Posted on 12/26/2002 7:51:32 AM PST by ksen
I hate to be such a party-pooper. My expectations were probably too high.
And look, there are plenty of other things:
Battle Of Helms deep: 1)Why the need for Elves? 2)Why does Legolas freak out before the battle? 3)Why does Aragorn have to beg Theoden to ride out of the Keep to make a last stand ? 4)Why is Eomer not there from the beginning? 5)Why doesn't Gandalf bring back help in the form of allies (Erkenbrand)?
I mean seriously, elves at Helm's deep? Theoden still cowering in fear? Faramir trying to take the ring? What is Jackson's common theme here?
He makes it seem like they spent all this time developing the lure of the ring and then were faced with Faramir and just couldn't deal with him. Well, Tolkien dealt with it for them and in doing so, produced one of the most important characters in the story. Hey, guess what Mr. Jackson? There really are quite decent people out there who are not lured by power.
Why not? They took part in the War of the Ring as well. There were assaults by Sauron on Lorien on the 11th and 15th of March, and Mirkwood likewise was under attack. Rather than breaking away from the story to show other events they were compressed to take place at Helm's Deep.
4)Why is Eomer not there from the beginning? 5)Why doesn't Gandalf bring back help in the form of allies (Erkenbrand)?
For the same reason Glorfindel is not in FotR - minor characters must be excised to keep the audience from losing track of who is who. Erkenbrand is replaced by Eomer, who Gandalf DOES bring back to help.
No offense here, but I think your expectations for the movie were out of whack. Maybe you should stick to the book and let us enjoy the movie for what it is - PJ's adaptation, one I feel is very true to the spirit of the book. Not a word-for-word, line-by-line re-enactment. Read the book to get that. ;-)
I saw TTT on Christmas Eve.... I'm ready for reel three now. :-)
Exactly. He could have included some scenes during the "break away" scene where he had Elrond trying to convince Arwen to run off to The Havens.
For the same reason Glorfindel is not in FotR - minor characters must be excised to keep the audience from losing track of who is who. Erkenbrand is replaced by Eomer, who Gandalf DOES bring back to help.
Glorfindel is not in FotR b/c Jackson wants to being Arwen into the story. It has nothing to do with eliminating a character who would only show up long enough to loan Frodo his horse. I can actually understand this modification, even though I mildly resent the fact that Jackson doesn't think a movie is any good with out the sex appeal of a Liv Tyler.
If you listen to the Director's commentary you'll find that both reasons went into the decision to cut Glorfindel. Jackson was concerned with trying to introduce too many characters, i.e. Gil-Galad, Glorfindel, and he needed a way to introduce Arwen because she is the reason Aragorn is doing the things he is doing.
Kay Eye, I don't doubt that Jackson wanted to put together a smashing LOTR film. But here we see that his depth of analysis of Faramir's character isn't as deep as the guy from NZ wants us to believe it is. Tolkien didn't suddenly back away from the Ring as Jackson describes. Faramir made a hard descision about the Ring that we didn't see in the film.
I don't know why Jackson can't be honest and say something like, "We wanted to please fans and general audiences alike with our treatment. We're sorry if some of the liberties we took with the characters come across as unfair. That wasn't our intent but we take responsibility for the hard decisions we made. We did our best." And just leave it at that.
Phillipa says, "Jackson always said the films won't be the books." Or that Jackson says Tolkien's depiction of Faramir "goes against the rules" that they put up in showing how seductive the Ring is. Or that Faramir "suddenly backs away" from the Ring. Or that the books didn't have enough tension.
C'mon. Gimme a break. If the books were as they describe, no one would read them and they wouldn't try to make a movie out of them. They can't be honest that they came up short in bringing the charcter of Faramir to life on the screen, so they blame the source material. That takes the cake.
Huh? Aragorn does the things he does so that Evil will not triumph over Good. Jackson seems to be incapable of allowing this theme to be the underlying principle.
Why does Jackson have Aragorn convince Theoden to ride out rather then cower in some caves when the battle looks to be lost? Thanks to Gandalf's earlier intervention, Theoden doesn't need to be told how to act. Why could Jackson not depict Theoden be the valiant, courageous leader that Tolkien produced? Because Jackson doesn't want Theoden to be seen that way. God forbid we should have too many decent men in one movie.
The thing about the movie is that Aragorn, Theoden, Gimli (less so), and Legolas all go through periods of doubt, uncertainty, and valiance. And never at the same time. I guess it's just to "develop" these characters that audiences all over the world have accepted already. There's little left needed to develop, IMO, except maybe Aragorn as a true King.
Gandalf has returned from the dead. In the books, the characters are overjoyed, and never lose faith again. If Gandalf says he'll be at Helm's Deep on the morning of the fifth day, you can bet that he'll be there. Even the movie characters forget this and go through all sorts of doubt. The only ones I can accept this in is Theoden and the men of Rohan. The arrival of the Elves should have heartened them, but we still go through the agaonizing. Jackson is overplaying his hand and it wastes time better spent on characters like Treebeard and Faramir.
All are battling evil. I think the characters who confront it most directly are Frodo and Sam, who endure Sauron's tempting influence constantly in the form of the Ring and its effect on those around them.
Though not as clear in the movies, Aragorn loves Arwen and Elrond decreed that no man less than the King of Gondor (AND Arnor, in the books) will wed her. Aragorn sees his destiny before him and is rushing to it. If he succeeds, all else pales before Arwen, who must accept a mortal doom. If he fails, nothing else matters after the loss of Arwen. He is battling Evil, certainly, but Arwen is his over-riding desire. Like I said, it's sometimes hard to tell that from the films.
In the books, Aragorn recognizes the events that unfold around him as signs of a destiny being fulfilled and gains in confidence. In the movies, he's still a 20th century man plagued by doubt up to the eve of the battle of Helm's Deep. Will he still be that sort of man when ROTK opens?
Here is a passage from the Appendix:
‘In the days that followed[seeing Arwen for the first time] Aragorn fell silent, and his mother perceived that some strange thing had befallen him; and at last he yielded to her questions and told her of the meeting in the twilight of the trees.
‘ "My son," said Gilraen, "your aim is high, even for the descendant of many kings. For this lady is the noblest and fairest that now walks the earth. And it is not fit that mortal should wed with the Elf-kin."
"Yet we have some part in that kinship," said Aragorn, "if the tale of my forefathers is true that I have learned."
‘ "It is true," said Gilraen, "but that was long ago and in another age of this world, before our race was diminished. Therefore I am afraid; for without the good will of Master Elrond the Heirs of Isildur will soon come to an end. But I do not think that you will have the good will of Elrond in this matter."
' "Then bitter will my days be, and I will walk in the wild alone," said Aragorn.
I may be misinterpreting what is being said here, but it seems to me that when Aragorn found out he probably would not be able to have Arwen as his wife then he decided to spend the rest of his days alone in the wilds.
It isn’t until he finds out there may be a chance for taking Arwen as his wife that Aragorn begins the battle against Sauron.
But there will be no choice before Arwen, my beloved, unless you, Aragorn, Arathorn's son, come between us and bring one of us, you or me, to a bitter parting beyond the end of the world……..
'Then Aragorn took leave lovingly of Elrond; and the next day he said farewell to his mother, and to the house of Elrond, and to Arwen, and he went out into the wild. For nearly thirty years he laboured in the cause against Sauron; and he became a friend of Gandalf the Wise, from whom he gained much wisdom.
That is the part most irksome to me, but I can live with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.