The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of The Rings: Elrond in the movies

The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of The Rings:
Elrond in the movies

aruman
Rivendell

Apr 4 2012, 5:12pm

Views: 1448

Elrond in the movies

Hello folks,

I am sorry, I am sure this has been discussed to death over the past several years, but I'm just re-reading the books again, and I am reminded of one of the complaints I had about the movies (which overall I do like a lot).

I've heard many people complain about Elrond coming across as a jerk in the films, which people feel was not represented in the books, and I agree 100%.

The most common argument I have heard defending PJ's Elrond is "Well, you'd be bitter too!"

To this I have a few points I'd like to bring up:

1.) Whether I would be bitter or not, Elrond is one of the most powerful characters for good in the book. I think it's reasonable to hold him to higher standard and expect him to be above labeling men as "weak" because of the actions of one man (now that man was one of the mightiest men in the books, so this point isn't all that strong, but I'm saving my best points for last).

2.) Whether we would be bitter in Elrond's shoes or not, Tolkien's Elrond wasn't bitter, or at least, it didn't come across in the same way as PJ's Elrond. The book Elrond seems much more compassionate and friendly.

3.) Elrond claims men are weak. His stance on the strength of men seems to be based in large part (if not solely) on Isildur keeping the ring rather than destroying it. The way I see it, his statements and feelings towards men imply that he believes that if an elf (say Gil-Galad or himself) had recovered the ring, they would have ran up the mountain and cast it into the fire without hesitation.

Sure Isildur failed to destry the ring, but he was the only one who COULD have failed to destroy the ring. It's not like there were 2 evil rings, and Elrond destroyed one and Isildur refused to destroy the other.

Could anyone have wilfully thrown the ring into the fire? I guess that's debatable, but I think we can all agree that it would be extremely difficult to do so. In fact, that is one of the main points of the book, I feel.

The only character in whose ability to throw the ring into the fire I would be confident would be Bombadil.

Isildur only did what Frodo tried to do (claim the ring).

So the way I see it, Elrond is bitter towards men b/c of one man, who did what pretty much any other creature (man, dwarf, elf, wizard, hobbit) would have done.

I don't think it's fair to say, "I would have destroyed it!" It's a tough situation, and if Elrond hadn't been put to that temptation I don't feel he is justified in saying that men are weak. In the book, many powerful characters (including Gandalf, Galadriel, and I think Elrond) refused the ring for that reason. (I don't think Elrond was ever offered it, but I seem to recall him saying he wouldn't touch it).

4.) Elrond states that "It is because of men that the ring survived," or something to that effect. We could just as easily say, "It is because of men that we have the ring, and Sauron does not."

Anyway, thanks for reading! Sorry for complaining, but I really liked Elrond much more in the book than the movies!

Harold.of.Whoa
Rivendell

Apr 4 2012, 6:01pm

Views: 992

Consider the changes as being about Aragorn

Aruman,

I think some of the complaints about Movie Elrond are valid, and you lay them out well.

I can't make you feel any better about the diminishment of a character you love, but I might suggest a couple of thoughts about why it might have been done.

The entire "Men are weak" story emphasis is, I believe, in place because of a decision to enlarge the importance of Aragorn's character, making him more of a co-equal figure with Frodo. Doing so required Aragorn's character to have more of a developmental arc than in the book, and also made it desirable to revise Aragorn's motivations to something easier for a broad audience to understand, accept, and invest in.

Elrond's display of personal dismay at Isildur's failings, his reproachful attitude toward Aragorn's life choices, and his extrapolated prejudice towards the potential for good in Men are all written in to lay the groundwork for Aragorn's 'journey.' Movie Aragorn shares this doubt about his own people and himself, and that provides a starting point for his transformation, his reason for staying in exile, the timing of his emergence, the reason he ultimately seeks the throne, and his evolving relationship with Arwen (even though they are separated for almost the entire trilogy.)

The emotional punch to the end of FotR stems directly from this storyline.

A side benefit (if you want to look at it that way) of the Elrond re-imagining is that it gives Elrond's character an arc as well, and it allows him to be in the story much more than in the book. It also enfolds him into a central theme that is woven throughout the trilogy having to do with Engagement vs. Withdrawal. Something similar is true for Arwen, to an even greater extent.

I have been thinking about this issue a lot recently in connection with another discussion in another forum, at least insofar as it pertains to Movie Aragorn's character and his core motivations. That's why I wanted to respond to your post. I know that none of this really defends the changes to Elrond, per se, but it might be something to ponder.

aruman
Rivendell

Apr 5 2012, 2:38am

Views: 912

Good points

Harold,

Thanks...your post actually does make me feel better about PJ and the movies. I had been hoping that someone would make these films long before they were made, so I really shouldn't begrudge PJ taking a few liberties with the characters.

I do really like Elrond in the books, and dislike his portrayal in the films, but you're right, it does make some sense why PJ did it when considered in that light.

Fertlthewhite
Bree

Apr 5 2012, 7:36am

Views: 905

Elrond

.. I think Elrond could have end it all by kicking Isildur into the fire of Mt Doom - instead of letting him walk away with the Ring...

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 5 2012, 7:44am

Views: 898

This raises a couple of issues

1) I don't think Elrond would have pushed Isildur. They are a too kindly race Angelic

2) Would Elrond not have been tempted by the Ring? Mad

3) Would Isildur have overcome (either by own strength or the Rings power) and killed Elrond Evil

4) Did Elrond know of the full power of the Ring? - The Istari had not yet been sent to Middle-Earth to advise on these matters. Pirate

I am sure there are more Wink

Fertlthewhite
Bree

Apr 5 2012, 7:51am

Views: 886

too kindly to end all evil once and for all?

... Elrond surely did know of all the things to come - at least Galadriel

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 5 2012, 8:08am

Views: 878

Elrond would have commited murder

Murder=evil. That's not Elrond, and it's certainly not what Tolkien intended to happen.

Also remember, that this scene from the film is an invention of the film-makers. If I remember rightly, they were not at the Cracks, but on the slopes of Mount Doom. It wouldn't have been a simple matter of pushing Isildur into the Fire. He would have had to have attacked him - with respective armies surrounding them.

Fertlthewhite
Bree

Apr 5 2012, 8:16am

Views: 877

martyr for the good

... but this would lead to a very lame and short book...

(This post was edited by Fertlthewhite on Apr 5 2012, 8:18am)

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 5 2012, 8:31am

Views: 900

Movie Elrond

is unfortunately one of the characters in the movie that is substantially different to, and almost unrecognisable from the one in the book. His disdain for men is a poor decision on the part of the film makers that fails to recognise his own heritage in the books as well as his foster role in the raising of Aragorn, let alone the fact that his own children yet had the decision before them that they may ultimately choose to share the Fate of Men.

As for destroying the One Ring, that is impossible to do willingly as written in Letter 131 "Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought. It was in any case on his finger."

We see examples in the book version of the wise rejecting the One Ring for fear, and no one knows all about the One Ring apart from it's maker, so Elrond could not have know the effect it would have on Isiludr or indeed the fact it would have on himself if he took it.

Book Elrond is not at all bitter and although he has seen "many defeats, and many fruitless victories" and he fears the decision that Arwen may yet make if Aragron is to succeed and become the King of Gondor and Arnor he ultimately accepts it, which is about the only similarity he shares with movie Elrond.

aruman
Rivendell

Apr 6 2012, 3:56am

Views: 827

Agreed

Thanks, I was unfamiliar with that letter of Tolkien's, but it only reinforces my resentment with Elrond in the movies and his jerkiness.

However, I would be very curious to ask Mr. Tolkien, "Could Bombadil have cast the ring into the fire?"

I agree that the character is almost unrecognizable (as is Denethor, IMO), and I strongly disagree with the film makers' decision to butcher this great character.

aruman
Rivendell

Apr 6 2012, 4:12am

Views: 852

Thoughts

Daniel and Fertl,

Good points...I think many of us wondered at the scene in which Elrond tells Isildur to throw it into the fire, "Could Elrond have tried to force him, or possibly thrown Isildur in?"

My opinions regarding Daniel's questions:

2) Would Elrond have been tempted by the ring?
If he were holding it in his hand, I'd say definitely. Could he have pushed someone into the fire knowing that it would destroy the ring? Maybe, but I agree with you that he wouldn't have anyway.

3) Could Isildur have overcome Elrond?
With the ring in his grasp, that close to where it was forged, yes, I put my money on Isildur.

Now, here's the main thing the proposition of Elrond killing Isildur to destroy the ring brings to my mind (2 points really):

1.) It would be a very tough ethical decision. Do I kill one person in hopes that it will save the lives of many? Perhaps also saving Isildur himself from a fate worse than death? A tough ethical decision, but I agree that for Elrond the answer was easily no, do not attempt to harm Isildur b/c it's wrong (book Elrond, at least, movie Elrond was such a jerk it's hard to put it past him).

2.) Sorry for getting philosophical here, but I feel like in Tolkien's Middle Earth the ring just couldn't be destroyed by an act of harm towards another. If Elrond had attacked Isildur, I feel like something would have gone wrong.

Maybe he could have thrown Isildur in, maybe they both would have fallen in, but in either case I feel like the Ring would have survived, somehow. Maybe they would drop it then tumble in together, leaving the ring unharmed.

I believe that just as we cannot take the Ring and use it for good, even with the noblest intentions, we cannot destroy the Ring by the willful killing of another (Isildur).

PS as I re-read these books, I'm also starting to feel the same way about Haldir. He seems much kinder in the books, not such a jerk like in the movies LOL

(This post was edited by aruman on Apr 6 2012, 4:13am)

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:29am

Views: 825

We know that

Bombadil could not have cast it into the fire.

Bombadil had the very chance of taking the Ring from Frodo and undertaking the quest himself - he didn't want to. And that probably comes down to the fact he is such an enigma and mysterious character.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:33am

Views: 835

Agree with your points

I just can't see Elrond pushing Isildur in. Elrond was not an evil person, and he certainly wasn't a murderer. Yes, it would have solves a whole load of issues later on, but he is not evil.

The running theme through Tolkiens works are the seeds of evil. Not only do the seeds of evil continue to sprout and grow in Middle-Earth, but the dark conditions in which they flourish continue to spread. Would a seed of evil then be planted within Elrond? A whole host of issues may then unfold.

imin
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 9:00am

Views: 851

The ring was weregild

to isildur for his fathers death. It was a combination of gil-galad, elendil and isildur or just isildur himself depending on how one interprets Saurons 'death' in the battle of last alliance.

As such Elrond had no right to take it from Isildur as it wasnt his to take away from Isildur. Elrond knew he could not take it and so didnt, of course he could have tried to fight isildur for the ring to try and cast it in himself, or just push isildur in himself but that would not of worked out well when he came back to everyone and all the men are like, wheres the ring, or wheres our king? Crazy

Plus like everyone is saying elrond wanted to do the right thing by his ally.

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 6 2012, 9:55am

Views: 814

They were never

at the crack of doom either. They were on the slopes of Mt Doom, not just Isildur & Elrond but also Cirdan.

imin
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 10:01am

Views: 811

yeah exactly

So Elrond throwing isildur in would have took some effort to do, lol and like i said it was isildurs weregild so he could do what he wanted with it.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 10:07am

Views: 812

Weregild

You learn a new word everyday! Never heard it before Smile

imin
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 10:12am

Views: 809

It is written here

"This I will have as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?"
- The Silmarillion: "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," p. 295

I think it is also somewhere in the council of elrond, but i might of remembered that wrong. I didnt know what it meant when i first read it Crazy

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 6 2012, 10:13am

Views: 804

I correct

myself . Of course in the movies they did go to the cracks so that point remains relevant for the movies but not the books.

Yes he had right to a weregild but at the very least his choice as much as it was his to make was a bad one. Of course the One Ring laden with Saurons will fresh from his hand probably had more to do with the decision to take it than Isildur did himself especially once he had touched it.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 10:18am

Views: 804

Well I must of read it before then

Not sure how I ever missed that then!

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 6 2012, 10:19am

Views: 804

Isildur

exaggerates his death blow claim in the books. Elendil & Gil-galad had already rendered Sauron incapacitated at the cost of their own lives, all Isildur did was lop of the ring finger.

Also Isildur is probably the most unduly vilified character in Tolkiens writings followed a close second by Boromir when it comes to readers opinions.

Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 2:37pm

Views: 820

Destroying the Ring

Does not "end all evil once and for all."

It simply ends that particular evil - the one that is a sort of godly manifestation on Earth. It also ends some of the "good" done by the other three rings...

The demise of the Ring marks the end of the era of Hell (and Heaven) on Earth, and the beginning of a mundane age, full of mundane evil and mundane good. In other words, our world.

(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Apr 6 2012, 2:39pm)

Otaku-sempai
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:41pm

Views: 787

Yes, Bombadil could have cast the Ring into the fire...

In Reply To

It's not that Tom couldn't have done it. The Ring had no power over him; of course he could have cast it into the Cracks of Doom. Tom is an elemental being who has no use for quests or Rings or anything outside of his limited area of interest. He would not have claimed the Ring for himself, but he was more likely to lose interest in such a mission and simply chuck the Ring into the Aduin or down a rabbit hole than to complete the quest.

"Darkness beyond blackest pitch, deeper than the deepest night!
King of Darkness, who shines like gold upon the Sea of Chaos.
I call upon thee and swear myself to thee!
Let the fools who stand before me be destroyed by the power you and I possess!"

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:46pm

Views: 784

Mis-understood my post

Bombadil could not have cast it into the fire because he had no interest in doing it.

Not that he wasn't physically able.

Otaku-sempai
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:52pm

Views: 785

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Bombadil could have destroyed the Ring; he would not have carried out the mission. The word that you want is 'would'.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 8:55pm

Views: 444

Eh? /

Otaku-sempai
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 9:03pm

Views: 447

You understand perfectly well what I wrote.

Bombadil was capable of destroying the Ring; it had no hold over him and he had no desire for it. However, he was too 'flighty' (for lack of a better word) to be sent on such a mission.

Now, let's not argue in front of the children.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 9:05pm

Views: 449

But I'm not arguing and

you put what I was saying ... just differently Wink

Otaku-sempai
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 9:08pm

Views: 445

It's a matter of semantics...

The words 'could' and 'would' are not interchangable. Hopefully, this ends the matter.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 9:13pm

Views: 450

Ok Otaku-sempai

I am well aware of when to use "could" and "would". Shall leave it at that my friend Smile

(mainly because I am confused rather than anything else).

imin
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 9:54pm

Views: 433

I have always thought

elendil and gil-galad 'killed' sauron and isildur effectively just chopped off the ring from saurons hand. But i have read other posts (in other forums etc) which say they think elendil and gil-galad greatly wound/subdue sauron but its isildur who actually kills him.

I think from tolkien's writings people can interpret it either way. i will try looking for the quotes at some time, right now its late.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 9:59pm

Views: 425

Letter 131

Quote

Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron. Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows

But then how does one define "slaying"? To overwelm or to kill?

imin
Valinor

Apr 6 2012, 10:30pm

Views: 429

yeah exactly

I have always took it to be they essentially killed sauron and isildur did the last tiny little bit but then obviously claimed he did more.

But i have read other peoples interpretations of this passage saying they died and sauron was dying but not dead and so it was isildur in the end that killed him.

DanielLB
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 10:33pm

Views: 427

Yeah, its a tricky one

I couldn't find any other substantial passages (did you?). It really depends how you define "slaying". I can see both sides of the arguments

Magpie
Immortal

Apr 6 2012, 10:43pm

Views: 455

There was a similar discussion on imdb recently

about the word 'smote'. Did Gandalf kill the Balrog? It hinges on how one defines smote.

http://www.imdb.com/...board/nest/195865593

LOTR soundtrack website
magpie avatar gallery ~ Torn Image Posting Guide

TheGoblinKing
Rohan

Apr 10 2012, 9:46pm

Views: 407

UM Aren't Elves Weaker Then Men

When it comes to the one ring. The Wizards and Elves cannot even touch the ring because they become evil in a second. I realize Galadrial was a witch and all but my point is that I think an Elf when it comes to the ring become more twisted then a Hobbit or Human ever could be. Id say Elrond would have become evil lord Elrond.

The True King Of Mordor

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 10 2012, 10:14pm

Views: 422

TheGoblinKing

they fear it becasue they have knowledge in the matter and know what can happen. They are exhibiting their wisdom not a weakness by refusing to touch the One Ring. Men are more readily susceptible than elves or wizards and as such men were the easiest of all races for Sauron to corrupt. The dwarves proved resistant and the Hobbits proved to be unexpectadly resistant but to paraphrase Gandalf "There is only one power that knows all about the rings and no power that knows all about Hobbits."

Also Galadriel was not a witch although some held that opinion of her such as the Rohirrim, who Gimli was only too happy to re-educate under the loving blows of his axe, out of respect for the lady Galadriel.

TheGoblinKing
Rohan

Apr 11 2012, 12:43am

Views: 400

Still Yet

I think Elves would be taken quick by the ring like Gollum. I think we don't know if Elrond is any more morally better then Isuildor simple because he neve rhad the ring in his hand or touching his skin. I think its a greater thing that BIlbo a Hobbit can use it like a toy while Gandalf and Elves are affraid to even touch it.

The True King Of Mordor

ElendilTheShort
Gondor

Apr 11 2012, 1:18am

Views: 396

Bilbo could use

it like a toy because he did not know what it was, or indeed what it was capable of during his time as the bearer of the One Ring and he had no desire for power or domination of others, which is the primary purpose of the One Ring "One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them" literally the intent of Sauron when he forged the One Ring. Whereas the powerful who know what the One Ring is would want to do good with it but it would ultimately turn them to evil ways. I do not have the books with me but Gandalf and Galadriel both specifically say this of themselves.

Gollum started his bearership of the Ring with an evil act, the murder of Deagol. It is not suggested that the Ring made him do anything that he was not inclined to do anyway although the appearance of the Ring is suggested to be a trigger for his action. In complete contrast to this, Bilbo started his bearership of the Ring with mercy. He spared Gollum's life when he (Bilbo) was trying to escape and it would have been much easier for him to stab Gollum instead of leaping over him. Therefore although they are essentially of the same race, due to their inherent nature, one being evil and the other being good, as well as their actions, an evil act as opposed to good act, respectively made it easier or more difficult for the One Ring to exert it's influence over them as individuals.

Elrond is no more appreciably morally superior or more of a "good" person than Isildur. They are both mighty and noble, in the books at least. It is the movies that make it appear that bearing the One Ring or claiming it makes one automatically inclined to evil. In the books this is not the case. The Ring works in assisting a persons actions and they start out thinking they are doing good and it turns them to evil ways eventually, and the time this takes varies on the persons specific stature and the degree to which they were inclined towards good or evil to start with. To this end there is nothing to say that elves or Istari (the wizards) are more susceptible as races to domination by the One Ring than humans, hobbits or dwarves.

(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Apr 11 2012, 1:22am)

aruman
Rivendell

Apr 11 2012, 2:48am

Views: 523

AND...

Gollum may have been wicked before the ring, and it can also be argued that he was driven mad by the Ring the first time he laid eyes on it...but Gandalf also stated in the Shadow of the Past chapter of FOTR (I believe) that Gollum proved to be very tough against he Rings will, as their was a small part of his mind that was still his...

In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.