[ Daily Tolkien / Lord Of The Rings ] Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the wargs of fandom!

Suite 101 ^ | December 18, 2002 | Michael Martinez

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

We have actually already seen Gondor and Minas Tirith, in FOTR, when Gandalf visits the city to research the history of the One Ring. Minas Tirith looked very Byzantine and Constantinoplish to me.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

I believe that in the appendix, Tolkien states that pipeweed is tobacco - some variety of the latin name (nicotea?) is what he used, I believe, so that there would be no confusion as to what he meant. Certainly in the books there is no indication it was anything but tobacco. People don't act wacky, apathetic, or get the munchies, after smoking.

[BradyLS]

Man, I gotta get me that extended DVD! :-D

I'll finally get to see what the latest fuss is about in a little over three hours!

[BradyLS]

Alright, "I've seen the elephant," as they used to say.

Strong: Opening scene, Gollum, Eowyn (Miranda Otto, hubba-hubba!), and Gandalf's reinvigoration of Theoden... Basically, whenever the film sticks to the book.

Weak: Jackson's surprising changes, whole-cloth inventions, and decision to end his second film in the same place where Bakshi ended his first.

A stunning fantasy movie well worth the price of admission-- but Tolkien's The Two Towers it ain't.

[The Iguana]

Brady,

Problem is that putting in Shelob might have added a half hour of screen time or so. What would you cut out to get it back in?

[artios]

Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy -

How do you know he won't include the scouring of the Shire - to me that is one of the best parts. That would be a disappointment indeed - please... say it ain't so! WHat info do you have on it??!!

[BradyLS]

Problem is that putting in Shelob might have added a half hour of screen time or so. What would you cut out to get it back in?

But folks have been pretty good so far about spoiling it! Answering this question would entail a chronicle of Jackson's changes and inventions. He could at least save the invention for the DVD.

I guess I wonder that Jackson was able to carry us well into The Two Towers in the first film, but he couldn't get us out with this one. It would've been a good exit, for example, if the end of TTT would've had Aragorn entering the Paths of the Dead, and Frodo and Sam entering the tunnels beneath Cirith Ungol.

The second half of Jackson's TTT holds the bulk of the divergent material. Many of the changes are meant, seemingly, to develop the characters. They are meant to instill doubt, restore hope, or underscore the motivations of key characters and at critical times. Fans of Tolkien and general movie-goers with no interest or knowledge of Tolkien accepted these same characters as presented in FOTR. Why the need to play so radically with the sequence of events from the books to round out characters we already accept? The first half of the film was more akin to the pacing and mild(er?) changes that we saw in FOTR.

It's a good movie. The story is good, the acting uniformly solid, and the effects superb. Were this an orignal Jackson movie under a different name, we'd still be talking about him as a revolutionary in epic filmaking. That epic at this point in time, IMO, is not now Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

[The Iguana]

artiois,

Jackson has said on several occasions that all of that would be cut from the movie - the theatrical release, at any rate.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

1) Peter Jackson said so. It would add too much time for what is already going to be a very tight cut for ROTK, and it creates two ending climaxes instead of one; ie, you destroy the ring, months pass, you eventually wind up back in Bree and then the Shire, and then you finally have your second ending with The Scouring, then you finally end with Bilbo going to the Gray Havens. Very bumpy and anticlimatic, and far, far too long.

2) Peter Jackson said that the scenes of The Shire, which Frodo sees in Galadriel's Mirror, showing what would happen if Frodo should fail, were intended as an homage to The Scouring of the Shire, since Peter Jackson would not be including it in the film. Hence, you sort of have already seen The Scouring of the Shire, in Galadriel's mirror.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

There is no way we were ever going to see Tolkien's Lord of the Rings on film, ever. Not unless you expect Tolkien to rise from the dead, learn the art of film making, and film his own version. Which, if that could happen, would still have changes which "Tolkien fans" would complain about, I gaurantee you.

[BradyLS]

There is no way we were ever going to see Tolkien's Lord of the Rings on film, ever. Not unless you expect Tolkien to rise from the dead, learn the art of film making, and film his own version. Which, if that could happen, would still have changes which "Tolkien fans" would complain about, I gaurantee you.

What can I say? I would say you're probably right. Case in point is George Lucas' The Phantom Menace. Straight, unadulterated Star Wars from the creator himself, who is a film-maker. Universally despised upon release.

But unlike Mr. Martinez, I don't come out say to how much l liked Jackson's film and then launch into a litany of discrapancies between what I saw and what Tolkien's work is supposed to be. Nor do I soft-peddle or apologize for Mr. Jackson by saying that the changes were probably best for the making of a good adaptation to film.

What I'm saying is that Peter Jackson made a fine film which needs his previous film for reference and support. The previous movie was a fine adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring. This latest one didn't suit me as it has most others and the point of divergence is when Jackson is clearly re-writing Tolkien's story in the second half. There is much in the first half of TTT that will please Tolkien fans who enjoyed the first film. In the second half, you have to take your Tolkien goggles off and accept that one man has decided to fill another's shoes if you wish to continue enjoying the film.

I could accept it to enjoy a good movie. But I can't accept that what we are watching from the middle half of TTT forward is a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's story. It's a story of Mr. Jackson's design that borrows the characters, creatures, and trappings of Mr. Tolkien's world. And I really don't see why he needed to do that.

[BradyLS]

...And I can accept all those things to make a good adaptation of LOTR. Mr. Jackson doesn't radically change the story that's being told, or recast the characters to make a fit, and he isn't inventing something out of thin air. He is using material already supplied by Tolkien to create a tailor-made fit for film.

In other words, I can accept: "That happened, or will happen, but not quite that way." Much tougher to accept is: "That didn't happen. At all."

[KriegerGeist]

I can't get over how we know that this whole thing (the trilogy) could have been avoided had "Agent" Elrond snatched the ring from Isildur's hand and tossed it into the fires of Mount Doom when he had the chance in the first War of the Ring..."The War to end all wars"...

No more Ring of Power, no more Lord of the Ring (Sauron) and everyone would have lived happily ever after four (or was it two) thousand years before until the present.

Why did you not let Isildur keep it Elrond.? It would have been so easy to snatch it and toss it! It's all your fault. You failed as an Elf in Lord of the Rings just as you failed as an "Agent" in the Matrix.

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't blame Elrond, Tolkien failed him. And it would have been a pretty short story then, not much worthy of telling!

[BradyLS]

Actually, the Elrond we see in the movies and in the BBC Radio production of LOTR always seems to be in a foul mood. In the books, Tolkien described him as very kind and grandfatherly. I don't have the books handy, but how did it go? "Warm as summer. Gentle as spring..." Something like that?

Whatever the case, his temperament seems understandable when he is talking about the loss of his daughter or the missed opportunities to destroy the Ring during the brief moments we see and hear him. I accept that, too.

[The Iguana]

Isildur was not exactly a slouch. I imagine that Elrond would have had quite a fight on his hands to take it from the King of the Dunedain by force.

I'm sure he had no desire for such a fight.

Presumably he hoped Isildur could be talked out of it at some point later.

[artios]

Do you think it may be possible that it could end up in the released DVD?

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

No; I don't think they even wrote, much less filmed, The Scouring of the Shire. At most, there are a few pickup scenes with Sam, Rosie, and their children, which may appear as Galadriel does the summing up "afterlogue".

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

True enough, but Arwen replacing Glorfindel was something that did not happen in the books, and it worked. Granted, the Aragorn "death" was a total change, but it was used to work in material from the Arwen relationship, which is in the books. And the warg attack was something that could have happened in the books, but been ommitted for editing reasons. Likewise, the trip to Osgiliath was not in the books, but it works in material and dialogue that were in the books, and ties it together thematically with what is going on in Gondor, which the viewer would otherwise be unaware of. I suspect that PJ's changes will make a lot more sense once we have seen ROTK and can judge the series of movies as a whole.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

"Agent" Elrond didn't snatch the ring from Isildur, for the same reasons Gandalf didn't snatch it from Frodo: because taking it by force would either "break his mind" or lead to conflict, and because he could not trust himself to keep the ring, either. Saying "I'll take that ring to destroy it, because he obviously can't handle it" is just the first step on the path to self deception, which the ring would use to ensnare Elrond or Gandalf. Of course, the books don't say Elrond led Isildur to the Crack of Doom, only that he observed him take the ring, and advised him against it.