|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thorondil
Registered User
Mar 4 2008, 4:30pm
Post #1 of 23
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The 2nd Hobbit Film...
|
Can't Post
|
|
First, let me say, that this is a gift to ALL Tolkien fans...and in the hands of Peter Jackson both the Hobbit and the 2nd film will stay essentially true to the words and intentions of JRR Tolkien...as for the content of the 2nd film, there is a TON of material to cover...I can easily see this film being at least 2 and half hours...think of the material that must be covered before the start of the LOTRs...
1. Arathorn is killed and Gilraen and Aragorn take up residence in Rivendell...there, Aragorn is raised as Elrond's own son as Estel...at 20 his lineage is explained, he sees Arwen and sets off into the wild...this should, and will, be the cornerstone of the new film...tying in Arwen as often as they can...their plight at Cerin Amroth will be worth the price of admission alone...
2. Aragorn's growth into becoming the greatest man upon Middle Earth take him to Rohan to help Theodon's father, Thengel...brilliant tie in to the LOTRs movies...then he helps/saves Gondor with his brilliant attack upon the quays of Umbar...the respect and love he earns from not only the soldiers of Gondor, but Denethor's father Ecthelion, earn Thorongil/Aragorn the eternal hate of Denethor...again, brilliant stuff...
3. Aragorn's relationship/friendship with Gandalf will also dominate this movie...their guard over the Shire whilst discussing the plans for the fate of Middle Earth is great stuff...their search for Gollum and his eventual capture will be important...which leads me to Gandalf and Gollum...
4. Gandalf will obviously also dominate this movie...as discussed his relationship with Aragorn, but also his ties to the White Council and the driving of Necromancer, Sauron, out of Dol Gulder...in fact, this will likely be the first major scene in the movie as it ties in the Hobbit, and prefaces the ultimate rise of Sauron in Mordor and the events in the LOTRs...there is great stuff here...the early suspicions of Saruman, the concerns of Elrond and Galadriel...brilliant stuff...if the filmmakers and screenwriters are truly clever, they will give Saruman a significant role, as he retreats to Isengard and begins his LUST for the ring, including looking into the Palantir and being caught by Sauron...by raising his own army in secret, and by searching the vales of the Anduin for any signs of the remains of Isildur and the one ring...again, brilliant stuff...as sad as it makes me to think of the distressing way the such a great man as Isildur died, it is powerful stuff thinking about Saruman finding his remains and the star of the Numenorians...
5. The Shire, Bilbo and Frodo...whilst the story is progressing checking in on the Shire with Bilbo and his adoption of Frodo will be compelling...also, this might be an appropriate place to tie in Balin's visit and the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain...perhaps a young Gimli accompanying Balin???
6. I think the film will start with the fall of Dol Guldur, and Sauron fleeing to Mordor...then the decline of the White Council due to the actions and rebellion of Saruman...it will then piece together all the main characters and peoples through the acts and actions of Aragorn and Gandalf, while always building and building to emergence of a powerful Sauron in Mordor and setting the table for the beginnings of the LOTRs...
All in all, I truly believe it is a powerful story and one that should be told...in the hands of Peter Jackson it will remain true to the heart of Tolkien, as well as vital and vibrant...the adventures of Aragorn alone will make this a powerful film, and his relationship with Arwen, priceless...
Personally, I cannot wait for this movie and believe that it will be done very well!
Peace my friends...
All that is gold does not glitter...
All that is gold does not glitter...
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Mar 4 2008, 4:38pm
Post #2 of 23
(542 views)
Shortcut
|
That was the big disappointment with The Sil and COH: No hobbits!
Hopefully Jackson won't make the same mistake as Tolkien.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
ShadoFaxs
Ossiriand
Mar 4 2008, 8:53pm
Post #3 of 23
(501 views)
Shortcut
|
Since PJ is something of a hobbit himself, I can't imagine him or GDT making the "sequel" without them 
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Nargothrond
Mar 4 2008, 9:53pm
Post #4 of 23
(503 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Covering new ground in the bridge film...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Welcome to TORN Thorondil! You've got some interesting suggestions there in your bridge film plot proposal.
My thinking on the bridge film is that is has to be well integrated, with character journeys that lead to a climax and a conclusion. Ideally it will take us to new locations and explore new themes in Middle Earth (though this is tricky since Tolkien only roughly sketched the events of the bridge film).
In this sense Aragorn's early travels to Rohan and Gondor (that you summarise very well) feel like going over the same ground as LotR, with the same locations and similar character relationships. For me its the Necromancer story, and Gandalf's journey in convincing the White Council to attack Dol Guldur (while Saruman plots against him) that seems to deliver something new. Aragorn would still be included, meeting Arwen and helping Gandalf to search the Gladden Fields and possibly search for Gollum. In terms of a film climax, The Attack on Dol Guldur could be a climax of sorts, but without much of a resolution (though this is always going to be a problem with a 'bridge' film).
Darkstone makes the point that including hobbits is important (at least from a commercial view). I think I remember hearing PJ talk about Aragorn defending The Shire in the bridge film, though this seems a bit lame compared to his other heroic exploits!
Visit my website Storyscape.
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Mar 4 2008, 10:06pm
Post #5 of 23
(520 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think we need to see Aragorn wimp out
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
After all, in the LotR trilogy, Aragorn starts as a man with a secret in his past: that he has "chosen exile" rather than aspire to regain the kingship that is his heritage.
This was not Tolkien's intent, of course, but since the filmmakers are stuck with it, it would seem like the obvious story for the "bridge film" as far as Aragorn goes. Why does he choose exile? What terrible failing overcame him? The movie ought to end on a tragic note, highlighting his weakness not his strength, to help justify the otherwise inexplicable character 'arc' that is already set on film for the LotR trilogy.
It should be real, too. Not fake, like we can see that he is going to shrug it off as soon as something important comes along. If the bridge film can't be watched as a story or set of stories that stand alone and have their own interest -- their own self-contained beginning, middle, and end -- it's going to run out of steam pretty fast.
A good movie doesn't "cover" a bunch of events. It tells a story that is interesting to people who know nothing about it when they sit down in the theater.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Mar 5 2008, 5:53am
Post #6 of 23
(508 views)
Shortcut
|
and in the hands of Peter Jackson both the Hobbit and the 2nd film will stay essentially true to the words and intentions of JRR Tolkien...
Why on earth would you remotely think that, given that PJ has so far failed dismally to do so in his first three tries?
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 5 2008, 7:40am
Post #7 of 23
(484 views)
Shortcut
|
Aragorn starts as a man with a secret in his past
Showing what led Aragorn to have "chosen exile" might well be an interesting basis for a storyline. It wouldn't have been because he'd "wimped out" though, surely - someone who'd wimped out would be the first to seize on the chance of a massive great sword to compensate for his lack of manhood, wouldn't he? The sword represents power and authority - the kind of authority that's imposed rather than earned. That's what Aragorn is afraid of. So perhaps in his youth he came close to committing an atrocity - close to killing a comrade perhaps? Someone who showed too little respect for Arwen maybe? If they could disguise the source well enough, the screenwriters could probably find a scene from the Children of Hurin to use for inspiration. Like Turin, Aragorn grows up among Elves, Elves who sometimes remind me of well-meaning middle-class white people who might adopt a child from another race out of kindness but then allow him to grow up believing that he's somehow inferior because of his race. When you've been brought up to believe "Men are weak", it takes a lot of moral strength not to grab power when it's offered to you.
Of course, in the Appendices to the book, we find out that Aragorn didn't really accept the power and authority of the sword without earning it - he had spent many years learning to be a leader. In the movies we see him learning to be a leader in real time - that's the interest of the relationship in the movies between Aragorn and Theoden. As he helps Theoden relearn what leadership really is, Aragorn learns it for himself as well. But the "bridge movie" could certainly show us the early Aragorn who first learns the pitfalls of power.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Mar 5 2008, 7:41am)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 5 2008, 8:48am
Post #8 of 23
(508 views)
Shortcut
|
that's one of the reasons why I love the movies: Despite the changes made to the storyline, PJ, Fran and Philippa stayed true to the spirit of Tolkien. But what chimed with me clearly didn't chime with you.
There's a thought: Does every person see a different movie, because everyone brings something different to it? I wonder if this is where physics comes in - something about how merely watching an atom changes its nature.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Padster
Nevrast
Mar 5 2008, 12:47pm
Post #9 of 23
(474 views)
Shortcut
|
..."...failed dismally...", but there were some very serious shortcomings to be sure. And it did get worse as the trilogy progressed.
Cheers
Padster
|
|
|
Solicitr
Mithlond
Mar 5 2008, 4:33pm
Post #10 of 23
(478 views)
Shortcut
|
never even understood the 'spirit of Tolkien', much less stayed true to it. His cluelessness is breathtaking.
|
|
|
Thorondil
Registered User
Mar 5 2008, 7:03pm
Post #11 of 23
(464 views)
Shortcut
|
I too was frustrated with many of the subtle changes in the storyline as the movie trilogy progressed...I thought that "Fellowship" was a brilliant movie...as a stand alone piece, it is breathtaking movie making and story telling, whether you are a huge Tolkien fan or not...I thought the Two Towers was a very, very good film, but it was the start of some character changes that bothered me...in particular with Aragorn and his "struggle" with internal weakness over his lineage and the lust for the ring...it was saved however, as Aragorn takes over the defense of Helm's Deep and stays true to the books in large part...but it was the Return of the King that they truly bastardized the storyline and characters the most in the name of Hollywood film making...at the end of the day, it is watchable, because of the incredible storyline and stunning visual effects, but the relationship between Sam and Frodo (in the movie) and the progression of Aragorn, leave me very frustrated...as well, Jackson's portrayal of the soldiers of Gondor is appalling...even in their waning, the Men of Minas Tirith still have MUCH Numenorean blood, no matter how much it has become "intermingled" and there is NO WAY that these physically gifted, extremely intelligent, very powerful (especially for Middle Earth standards) and very well armed soldiers were going to lose almost every single handed battle against mere Orcs, Uruks or not...also, that lack of intelligence in defense of Osgiliath is appalling...Peter played on the overwhelming odds angle perhaps too much, and he would have been truer, and better served, by going with the heart of the books, in that the Gondorians made the enemy pay dearly in every exchange but were still overwhelmed, not that they were out-hearted, out-fought, and out-witted in every exchange...I was waiting so long to see Minas Tirith and Gondor, and while as visually stunning as set pieces were the people of Gondor, the only living vestiges of Numenor, were VERY disappointing...these are freaking Numenorians for goodness sake!!! Thus it makes it very hard for me to watch...to see Aragorn so weak or even physically so short, is frustrating...
But, again at the end of the day, Peter DID stay true to the overall themes and messages of Tolkien, and while I disagree completely in some areas, I still respect the end product...I certainly would have constructed the screenplay differently, but then I may not have won a multitude of Oscars either...
The Brige film, in PJs hands, will NOT be a disappointment and will not be complete fabrication...as my original post suggests, there is a TON of material to base this movie on...the focus of the storyline should be ESCALATION...the stakes at every level are rising and Middle Earth is being pushed to the brink, which of course all plays out in the Lord of the Rings...Escalation means tension, and thus the bridge film should be an exciting, nerve wracking piece where all of the characters play out their destinies...I want to see the White Council interact together...I want to see the special arts that Saruman uses to help drive the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur...I want to see the obsessed Saruman search the Gladden fields for the ring...perhaps find the remains of Isildur??? Wow...his looking into the Palantir and being ensnared by Sauron, and then his hidden plans to build himself as a power...brilliant stuff...
Aragorn...my most beloved and reveered character in all of Tolkien's writings...my hope is that we will see the true Aragorn struggle with his lineage, with his DOOM, with his love for Arwen...wanting a simpler life in love with this incredibly perfect Elf maiden, and yet carries the hopes and fates of a multitude of races squarely upon his human shoulders...again, brilliant stuff...how could anyone live with pressure like this...to NOT be allowed to marry your true love unless you become no less than the High King of both Gondor and Arnor and defeat Sauron, and essentially save Middle Earth...ahh, yeah...just a little pressure don't you think??? So off into the wilderness you go over the entire confines of Middle Earth to start and finish your training to become the greatest man on Earth...all the while missing Arwen like crazy...missing your mother...your people...your homeland of Arnor and Rivendell...he assists the Rohirrim and learns much of their ways...he creates the framework for survival in Gondor, learns of Minas Tirith and the politics there that have kept his line off the throne for centuries...I mean this is a journey worth following, watching...his massive victory upon the quays of Umbar will signal Aragorn as ready to meet his doom in the Lord of the Rings...great stuff for movie making...
So as the film makers visit each culture again and each main character again, we see shadows creep upon them...we see the escalation of tension and war in Middle Earth...setting the table for the Lord of the Rings...Saruman distancing himself towards evil...Wormtongues effects upon Theodon and the weakening of Rohan....Denethor's jealousy of Thorongil...his incurable desire to learn more about this Thorongil...his temptation to look into the Palantir...does Denethor's madness start here? Does Denethor poison Echthelion or hasten his demise so that he can seize control of the Stewardship before this Thorongil can seize power as King??? Gandalf becomes concerned over the happenings inside of Mordor...concerned that Bilbo does NOT seem to age...worried about Saurman's behavior, of the Elves leaving Middle Earth in masses...he attaches his hope to men and their as of yet undeclared leader, Aragorn son of Arathorn...that Gollum is on the loose...Saruman's obsession with Saruon trying to find the ring....Middle Earth is in flux and that should be the focus of the movie and will be at the heart of Tolkien's writings...
All that is gold does not glitter...
(This post was edited by Thorondil on Mar 5 2008, 7:11pm)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 5 2008, 11:18pm
Post #12 of 23
(471 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The "spirit of Tolkien" is in the eye of the beholder.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't much like Jackson's Tolkien films, but many people who love the books like Jackson's interpretation very much. I think that Jackson himself has his own idea of what the "spirit" of Tolkien's works are, and fashioned his films to be true to that spirit, within the constraints of his own artistic sensibility and the need to produce a trilogy of three-hour films (where much necessarily had to be cut and changed). For me, all three aspects: his own misunderstandings of Tolkien, his particular approach to film, and the commercial requirements, led him to a lot of bad choices. But almost five years after the release of RotK, it's no longer enough to just say that: it's past time to beyond the baseline of disagreement between the admirers and critics of Jackson's LotR, and I have found myself hard-pressed on these boards to counter some of the superb arguments put forth in favor of even some of what I find to be Jackson's worst choices. There are few aspects of Jackson's films that you can cite as flaws that won't find carefully reasoned support here. Give it a try.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 5 2008, 11:36pm
Post #13 of 23
(452 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Is that really in the Appendices?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of course, in the Appendices to the book, we find out that Aragorn didn't really accept the power and authority of the sword without earning it - he had spent many years learning to be a leader. He spends many years in errantry, often using a false identity, but I don't recall anything about Aragorn not accepting power, even in youth. In the books, he can't choose exile: like his many ancestors before him, Gondor won't have him (and probably don't know of his existence -- though Darkstone disagrees).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Mar 5 2008, 11:37pm
Post #14 of 23
(467 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The bridge film you describe has some structural problems, I think
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Bridge film, in PJs hands, will NOT be a disappointment and will not be complete fabrication
We all hope for the best, of course! I've argued this issue before, so don't take it personally if I give you some of my reactions to your infectious enthusiasm.
...the focus of the storyline should be ESCALATION...the stakes at every level are rising and Middle Earth is being pushed to the brink, which of course all plays out in the Lord of the Rings...Escalation means tension, and thus the bridge film should be an exciting, nerve wracking piece where all of the characters play out their destinies...
Since FotR opens with a flashback to an exciting battle in the distant past, a long peace, and a menacing suggestion that the idyllic peace of the Shire is only now threatened by the return of the long-forgotten dark power, it seems the bridge film should end with apparently peaceful resolutions of whatever its storyline or storylines are. Otherwise you are starting The War of the Ring one movie early, and Gandalf's cheerful idiocy about Bilbo's Ring seems criminal (as indeed it also does in Tolkien's text every time he opens his mouth about "watching and waiting").
I want to see the obsessed Saruman search the Gladden fields for the ring...perhaps find the remains of Isildur???
More notes about Saruman's role in the bridge film are given below, but here I'd note you are drawing material from Unfinished Tales, which will not be available from the Estate.
[Aragorn] carries the hopes and fates of a multitude of races squarely upon his human shoulders..
"our list of allies grows thin" says Elrond in FotR - Gandalf has to remind Elrond that Aragorn exists.
to NOT be allowed to marry your true love unless you become no less than the High King of both Gondor and Arnor and defeat Sauron,
How could the bridge film build this up as Aragorn's driving conflict, when there is not the slightest mention of it in the LotR films? In the film he nobly dumps Arwen to save her from a fatal marriage with him.
[Aragorn] creates the framework for survival in Gondor, learns of Minas Tirith and the politics there that have kept his line off the throne for centuries...I mean this is a journey worth following, watching...his massive victory upon the quays of Umbar will signal Aragorn as ready to meet his doom in the Lord of the Rings
"He has chosen exile" is Elrond's retort to Gandalf in FotR. As I mentioned earlier, whatever triumph and glory Aragorn may win in Umbar had better dissolve before the end of the bridge film - someone will have to write a nice, non-Tolkien, scene explaining what and why "exile" is to someone who has just saved Gondor and Rohan as part of his training to regain the throne of the West.
[Denethor's] temptation to look into the Palantir...does Denethor's madness start here?
I would be very upset if Denethor plays around with the Palantir of Minas Tirith in the bridge film, when it was deliberately cut from the trilogy films.
Does Denethor poison Echthelion or hasten his demise so that he can seize control of the Stewardship before this Thorongil can seize power as King???
You want to check your Tolkien texts on Denethor's character. He is as high and noble as Aragorn, until the Darkness comes. But even John Noble's unmanned maniac version of Denethor in RotK would not have poisoned his own father, I hope -- no, I take that back. He is shown murdering his son. OK, so why not his father as well in an earlier episode? He could even be eating dinner while dear old Dad writhes in agony. Great foreshadowing, right?
But don't then tell me the films and/or Jackson are faithful to Tolkien's text or spirit.
Saruman's obsession with Sauron trying to find the ring....Middle Earth is in flux and that should be the focus of the movie and will be at the heart of Tolkien's writings...
Maybe no one who watched FotR was surprised when Saruman ("the head of my order... he will know what to do") betrays and entraps Gandalf in Orthanc. But I think the convention of that film was that you were supposed to be surprised - at least in the book Tolkien has Gandalf unsuspecting, as he says, else he would have gone more warily. I don't see why you would throw that away by making Saruman obviously heading towards Evil in the bridge film. As I suggested in another post earlier, I think it would be very effective to establish Saruman as a genuine hero in the bridge film, to make his corruption more of a shock in FotR (for future generations of viewers, at least.)
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 6 2008, 9:22am
Post #15 of 23
(435 views)
Shortcut
|
that book-Aragorn doesn't accept power. Only that he earns it first.
I don't recall anything about Aragorn not accepting power, even in youth.
We have no way of knowing it within the story itself, but book-Aragorn's apparently unquestioning acceptance of his right to the Sword has actually been earned long before. In the movie, we see him earn it, and for dramatic purposes, we need to see that before he earns his right to power, he does not feel worthy of it.
I agree that in the book it's implied that he understands from his earliest youth that he knows his duty is to carry on the royal line of his family. He has no hangups about that. In fact, not only has he not "chosen" exile, he seems to resent it - he complains several times about the way he's treated as a Ranger, although he's always quick to point out that he wouldn't have it any other way (but then he would say that, wouldn't he - for the sake of his honour he has to accept his duty willingly).
I've always assumed, perhaps without evidence, that Aragorn and all his ancestors have understood that they can't even think about actually reclaiming the throne until they have undone the error of Isildur - that is, until the Ring is found and they are able to play their part in doing what Isildur was unable to do, which is to destroy the Ring. It just happens that Aragorn is the right heir at the right time. That's why it's only in his generation that the Sword is reforged, and he is charged with the hereditary duty of actually reclaiming the throne.
But it's clear enough, I think, between the lines, that Aragorn feels the weight of his duty and suffers many doubts about his ability to carry it out. The only difference from the movie is that he doesn't fear for his ability to handle power itself, and that's mostly because in the book he has already proved to himself that he can handle power, whereas in the movie it's his journey to Gondor that is his true apprenticeship.
In the movie, the Ring (as a symbol of the temptations of power) calls to everyone, even the pure of heart - and it calls compellingly to Aragorn several times. That's why he refuses to take the Sword - as another symbol of Power, historically so closely tied to the Ring, it symbolises Isildur's fall to the temptation of valuing power over courage. The movie uses the visual symbolism of the Sword to make a very Tolkienian point about power versus courage, and uses Aragorn's journey to personalise it.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Thorondil
Registered User
Mar 6 2008, 5:04pm
Post #16 of 23
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
Squire and FarFromHome...I appreciate that excellent feedback...and yes Squire, the movie trilogy has painted itself into a corner with regards to plot line in many instances, especially regarding Aragorn's "Journey" during the movies, and Gandalf''s complete ignorance to not only the Ring, but Saruman's treachery as well...I guess it will play itself out...ultimately, I would love to see this film truly bridge together the events from the Hobbit to the LOTRs, focusing on key characters and events, specifically Aragorn/Arwen and Gandalf/White Council...I also think that they could easily find a way to make Gollum a minor player in the movie as well as Sauron, from his feigned fleeing at Dol Guldur to his reemergence of power within the confines of Mordor...
At the end of the day, it will become another interpretation of Tolkien's world. We, each of us inside, hold the true version of his words in our own hearts, in our own visual images and interpretations. Anybody else's "visions" of Tolkien will always come under suspicion consciously or even subconsciously from ourselves. The best that we can do is savior these rare opportunities to see his words put to the large screen and soak up his words and images, albeit through the interpretation of others...save what you love and dismiss the rest...but I will tell you, that when I sat down in the theatre to watch the Fellowship of the Ring, the very first time, I was shaking during the prologue...to "see" Elendil and Isuldur...to have someone explain (accurate or not) the actual event of Sauron losing the ring to Isildur...to see the Numenoreans in their glory...it was riveting stuff that I will never forget...and when the prologue rolled away into the sunshine and peace of the Shire, with Gandalf travelling through Hobbiton, I had tears in my eyes...because to me, Tolkien's world has always been a very personal, private thing...to see that others shared the intense passion that I have (through most of my life), and to see his world actually come alive on a 50' screen was about as powerful and moving experience as I have ever felt...to that end I will always be eternally grateful to Peter Jackson for his work and his integrity, and I pleasantly wait until I get the honour to see Benecio Del Toro's version of Tolkien's world in TWO more films!
Peace!
All that is gold does not glitter...
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 6 2008, 7:33pm
Post #17 of 23
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
Guillermo. 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 6 2008, 7:43pm
Post #18 of 23
(417 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Does he ever "earn" that acceptance?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We have no way of knowing it within the story itself, but book-Aragorn's apparently unquestioning acceptance of his right to the Sword has actually been earned long before. As you go on to say, he seems to accept his position when first told of it when coming of age -- he's pretty pleased with himself that same day, when identifying himself to Arwen, though she deflates his self-esteem immediately.
I've always assumed, perhaps without evidence, that Aragorn and all his ancestors have understood that they can't even think about actually reclaiming the throne until they have undone the error of Isildur - that is, until the Ring is found and they are able to play their part in doing what Isildur was unable to do, which is to destroy the Ring. It just happens that Aragorn is the right heir at the right time. That's why it's only in his generation that the Sword is reforged, and he is charged with the hereditary duty of actually reclaiming the throne. Well, one of his ancestors, who already had the title of "king" (rather than just chieftain) made just such a claim, to the overlordship of both Arnor and Gondor that Elendil and Isildur held, but was rejected by Gondor and lacked the means to pursue it. His descendants therefore have even less hop of obtaining what should be theirs. As for the Ring, if the White Council believes that it is lost forever, why should the Dúnedain believe otherwise?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Mar 6 2008, 10:46pm
Post #19 of 23
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So you don't think there is a link
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
between the finding of the Ring and the reforging of the Sword (and from there to the reclaiming of the kingdom)?
Well, one of his ancestors, who already had the title of "king" (rather than just chieftain) made just such a claim, to the overlordship of both Arnor and Gondor that Elendil and Isildur held, but was rejected by Gondor and lacked the means to pursue it. His descendants therefore have even less hope of obtaining what should be theirs. As for the Ring, if the White Council believes that it is lost forever, why should the Dúnedain believe otherwise?
As you state it here, it does seem unreasonable for Aragorn's ancestors to assume that any such combination of events might ever arise. Yet the verse from Faramir's dream ("Seek for the sword that was broken...") certainly seems to link the events. Perhaps the Dunedain have come to believe that they will never have a king on the throne again, because of Isildur's "original sin" - until the Ring is found and a chance of redemption arises. To me, there's a subtext that says that Aragorn really earns the right to the kingship when, having been accepted on the strength of his healing abilities, he turns around and sacrifices everything at the Black Gate, so as to allow the Ring to be destroyed.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 6 2008, 11:13pm
Post #20 of 23
(413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, but they're not waiting for it.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Dúnedain of Arnor do their duty for a thousand years with no hope of ascending to kingship again. The Stewards of Gondor likewise rule for almost as long, never expecting themselves to be kings (nor anyone to claim the kingship) -- see Denethor's rebuke to Boromir, as conveyed to Frodo by Faramir.
You're right: Aragorn earns the kingship through his part in the victory on the Pelennor and his work in the Houses of Healing, not to mention the fortune of Sauron being destroyed. The appearance of the Ring presents the opportunity for the chieftains to be kings again, but they had no reason to expect it.
Perhaps the Dúnedain have come to believe that they will never have a king on the throne again, because of Isildur's "original sin" -- until the Ring is found and a chance of redemption arises. But they were kings for almost 2,000 years after Isildur's death: kings of Arnor, as the heirs of Isildur's brother Anarion were kings of Gondor.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Mar 6 2008, 11:33pm
Post #21 of 23
(428 views)
Shortcut
|
Aragorn blew his big chance after he beat the Corsairs. Echthelion loved him, the people loved him, and he was a big hero to all of Gondor. The kingship was his for the taking, but he turned from that path and choose exile.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Mar 6 2008, 11:44pm
Post #22 of 23
(422 views)
Shortcut
|
Aragorn wants to be king, because he wants to marry Arwen. Did Tolkien err in this scene -- does it contradict the idea of Aragorn's statement to Gandalf on receiving the palantír, that shows his long-term ambition? ("When have I been hasty or unwary, who have waited and prepared for so many long years?") Is it because he and Arwen have not yet plighted their troth?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".
|
|
|
mae govannen
Dor-Lomin
Mar 7 2008, 12:24pm
Post #23 of 23
(411 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What a wonderfully fair way of putting it! Thank you for this...//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
|
|
