are departing and the men are ascendent to the pinnacle of power in Middle Earth.

I have found the world of Middle Earth to be quite depressing to comprehend for one important reason: What to make of an unchanging (lack of progress) world? Now I know that Middle Earth has a long history of events unfolding, wars fought, peoples subjugated and freed, lands populated and abandoned, mithril mined, orcs created, etc, but where's it leading? What's the point? (aside: this would be a problem for me too in the real world if I believed in gods and intent in nature.) You see, the lack of technological progress seems to me to make for a really static history in some sense. I know that Tolkien doesn't really address the point of technological progress and the benefit it brings to improving the lives of mortals, and that's all good and well in a fantasy universe. But I see a ray of hope in the departure of the elves, ME's immortal, and hence timeless, overseers. The ascent of man in ME is perhaps the beginning of true progress. Mortal man (and hobbits and dwarves) has a stake in making life better for themselves and their descendents.

By the way, Tolkien does touch on technology as a device of evil, as in Sauron's machinations in the dark tower. What's he saying here? Is there an equivalency being drawn between the imperfections of man's desires for dominion over nature (Isuldur's bane?) and Sauron's attempts to dominate ME?

Let's discuss!

[Tony]

Does the distruction of the ring and the rise of Sauron have anything to do with the Elve's departure?

[Mark]

Originally posted by hgc
That's a question I can sink my teeth into. Now, I've only read the trilogy a couple times, and only once as an adult, but this issue really stands out for me.

The simple answer is that the elves are departing and the men are ascendent to the pinnacle of power in Middle Earth.

I have found the world of Middle Earth to be quite depressing to comprehend for one important reason: What to make of an unchanging (lack of progress) world? Now I know that Middle Earth has a long history of events unfolding, wars fought, peoples subjugated and freed, lands populated and abandoned, mithril mined, orcs created, etc, but where's it leading? What's the point? (aside: this would be a problem for me too in the real world if I believed in gods and intent in nature.) You see, the lack of technological progress seems to me to make for a really static history in some sense. I know that Tolkien doesn't really address the point of technological progress and the benefit it brings to improving the lives of mortals, and that's all good and well in a fantasy universe. But I see a ray of hope in the departure of the elves, ME's immortal, and hence timeless, overseers. The ascent of man in ME is perhaps the beginning of true progress. Mortal man (and hobbits and dwarves) has a stake in making life better for themselves and their descendents.

By the way, Tolkien does touch on technology as a device of evil, as in Sauron's machinations in the dark tower. What's he saying here? Is there an equivalency being drawn between the imperfections of man's desires for dominion over nature (Isuldur's bane?) and Sauron's attempts to dominate ME?

Let's discuss!

I think you are exactly right. Tolkien said many times that this story was a fictional "history" of prehistoric times. I think I read him quoted once as using the figure 16,000-20,000 years in the past. The age of magic passed, and then began the slow climb of technological civilization.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
Does the distruction of the ring and the rise of Sauron have anything to do with the Elve's departure?

Kind of. Rather in the sense of, "Our work here is finished, Tonto." Part of the reason some of them stayed was to help undo the damage they had helped cause in the first place. That, and they liked being the most noble of the races. In Valinor, they are at the bottom (although still exalted) rung.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mark


Kind of. Rather in the sense of, "Our work here is finished, Tonto." Part of the reason some of them stayed was to help undo the damage they had helped cause in the first place. That, and they liked being the most noble of the races. In Valinor, they are at the bottom (although still exalted) rung.

How did Sauron come to be in Middle Earth and eventually Mordor?

You said of the elves "damage they had caused", did they have anything to do with Sauron comming to Middle Earth?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony


How did Sauron come to be in Middle Earth and eventually Mordor?

You said of the elves "damage they had caused", did they have anything to do with Sauron comming to Middle Earth?

Sauron was originally a lieutenant of Morgoth. After he indirectly caused the destruction of Numenor (Atlantis..where the Gondor/Arnor people...Aragorn's ancestors...came from), he came to Middle Earth. The elves trusted him...some of them did) and helped him forge the rings of power. The 3 elvish rings, though, Sauron never touched...this always seemed a bit disengenuous of the elves to me: here, Sauron, we trust you enough to help make these powerful rings and for you to use them among other people, but we don't trust you at all with ours.

[Tony]

What happened to Morgoth?

[Tony]

Who created the different races of Middle Earth and what purpose does each race serve?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
What happened to Morgoth?

Imprisoned until the end of time in the halls of Mandos (the death God, sort of).

Somebody check me on that...he is definitely imprisoned and I think Mandos has him.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
Who created the different races of Middle Earth and what purpose does each race serve?

Eru, the One.

Except for the Dwarves who were "created" by Aule (another of the Gods); however, Aule was not able to give them true life...Eru had to do that.

The Orcs are corrupted and ruined elves...done by Sauron.

The Ents---Shepherds of the Trees--- were created by Eru at the request of Yavanna who feared there would be no one to look after the growing things that had no voices.

Btw, the "Gods" were really more like angels on steroids...Eru is the only true "God" in these stories.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mark


Imprisoned until the end of time in the halls of Mandos (the death God, sort of).

Somebody check me on that...he is definitely imprisoned and I think Mandos has him.

Yes, he's imprisoned in "the halls of Mandos" - i.e. death.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Mark

The elves trusted him...some of them did) and helped him forge the rings of power. The 3 elvish rings, though, Sauron never touched...this always seemed a bit disengenuous of the elves to me: here, Sauron, we trust you enough to help make these powerful rings and for you to use them among other people, but we don't trust you at all with ours.

I believe he came to the races in disguise. Either that or it was through trickery. After all he is the one that caused the humans of Numenor to get uppity and threaten Valinor, which resulted in Numenor being destroyed. The elves found out about the trick before he could put on the One Ring. The elves took off their rings so they wouldn't be controlled. After the One Ring was lost they then used their rings safely to support their society in a world of dwindling magic.

Once the One Ring is destroyed the other rings also loose some of their power. The power of the elves diminishes at an even faster rate, giving them little choice but to return to the west.



Oh, and the Anduin is located East of Gondor. It starts far to the north, traveling south through the forest of Mirkwood (formerly Greenwood the Great), located east of the Misty Mountains. It is the same river they travel on in the end of the first movie, though they are far south from Mirkwood by that point. Mordor is on the east side, Gondor is on the west.

[Dogwood]

pssst. Don't tell 'im what Gandalf really is. Make 'im read it!

[Tony]

What happens to the different races on Middle Earth when they die?


How does Gollum differ from the movie to the book?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
What happens to the different races on Middle Earth when they die?


How does Gollum differ from the movie to the book?

Elves are reborn within the confines of the world. Human's spirits go beyond it.

Gollum is about the same (I think) in both.

Marc,
Man, do I feel dumb!!!!! You are absolutely right about the Anduin...and I always pictured it on the west side. D'oh!

Was Sauron in disguise? I thought it was that some of the elves had believed he truly repented. In any case, it still (to me) doesn't explain why they were willing to help him make the other rings, but not touch (or even know about) theirs.

[Tony]

So human, when they die go to "heaven", or is the book not that specific?

Damn, I love LOTR, I had never really heard of it before the first movie came out. Did you see the preview for the "Return of the King" on TTT DvD?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tony
So human, when they die go to "heaven", or is the book not that specific?

Damn, I love LOTR, I had never really heard of it before the first movie came out. Did you see the preview for the "Return of the King" on TTT DvD?

It's not that specific, but it is clearly implied. Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

I agree...RK looks fantastic! Overall, I am very, very pleased with the movies, to put it mildly. I have a few quibbles, but the truth is, nobody could have done this project and pleased everyone on all points. Peter Jackson has done a superb---an amazing--- job.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mark

Was Sauron in disguise? I thought it was that some of the elves had believed he truly repented. In any case, it still (to me) doesn't explain why they were willing to help him make the other rings, but not touch (or even know about) theirs.

At the time, Sauron had the ability to "seem fair" - something he lost later on (I think at some point before the last Alliance, but I might be wrong.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
So human, when they die go to "heaven", or is the book not that specific?

When humans die, their spirits go to the hall of Mandos where they dwell for a time. Where they went after that, nobody but Eru knew. Only humans do this upon their death - when elves die their spirits go to Valinor, and there's no mention (IAFAIR) about what happened to ents or dwarves (or orcs) when they died.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


When humans die, their spirits go to the hall of Mandos where they dwell for a time. Where they went after that, nobody but Eru knew. Only humans do this upon their death - when elves die their spirits go to Valinor, and there's no mention (IAFAIR) about what happened to ents or dwarves (or orcs) when they died.

I don't think that is correct. It's Elves who go for a time to the halls of Mandos. Humans "leave the confines of the world." Aragorn says something like this to Arwen in the appendix.

[Morwen]

Only Elves go to the Halls of Mandos, if they die either of sadness or wounds. It's a kind of... healing place, for souls to rest for as long as they want until they are ready to go to the world again or turn to Valinor.

Humans die. And not even the Valar, the Powers of the world, know where they go when they die. When Eru created the world (with music) he put into the Song a theme that only he knew, and no one else. This was Death, only at that time it was a Gift, intended only for Men, who where born after the Elves.

So, Death was Eru's Gift to Men, and no one knew exactly what it was. Afterwards Morgoth started messing up with things and he made Men think that death was a bad thing, to be feared, and that's how things stand at the end of the Third Age. Maybe Aragorn knows this, since he's descended from Numenóreans, who, apart from being a bit of a bunch of pr*cks, were quite smart in their way too. Who knows? I mean, during the Third Age there's not much time for scholars to ponder about metaphysics.

*Sigh* Mark, move over... I so have no life...

And I cannot wait for RotK, the preview looks amazing!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Morwen
Only Elves go to the Halls of Mandos, if they die either of sadness or wounds. It's a kind of... healing place, for souls to rest for as long as they want until they are ready to go to the world again or turn to Valinor.

Humans die. And not even the Valar, the Powers of the world, know where they go when they die.

Yes, but humans first go to the halls of Mandos before they go on: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/h/hallsofmandos.html I was dead wrong about only humans going to the halls of Mandos though.

Beren and Luthien both returned from the halls of Mandos, and I have a vague notion that someone else did too for a brief while. Time to re-read the Silmarillion, apparently.

[Chaos]

The easterlings where those guys in the black garb, with those giant elephants, right?

But who where the other humans allied with Sauron, those Frodo, Sam and Gollum see at the black gate?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos

But who where the other humans allied with Sauron, those Frodo, Sam and Gollum see at the black gate?


Those were the Easterlings, the guys in black with the Elephants were some other race.

[Chaos]

But in the movie, that Gondorian warrior tells Faramir "easterlings and southrons" are arriving in great number.

The way the warriors at the black gate march, they are coming from the south. So I thought they are the southrons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
But in the movie, that Gondorian warrior tells Faramir "easterlings and southrons" are arriving in great number.

The way the warriors at the black gate march, they are coming from the south. So I thought they are the southrons.


I really dont know, im not an expert. The only reason I think those guys Sam and Frodo saw marching into Mordor are Easterlings, is because I saw a book about the movie and the caption under the photo of those guys said they were easterlings.

[asthmatic camel]

Perhaps one of the resident Tolkien experts can answer this question for me. I'm most concerned about Gollum's dental health; how on middle-earth is he going to bite off Frodo's finger without his dentures ?

"Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit."

I wondered how the old bugger managed to chew his sushi, it'd take him hours to gum a finger off.

Regards,

AC.

[Mark]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Perhaps one of the resident Tolkien experts can answer this question for me. I'm most concerned about Gollum's dental health; how on middle-earth is he going to bite off Frodo's finger without his dentures ?

"Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit."

I wondered how the old bugger managed to chew his sushi, it'd take him hours to gum a finger off.

Regards,

AC.

In the Hobbit, Gollum says he has 6 teeth.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Mark


In the Hobbit, Gollum says he has 6 teeth.

In the Hobbit, Gollum is also described as "as dark as darkness, except for two big round pale eyes in his thin face." Not exactly how he is portrayed in the films.

Anyway, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, I have just attempted to gnaw off my ring finger with my remaining 24 gnashers. It hurt but the digit remains attached to my hand.

Regards,

AC.

[Mark]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


In the Hobbit, Gollum is also described as "as dark as darkness, except for two big round pale eyes in his thin face." Not exactly how he is portrayed in the films.

Anyway, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, I have just attempted to gnaw off my ring finger with my remaining 24 gnashers. It hurt but the digit remains attached to my hand.

Regards,

AC.

Yeah, Tolkien's concept of Gollum clearly evolved as he wrote LOTR. In the Hobbit, he seems a little like a large, carnivorous frog. In the films, though, he is pretty much as he is decribed in the LOTR books.

I admire your dedication to scientific inquiry. I hope your finger gets well soon. :D

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Mark


Yeah, Tolkien's concept of Gollum clearly evolved as he wrote LOTR. In the Hobbit, he seems a little like a large, carnivorous frog. In the films, though, he is pretty much as he is decribed in the LOTR books.

I admire your dedication to scientific inquiry. I hope your finger gets well soon. :D

My finger's fine, it's my teeth that hurt:(