|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 1:12am
Post #26 of 61
(1099 views)
Shortcut
|
Isn't it possible that he intended to go to Bree after Isengard? He does tell them after all that he is going to meet Saruman. Couldn't he have turned around after that and met them there?
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 1:25am
Post #27 of 61
(1090 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Because you can love something and not think EVERYTHING is well done
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
LOTR is a very long story filled with endless detail. It's very possible to be a huge fan of a story and not agree with every decision the author made regarding all that detail. In fact I don't understand people who do! Given the chance to fix those things, I know I certainly would! Doing so wouldn't change what Tolkien wrote - the book's still there - it's just a different version of it. Plus, most of these characters end up in the same place anyway. In the films they just have a different way of getting there.
|
|
|
dreamflower
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 2:22am
Post #28 of 61
(1074 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, I am assuming that he planned to go to Bree after Isengard. But Isengard is hundreds of leagues in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION! Bree is only a couple of days travel beyond the Shire in the book, and it's even closer in movie-verse.
There is no way he could have arrived in Bree in time to meet the hobbits there. Yet that is clearly what he's implied to them, and it's clearly what they expected, since they ask the innkeeper about him.
So: either he lied to them (which I can't think even movie-verse Gandalf would do) or he was really rotten at geography or he had some super-sekrit instantaneous mode of transport he expected to use (Eagle express, perhaps?). Or PJ simply was not thinking straight when they penned that scene.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 10 2012, 3:36am
Post #29 of 61
(1125 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the book Aragorn is a main character
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and he changes very little, if at all. However our perception of him as readers changes during the course of the story by means of what we see of him through others eyes and their words to him. He goes from being a character of suspicion to a trusted ranger to a noble king...in our perception, without significantly changing as a person during that time. Tolkien is masterful at giving us glimpses and clues about Aragorn. Examples are 1) at Rivendell standing with Elrond and Arwen 2) when he is waiting to leave Rivendell with the Felllowship and he is sitting with his head between his knees and it is noted that "only Elrond fully understood what this hour meant to him" 3) on Cerin Amroth deep in thought 4) Galadriels words to him at their parting from Lorien. There are of course many more examples but I am not interested in writing an essay on this. We find out so much about him from these moments and he is not changing, and I personally find this less predictable, more enjoyable and better story telling than the "personal growth story formula". So Aragorn is noble at the beginning of the story and retains that nobility without compromise throughout the story to it's conclusion, it is just that this situation is revealed to us in generally subtle degrees. The most powerful exhibition of his nobility of character in my opinion is his declaration to Eomer when they meet, you can imagine my dissapointment at what resulted in the movie.
Faramirs change in the movie weakened the One Rings potency, he knew what it was, after his men cruelly tortured Gollum, craved it and rejected it thereby reducing it's potency. In the book he was uninformed on the matter for the main duration of Frodo and Sams capture, never sighted it, was not in a real position to be tempted by it and therefore was never really trialled as he was in the movie. If he had been trialled and subsequently tempted then he would have fallen as others had, therfore the One Ring in the book remains more potent. Sir PJ created a situation in the movie to put temptation in Faramirs way by means of an obvious and dire need (Ranger #4.....shorty, Osgiliath is under attack, there is a troop of Girl Guides there that won't leave until our forces there buy all of their cookies, they need reinforcements (or something to that effect)).
FYI the trilogy are some of my very favourite movies, and probably my favourite series of movies, and certainly the one I find the most emotionally powerful. Well short of the books, but still very good.
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Nov 10 2012, 10:18am
Post #30 of 61
(1141 views)
Shortcut
|
IMO, Aragorn is the most stuck-up character of all of Tolkien's "noble heroes". A true king does not make fun of good people like Barliman and Gimli. Also, his "I am the heir and you better not forget it" attitude to everyone got tiresome very quickly.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
(This post was edited by macfalk on Nov 10 2012, 10:18am)
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 10 2012, 5:51pm
Post #31 of 61
(1108 views)
Shortcut
|
directly contradicts that which Tolkien was trying to express about Aragorn, which is summed up with Elronds comment in UT Gladden Fields, something along the lines of nobility without pride, and altough I can only guess at the comments you are referring to, I believe you have grossly misrepresented their context. Sort of like your earlier comment about Beregond's exile to Ithilien. Making Aragorn out as stuck up is the same as when people say Boromir and Denethor are bad.
His claims as the heir is frequently the most misrepresented fact. If he was so pridefull of it he would have claimed Minas Tirith immediately instead of camping outside the gates.
(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 10 2012, 5:57pm)
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 6:28pm
Post #32 of 61
(1024 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think what all this boils down to...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...is what you're personally looking for in art or storytelling. If you want an authentic slice of life, heavy drama and emotion is never going to please you. I personally want a separation between the mundane realities of life and the representational expressions of drama. I want stories to sum up feelings and convey them in symbolic ways, not to just take a piece of life and portray it as it really is. That's what I have my own life for. Sometimes that can be done well, but my favorite stories are never like that.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 10 2012, 6:51pm
Post #33 of 61
(1042 views)
Shortcut
|
the book in no way resembles my life. I read your comments and then just as frequently others say changes need to be made so the audience can relate and to me the two points of view conflict.
I don't want to see everday life on screen or in the book when considering a story such as LOTR. That is why JRRT pretty much removed the mundane from all aspects of the story.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 6:57pm
Post #34 of 61
(1063 views)
Shortcut
|
If you find book-Aragorn more enjoyable, then who am I to tell you you're wrong? You're not wrong - I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you. I personally find the sheer number of "noble" characters in LOTR to be rather boring. That's it. Maybe I wouldn't feel as strongly if there weren't so many other characters this way. Flawed people are so much more interesting to me than perfect ones. It matters less to me whether Aragorn actually takes up the role of king than it is to see his struggle to do so. I think the main point of the "character journey" is that films are so self-contained, often much more so than literature. The LOTR novel has the advantage of so many other Tolkien works, and so Aragorn's other stories give his LOTR story context. But the films are really about one story. They don't have other complimentary works, so therefore we want to see all the facets of Aragorn's character within the time frame of the films. I think that's especially so for people who have never picked up a Tolkien book in their lives.
You see it as cliche - I see it as a necessary part of storytelling. Difference of opinion.
By the way, I think your example of how the reader's perception of Aragorn changes is still an example of a "journey" - just a different kind. It's ours rather than his, but it's still the same concept. If the filmmakers could have pulled that off in a similar way, it probably would have been fine. But to have Aragorn just tag along and then take up the throne is a little boring.
But when it comes to Faramir, I disagree - I think it increased the Ring's potency. To have him not tempted at all would have weakened the Ring because so many other characters - stronger ones even (Galadriel, Aragorn, Gandalf) - have been affected by it. They were all tempted and later rejected it; did those instances weaken the Ring? I don't think they did. This is just another one of them. In fact I think it even further established the fundamental difference between Faramir and Boromir. Both were tempted, but the stronger brother was able to overcome that temptation.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 7:03pm
Post #35 of 61
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, Gandalf did have a horse, which is surely much faster than Hobbits slowly walking. Plus he knew where he was going, and the Hobbits were walking through roadless territory they'd never seen before. Plus, as Philippa Boyens pointed out in the commentary, we don't know everywhere the hobbits went; the film's just cut around those moments. Keep in mind that they didn't change the map. It's similar to how they cut from a day scene to a night scene. The sun went down, but we don't need to see everything that happened during that time if it's irrelevant to the story.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 7:31pm
Post #37 of 61
(1022 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure MANY would disagree that he removed the mundane parts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've heard many people complain they couldn't get through parts of FOTR because there's so much walking through the woods with endless descriptions of nature. Not that I agree, but it's a common complaint out there.
I wasn't necessarily talking about specific relation to an audience member's own life. You brought up that it's more realistic to not have every character go through a journey, and I replied that I like storytelling to give summations of emotional ideas through its characters, not to present them as they would literally act in a given time frame in the real world. Basically I think an author should use his characters to convey certain ideas and emotions rather than have them exist to move the plot forward just because it seems more realistic. I'm talking specifically about characters we focus on, not Rohirrim Guard #4.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 10 2012, 8:04pm
Post #38 of 61
(1013 views)
Shortcut
|
the comment was a ridiculous statement, a joke, tounge in cheek if you like. I like the departure from my life in stories and it was being inferred that perhaps this was otherwise.
As far as removing the mundane is involved this refered to the mundane of everyday life, the things we need to do in our everyday, the main exception to this in the writing are meals and sleep. I have seen comments on different forums about toilet breaks etc and was even horrified at a recent suggestion that we may see Gandalf returning from a toilet break from behind a tree in the upcoming movies. This strikes me as a modern concept of including such things in the story, think of how many classic tales you would read about this, none I can think of.
|
|
|
dreamflower
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 8:29pm
Post #39 of 61
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But he did not have Shadowfax when he left the Shire
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Even with the book-verse, it only took the hobbits a week to get to Bree, and that was including a stay with Tom Bombadil and a delay with the barrow-wights. In the movies it is strongly implied that there is only a day between their crossing the Brandywine and arriving in Bree.
It took Gandalf twenty days to reach Orthanc; it might not have taken quite so long in the movie-verse, but it still would have taken him longer to just get there than it would have taken the hobbits to get to Bree--and I do not believe that PJ & Co. left a long enough gap to account for it--especially excluding old Tom and the barrow-wights. Even if Gandalf had not been delayed by his imprisonment by Sauron, he COULD NOT have reached Bree before Frodo and Sam did.
It's a mistake in continuity is all. It doesn't mean that it's a horrible movie or that I hate it for this reason. But it is still a mistake, and it was made because PJ wanted to get Frodo and Sam out of the Shire quickly, rather than take the time from Gandalf's proof of the Ring's identity in April to Frodo's birthday in September. So he has Gandalf rush them off and tell them to meet him in Bree (which made sense in the book--he had the time for that in the book if he had not been captured)-even though there was no way he could have done it in the movie. (On Shadowfax he did manage the return journey in only twelve days. But without Shadowfax, on an ordinary horse, he never could have done it.)
(This post was edited by dreamflower on Nov 10 2012, 8:32pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Gondolin
Nov 10 2012, 8:57pm
Post #41 of 61
(1032 views)
Shortcut
|
Magpie after Moving to the Shire in my Mind's Eye
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Over Christmas 1967...much that has transpired in
The last 45 years...has colored Bomby's
Life.
When my Goldberry died..She passed into.. The West.
When my Father died
he also sailed..
It isn't that Bomby is a Nutjob?..
it's that Charlie
has hope..
the way Tolkien expressed it
the Best...
over 70 years ago.
(This post was edited by Bombadil on Nov 10 2012, 8:59pm)
|
|
|
Magpie
Elvenhome
Nov 10 2012, 9:54pm
Post #42 of 61
(1019 views)
Shortcut
|
|
When a friend I made in Tolkien died unexpectedly...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...it hit me really hard. Another friend in Tolkien put it like this: "Some hurts are too deep for this world to heal. They have to be given to others to do so." Of course, he was putting it in the context of Frodo. That was another loss that had hit me hard and his words resonated with.
When my sister-in-law died, I spoke at her service and I used those same words, "Some hurts are too deep for this world. They have to be given to others to do so." And I spoke them to my sister when my mother died.
It's not so much that Tolkien's words are something that eases the pain of life. It just makes it somehow worthy. It puts pain into a perspective we can accept and even honor. It's part of life. Joy does not exist without pain. And pain is what informs us about what is important. When we feel grief at the loss of something, it is a beacon that *that* was important.
It's why this passage is the one that is most meaningful of anything that Tolkien wrote:
“And he sang to them, now in the Elven tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.”
It is no accident that these words/phrases were paired throughout:
wounded -- sweet
joy -- swords
pain -- delight
tears -- wine
Tolkien gets... and so do us all who have lived a full life... that those two sides are wedded together.
For such is the way of it: to find and lose, as it seems to those whose boat is on the running stream. But I count you blessed, Bombadil, husband of Goldberry: for your loss you suffer of your own free will, and you might have chosen otherwise. I read that (altered for you, of course) that you suffered of your own free will because you chose to love her. You could have protected yourself against loss by never allowing joy into your life. You chose love.
LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 10 2012, 11:42pm
Post #43 of 61
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Honestly I don't think it's something most people even notice
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Only a book fan who knows the distances on the map would notice it. All your information makes sense...I just don't think most people even think twice about it. I never did before you mentioned it, which is why I questioned it in the first place.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Gondolin
Nov 11 2012, 1:28am
Post #44 of 61
(963 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Magpie! ...Goldberry will be waiting to Meet you..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You understand Bomby better
than I do.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Nov 11 2012, 2:06am
Post #46 of 61
(960 views)
Shortcut
|
Moved me to tears, I have to admit (fruity ones, which an earthy finish). 
The value you find in Tolkien's words, and stories, dovetail almost exactly with mine. Particularly in the past three years, during which I have lost two people that were very dear to me.
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Nov 11 2012, 2:06am)
|
|
|
Elutherian
Nargothrond
Nov 11 2012, 3:34am
Post #47 of 61
(993 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I only remember Gimli burping once...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In TTT. The majority of the humor was based on his rivalry with Legolas. This may not be entirely in line with the books, but its hardly "lowest common denominator humor."
The Grey Pilgrim, they once called me. Three hundred lives of men I walked this earth, and now I have no time...
|
|
|
dreamflower
Menegroth
Nov 11 2012, 5:05am
Post #48 of 61
(1043 views)
Shortcut
|
In fact, it's one of the few mistakes I noticed early on. I really doubt if I'm the only person in the world who did a double-take about it.
Noticing or not noticing isn't the point. There are some things I didn't notice until someone else pointed them out to me. But even if nobody else notices, it's still there, it's still a mistake that could have been avoided with a little thought.
It doesn't ruin the entire movie, it's not a huge deal--not like some of the differences in characterizations, for example, that upset a good many people. I just pointed it out as one of the things that occasionally annoys me.
But it's nothing that Howard Shore's music can't make up for.
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Nov 11 2012, 12:26pm
Post #49 of 61
(1037 views)
Shortcut
|
I know what Tolkien was trying to accomplish with his "noble" heroes, but the result is very stale. I find book-Aragorn about as interesting as a piece of paper.
I'm tired of being spoonfed by snarky purists with the attitude of "You Just Don't Understand"
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Nov 11 2012, 5:43pm
Post #50 of 61
(976 views)
Shortcut
|
One can understand Tolkien's intent, and still not enjoy the result. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and should not be dismissed.
I think some people are put off, however, by the: "How can people like this bland stuff?" comments, which can come across as insulting.
I haven't heard you make such statements, but others here who have strong negative opinions on Tolkien's characters have.
|
|
|
|
|
