Lord of the Rings questions! (Spoilers!)

[SeanFan]

I've never read the entire Simarillion myself, but as I recall it is only a collection of things that Tolkien never actually wrote into a book. How could that be made a movie?

It's not one long narrative, so it couldn't be made into a movie like LotR or The Hobbit have been. You could, however, easily take some of the episodes that happened in The Sil and make them into stand-alone movies. I think the Tale of Beren and Luthien and the Akallabeth (the story of the downfall of Numenor) would work just fine as movies.

The biggest barrier to doing so is that the Tolkien estate still owns the movies rights to The Silmarillion. JRRT himself sold the movie rights to The Hobbit and LotR, but The Silmarillion was published after his death, and his son, Christopher Tolkien controls the movie rights. Considering how he felt about making LotR into movies, I don't think he'll sell the rights to The Sil anytime soon.

[SeanFan]

Echani, you're so funny. On the Kinsey Scale of Lord Of The Ringness, you are clearly a 1. It's something people only 4 and above can understand...

  The implication being that only someone 'in the know' about Tolkien would understand and would, of course, agree with your complaint?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[cliffette]

SeanFan, I do get your point about poetic license in order to make the movie more exciting. I disagreed with the elves being at Helm's Deep because it conflicts with the idea that the elves and men have been growing apart for centuries. The elves are fading, so a sudden vigorous battle seems out of character. To me, PJ just put them in to try to rebalance the overenthusiasm of the CG team - 10000000000000 orcs was a little bit much. It was a nice idea, the reforging of the links between elves and men, but it changes the dynamic of the world. And all in all, it really wasn't in the book.

As for Faramir, it would have been more boring to leave him as he was in the books, but he was my favourite character and they took away exactly what made him my favourite character- that he was noble, world-weary, quiet and sad, and changed him into a violent, suspicious, self-interested bastard. The EE made it clear that he did it for the approval of his dad, but in the cinema, all we saw were crazed, longing gazes at the ring. Even doing it for his dad, while being an excuse, changes his character in a huge way. In the novel he went against the law of his own country and specifically risked his life in order to let the hobbits go - without them needing to prove themselves in battle. It's a big change. It worked for the screen, but .. but Faramir!

[Eral]

SeanFan, I mean that Echani isn't an obsessive about LotR. He says it's "just a movie".
JUST A MOVIE? JUST??? Those 4 and above are the ones likely to have an issue with a change in The Sacred Text.
(And I'm not expecting people agree with me. I'm discussing my obsession. Be kind.)

Cliffette, I actually liked the elves coming to the battle, even though it was way off - so again, I didn't register any objection to it.
It was so well done, I ran with it. I think you are at least a 5. You have noticed a lot of changes.

I didn't interpret Faramir the way you did. I thought he was true to his character, and I was really happy with his portrayal. (Of course, having David Wenham play him was a terrifically good idea.)If I HAD interpreted Faramir as you did, I would have had to burn down the cinema complex, in protest, and then destroy every copy of TT that I came across. I would possibly have to assassinate PJ as well.

[cliffette]

If I HAD interpreted Faramir as you did, I would have had to burn down the cinema complex, in protest, and then destroy every copy of TT that I came across. I would possibly have to assassinate PJ as well.

Hmm... I have an inkling that you might be a 6. Or possibly off the scale.

[Eral]

No, I can't be a 6. I haven't read The Silmarillion. (Should I say that out loud?)

I'm just an overly emotional 4. Maybe 4.5

Faramir is my favourite character, too.

[SeanFan]

SeanFan, I do get your point about poetic license in order to make the movie more exciting. I disagreed with the elves being at Helm's Deep because it conflicts with the idea that the elves and men have been growing apart for centuries. The elves are fading, so a sudden vigorous battle seems out of character. To me, PJ just put them in to try to rebalance the overenthusiasm of the CG team - 10000000000000 orcs was a little bit much. It was a nice idea, the reforging of the links between elves and men, but it changes the dynamic of the world. And all in all, it really wasn't in the book.

No, have elves fighting at Helm's Deep wasn't in the book, but I think you're dead wrong if you think the elves are incapable of "sudden vigorous battle". The fact is, IN THE BOOK, they very vigorously defended their homelands from Sauron's invading armies. The elves could have all left ME for the Undying Lands and let the mortal races face Sauron alone, but they didn't. Tolkien clearly says that they didn't come to help at Pelennor Fields (and, by extension, I'd argue, Helm's Deep) not because they were too weak, or didn't care, but because they had to defend their own lands.

As for Faramir, it would have been more boring to leave him as he was in the books, but he was my favourite character and they took away exactly what made him my favourite character- that he was noble, world-weary, quiet and sad, and changed him into a violent, suspicious, self-interested bastard. The EE made it clear that he did it for the approval of his dad, but in the cinema, all we saw were crazed, longing gazes at the ring. Even doing it for his dad, while being an excuse, changes his character in a huge way. In the novel he went against the law of his own country and specifically risked his life in order to let the hobbits go - without them needing to prove themselves in battle. It's a big change. It worked for the screen, but .. but Faramir!

Violent, self-interested bastard?!? Whoa, you definitely saw a different movie than I did. You must be having a serious memory lapse about the Theatrical Edition.

For one thing, in the TE he says "Take them to my father. Tell him Faramir sends a mighty gift."

Furthermore, before he releases the hobbits, his second-in-command says to him:

"You know the laws of our country. The laws of your father. If you let them go, your life will be forfeit."

To which Faramir answers: "Then it is forfeit. Release them."

You can check one of the transcript sites if you don't believe me. How much different is that from what you described in the book? Not very, I'd say.

[SeanFan]

SeanFan, I mean that Echani isn't an obsessive about LotR. He says it's "just a movie".
JUST A MOVIE? JUST??? Those 4 and above are the ones likely to have an issue with a change in The Sacred Text.
(And I'm not expecting people agree with me. I'm discussing my obsession. Be kind.)

What I disagree with--vehemently--is the fact that you are equating knowledge of and love of the books with the inability to accept the fact the PJ had to make changes to make a successful movie  adaptation.

I lost count of how many times I've read LotR after 15 or so, and I've read The Silmarillion through 3 times. I'm hesitant to say the LotR movies are "just" movies because I love them so much and love Tolkien so much. However, that doesn't blind me to the fact the PJ had to make good movies, first and foremost. That had to be a greater priority than fatihfulness to the source material.

Personally, considering how good the movies are, and how faithful they are to the spirit and themes of Tolkien's work, it seems rather ridiculous that you would let a little change like Frodo sending Sam away turn you against the movie.

[cliffette]

I don't like the elves overmuch, so my thinking is probably clouded on their motivation. 

Regarding Faramir's change:

Violent- allowing his officers to get the boot into Gollum, throwing Gollum against the wall and throttling him. Whereas in the book: "Take this creature away, Anborn. Treat him gently, but watch him. And do not you, Smeagol, try to dive into the falls. The rocks have such teeth there as would slay you before your time."
Suspicious - David Wenham's acting. This might be unfair, but Faramir certainly seemed much more open and less secretive in the book.
Self-interested - Diverting the hobbits to Osgiliath despite knowing their quest. Taking the ring so that he could look good in Dad's books (and save Gondor, I guess) despite knowing the hobbits' quest. Whereas the book: "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it... And be comforted, Samwise.. For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this (that Frodo carried the ring) to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power... But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough."
Bastard - by extension of the above.

He certainly redeems himself in the movie as your quote shows (and I didn't forget that one), but in the book, he never wronged the hobbits in the first place, thus not needing that redemption. That makes a really big difference to me. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.


By the way, I still enjoyed the movie and my initial post was just to point out some of the changes to the TT that Eral had missed, not to slam Peter Jackson. I still admire his work.

[Eral]

SeanFan, you are upholding my (LIGHT-HEARTED)theory. You are clearly a 3 - despite your having read and understood The Silmarillion, which in ordinary circumstances makes you at least a 5 - you enjoyed The Text and the movie equally. You are responding without heightened emotions, as a normal well-adjusted person should.

People who register a 4 or more, however (according to my [LIGHT-HEARTED] theory) are in fact, nuts.  
They are passionate about the text in a way that frightens afore-mentioned normal, well-adjusted people.
They BELIEVE in The Sacredness of the Text. They have favourite scenes and characters that they were dedicated to YEARS before this film.  They have formed a personal relationship with the book. They are members of the Temple of The LotR.
PJ knows this.  He knew that there were going to be people horribly offended by the slightest deviation. He is at least a 5 himself. He probably has a bodyguard to protect him from stalkers complaining about their pet gripes.
Mine is Sam leaving Frodo (He would NEVER have done that.) Cliffette's is Faramir. (I thought about watching TT again, far more closely -but given how I will feel if I end up agreeing with Cliffette, it's better if I don't. PJ seriously had Faramir take The Ring? When? How did I miss that? Faramir would NEVER have done that.)

Cliffette, you don't like the elves???

[cliffette]

PJ seriously had Faramir take The Ring? When? How did I miss that? Faramir would NEVER have done that.)

He kidnapped the hobbits with the intention of presenting the ring, carried by them, to his father. He later changed his mind.

Cliffette, you don't like the elves???

No. Sorry? I only liked about two of them.

And don't get me started on Faramir and Eowyn's 30 second romance at the Houses of Healing!

[Eral]

Kidnapping? I thought that Faramir was escorting the hobbits out of the (perhaps spuriously) restricted area, and that he didn't know they had the ring;then when he found they had the ring let them go to continue the quest: which was text. It may be that David Wenham's presence threw a glamour over me that you were immune too, and thus I missed this interpretation of events.

You are perfectly entitled to not like elves: I admire your courage for admitting it. Needless to say I will offer support when you are relentlessly flamed by incensed elf-lovers.
The two were Galadriel and Legolas? Although Hugo Weaving was delightfully snotty as Arwen's dad.

PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.
I assume it was the corrupting influence of Hollywood.

[Kish]

Kidnapping? I thought that Faramir was escorting the hobbits out of the (perhaps spuriously) restricted area, and that he didn't know they had the ring;then when he found they had the ring let them go to continue the quest: which was text.

No.  He saw the ring and said, "A chance to show my quality," then he carried them off.  Peter Jackson went into a long complicated explanation in an interview, which boiled down to, "I thought it would make the Ring's influence look too weak if Faramir just laughed at it like he does in the books, so I had him be tempted and then let them go later."

[Eral]

Right. It's clear I need to destroy my copy of TT.
Ceremonial burning, anyone?

[SeanFan]

PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.
I assume it was the corrupting influence of Hollywood.

You can call your theory "light-hearted" as much as you like, but this is a at least a two  post for me.

Sorry, but as much as I liked it, the Eowyn/Faramir romance was just not of critical importance to the story. Sure, you got to see that Eowyn didn't remain heartbroken over Aragorn, and it ties up some loose ends, but that's it.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was long because 1) He decided to showcase it as the central conflict of the movie, which is a completely legitimate decision for a filmmaker, and 2) it takes a heck of a lot longer to show something like a battle on screen than it does to describe it in a book. If he had devoted 15 minutes to it on screen, I guarantee that people would bitch that he wasn't treating it like it was important, and that it didn't seem as long as it should have been. Besides, 3) It was only 45 minutes if you count all the stuff leading up to the battle and the cutting away in the battle. I bet there wasn't more than a 1/2 hour of actual fighting scenes all told.

Lastly, as PJ as said in countless interviews, he cut the *Scouring* of the Shire because it would have seemed anticlimatic after the real climax of the story, the destruction of the Ring. And, given how much complaining there was about the "overlong" ending, I have no doubt he was right.

[SeanFan]

No.  He saw the ring and said, "A chance to show my quality," then he carried them off.  Peter Jackson went into a long complicated explanation in an interview, which boiled down to, "I thought it would make the Ring's influence look too weak if Faramir just laughed at it like he does in the books, so I had him be tempted and then let them go later."

Seems like a perfectly legitimate explanation to me.

Dramatically, it is much more interesting to see someone tempted and overcome the temptation (especially so in this case, since his brother had succumbed to the same temptation) than not be tempted at all.

[SeanFan]

I don't like the elves overmuch, so my thinking is probably clouded on their motivation. 

Regarding Faramir's change:

Violent- allowing his officers to get the boot into Gollum, throwing Gollum against the wall and throttling him. Whereas in the book: "Take this creature away, Anborn. Treat him gently, but watch him. And do not you, Smeagol, try to dive into the falls. The rocks have such teeth there as would slay you before your time."
Suspicious - David Wenham's acting. This might be unfair, but Faramir certainly seemed much more open and less secretive in the book.
Self-interested - Diverting the hobbits to Osgiliath despite knowing their quest. Taking the ring so that he could look good in Dad's books (and save Gondor, I guess) despite knowing the hobbits' quest. Whereas the book: "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it... And be comforted, Samwise.. For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this (that Frodo carried the ring) to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power... But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough."
Bastard - by extension of the above.

He certainly redeems himself in the movie as your quote shows (and I didn't forget that one), but in the book, he never wronged the hobbits in the first place, thus not needing that redemption. That makes a really big difference to me. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

He 'wronged' the hobbits? Indeed? He found two strange people--the like of which he had never seen before--wandering around in an area he and his men were responsible for guarding. These two had no good explanation for why they were there and what they were up to, and even though they denied being associated with a third, even more suspicious looking creature, they had been seen traveling with it. Wronged? On the contrary, I think it he acted very responsibly--and completely with his duties as a Ranger of Ithilien, by the way--to detain them and try to find out what was going on with them.

You seem to acting under the assumption that whatever actions Tolkien decided Faramir should take regarding the hobbits is by definition right, and anything else is an act of evil. On one level, I can see your point, since it's Tolkien's story and he gets to decide what kind of person Faramir is. However, on the level of "were movie Faramir's actions reasonable and responsible given the situation he was in?", I think the answer is an unqualified "you bet".

By the way, I still enjoyed the movie and my initial post was just to point out some of the changes to the TT that Eral had missed, not to slam Peter Jackson. I still admire his work.

Nice to hear.

[Veloxyll]

You can call your theory "light-hearted" as much as you like, but this is a at least a two  post for me.

Sorry, but as much as I liked it, the Eowyn/Faramir romance was just not of critical importance to the story. Sure, you got to see that Eowyn didn't remain heartbroken over Aragorn, and it ties up some loose ends, but that's it.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was long because 1) He decided to showcase it as the central conflict of the movie, which is a completely legitimate decision for a filmmaker, and 2) it takes a heck of a lot longer to show something like a battle on screen than it does to describe it in a book. If he had devoted 15 minutes to it on screen, I guarantee that people would bitch that he wasn't treating it like it was important, and that it didn't seem as long as it should have been. Besides, 3) It was only 45 minutes if you count all the stuff leading up to the battle and the cutting away in the battle. I bet there wasn't more than a 1/2 hour of actual fighting scenes all told.

Lastly, as PJ as said in countless interviews, he cut the *Scouring* of the Shire because it would have seemed anticlimatic after the real climax of the story, the destruction of the Ring. And, given how much complaining there was about the "overlong" ending, I have no doubt he was right.

The only reason the ending was long was because of crap cinematography. He used too many fadeouts and they were too long. And the stupid reunion scene. GAH!
The Scouring of the Shire rather changes the story though. With it, you have the War of the Ring spilling over to every area of Middle Earth (especially when coupled with the fact that the Elves and Dwarves were being attacked as well). The way it's in the film implies that a) Saurons army was a lot smaller than in the books, b) It wasn't large enough to take all of Middle Earth, c) he didn't realise there were plains to the north of the Black Gate.

[Eral]

SeanFan, please stop rolling your eyes at me. I am getting motion-sick.

I referred to my theory as light-hearted, twice, in the hope that you would get that I was having some fun. Making a joke. About how seriously many fans of LotR take it, including myself.  In order to avoid having to explain it in so many words.

Of course PJ can make any film he wants, how he wants. It is his vision, dictated by the demands of the reality of making a film on this scale. I, in my turn, can make facetious comments about it. Which is what I was doing. And enjoying it.

Please don't make any further derogatory statements about Faramir. I have already explained my feelings about him, and will feel obliged to challenge you to a duel if you continue. 

[cliffette]

The two were Galadriel and Legolas? Although Hugo Weaving was delightfully snotty as Arwen's dad.

You're right about Elrond, but I generally love Hugo Weaving in anything - even tights.
For the other, I liked the elf who died in the battle at Helm's Deep, but I can't recall his name. And I didn't like him because he died, but because he ended up being chummy and friendly. Legolas, I might have liked if not for all the fancy tricks the CG artists made him do. Plus the constant glowy lighting around him.

PJ clearly does not have a grasp of the importance of the Faramir/Eowyn romance. But remember, this is a man who gave us roughly about 45 mins (it seemed longer) of the Battle of Helm's Deep, and cut the reaving of the Shire because it was not necessary to the story.

I understand why he left it out of the TE, but for the EE, it would have been nice to have something a little longer... even putting it in the Appendices would have been ok. Besides, I mainly wanted it because - well, more Faramir.

You seem to acting under the assumption that whatever actions Tolkien decided Faramir should take regarding the hobbits is by definition right, and anything else is an act of evil.

Not really. I was speaking from the hobbits', the fellowship and Middle Earth's pov. From Faramir and Gondor's perspective, he did the right thing. My assumption is that whatever Tolkien does to continue the quest to save Middle Earth nicely and smoothly is by definition right (it doesn't have to be Faramir-related). Whenever Tolkien throws a giant roadblock in their path, I consider that a huge inconvenience to the hobbits. Therefore they are wronged, even when the giant roadblock (eg Shelob) is just doing what they do best.

[Eral]

Yes, he was nice. I particularly liked his music as he passed on. The poignant question...do elves go West when they die, or not? Did he sacrifice his chance for immortality? So beautifully done...

I think you are taking an unnaturally hard view of golden lighting.(You are definitely a 5.) How else will we know they're special?
I know they did the Oliphaunt trick for the kids. Kind of like the Ewoks in the last Star Wars. But I have to admit I was charmed.

Let's face it, we need far more information on Faramir. How did he manage his city? Did he get schtick for choosing a Shieldmaiden as his bride? If it was TV he'd be a spin-off.

[nethrin]

you need to look at the Silmarillion, its not an easy read (nor in my mind particualry fun)

what?! it is both easy and fun.

[jester]

The lives of all elves are tied to Arda and they must wait in Mandos' halls until the day the world comes to an end. So in a way they all pass into the west although my x rereads of the Sil never revealed to me where these halls were located.

As long as you can keep Jerry Bruckheimer, Wolfgang Petersen and Oliver Stone away from the script I would love to see Turin, Beren and Luthien, Gondolin or Angband in a film.

[cliffette]

I think you are taking an unnaturally hard view of golden lighting.(You are definitely a 5.)

I'm more of a 2 with some very 5ly held viewpoints. Including "More hairy dwarves! Less uber elves!"

Let's face it, we need far more information on Faramir. How did he manage his city? Did he get schtick for choosing a Shieldmaiden as his bride?

Eowyn asked him that question too. He basically answered, "Screw 'em".

[Veloxyll]

The lives of all elves are tied to Arda and they must wait in Mandos' halls until the day the world comes to an end. So in a way they all pass into the west although my x rereads of the Sil never revealed to me where these halls were located.

As long as you can keep Jerry Bruckheimer, Wolfgang Petersen and Oliver Stone away from the script I would love to see Turin, Beren and Luthien, Gondolin or Angband in a film.

Gondolin would make a wonderful movie. Dragons and Balrogs and Elves and Treachery and awesomness. omg *collapses at the mere thought*.
Yeah, anyhow, I loved the tale of Gondolin in the Book of Lost Tales (which tell the tales a lot better than the Simirillion. Which isn't surprising since Sim was concerned with the history of the Simiril rather than protomiddle earth.)