Aragorn's Fall...any changes of opinion out there?

[Black Breathalizer]

When reminded of the royal wedding from the book, Cirdan replied:
Except it isn't a very important part of the book. It garners less than a page and is just a plot device to bring together the other players from Lothlorien and Rivendell.

Translation: Peter Jackson is supposed to follow Tolkien's story religiously--uh, except when it isn't a very important part of the book.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Translation: Peter Jackson is supposed to follow Tolkien's story religiously--uh, except when it isn't a very important part of the book.

Translatation: I worship PJ and am blind to any minor flaw that anyone else perceives and must react in knee-jerk, spastic fashion with trite and worn-out arguements.

And, uh, he is following the book, but is emphasizing a minor part.

We'll see if the wedding is overblown or not.

[Diamond]

At least they can't get trapped in an elevator

I had this really disturbing idea of Peter Jackson sinking the boat to Minas Tirith. You know. To the battle. o_O Heaven forbid. I think my brain just leaked out my ears, excuse me.

Di

[Elvellyn]

So basically, Arwen is essential to the plot but not involved with it, Viggo Mortenson is sexy when wet, and Faramir really is a nice guy. Its all good!

[Dunadan]

What disappointed me about TTT, and to a lesser extent FOTR, was that Aragorn's character development was unresolved.

It's a major difference between the book and the films that in the latter he does not accept his destiny, whereas in the books he's been working towards it for years. I had expected Jackson to make much more of this in TTT (like he did very successfully with the Frodo/Gollum empathy) and show him realising and accepting what he must achieve. I was looking forward to this, and was disappointed when it didn't happen.

If that had been done well, it would've justified the greater emphasis on Arwen, but it wasn't so it didn't. I can only assume that this will happen in ROTK, perhaps just prior to the Paths of the Dead, which would be groovy, but I'm not holding my breath.

cheers

d.

[Cirdan]

There is a distinct philosophical difference in how characters are portrayed. The film focuses on a theme of redemption while the book is more about moral character. There is thought to be more drama in the dynamism of the "rise to the occassion" rather than "the tough get going" of Tolkien. You'll notice that there are no redemption stories at all in the book. I think Tolkien's view was that there were unavoidable consequences to weakness and evil. It works for the most part in the movies, except Aragorn is taking way too long to come about and the Ents "hasty-ness" is out of character. It's more in line with what people are used to today. Far too difficult to maintain Tolkien's level of moral ethos.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
What disappointed me about TTT, and to a lesser extent FOTR, was that Aragorn's character development was unresolved.

It's a major difference between the book and the films that in the latter he does not accept his destiny, whereas in the books he's been working towards it for years. I had expected Jackson to make much more of this in TTT (like he did very successfully with the Frodo/Gollum empathy) and show him realising and accepting what he must achieve. I was looking forward to this, and was disappointed when it didn't happen.

If that had been done well, it would've justified the greater emphasis on Arwen, but it wasn't so it didn't. I can only assume that this will happen in ROTK, perhaps just prior to the Paths of the Dead, which would be groovy, but I'm not holding my breath.

You may not be holding your breath--but I'm willing to bet you're right.

Personally, I think Aragorn's character did develop in TTT. But LOTR is a three act play and it is logical for the "dramatic" aspects of Aragorn's development to take place in the final chapter. The transition from ranger to king will certainly be one of the focal points for ROTK. The fact that we didn't see Arwen at Helm's Deep or the sword-that-was-broken is clear evidence that PJ is building it all up for the grand finale.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You may not be holding your breath--but I'm willing to bet you're right.

Personally, I think Aragorn's character did develop in TTT.

I hope so.

I've only seen the film once so may have missed it; would you care to summarise how you thought he developed?

(Or point me to a page on this thread where it's already been answered - I've looked but can't seem to find it. I find it difficult to pick out the sensible discussion from the flaming on this thread )

Good point about character development, Cirdan. That makes a lot of sense. I guess it's one of the things people criticise Tolkien for when they don't really understand what he was trying to achieve.

cheers

d.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...and the Ents "hasty-ness" is out of character. It's more in line with what people are used to today.

Amen to that. Having Treebeard fooled into action by a hobbit was too much for me. Surely Jackson could have thought of some dramatic cool way of having them go to war against Isengard without resorting to that stunt. This was definitely a scene for the non readers.

Oh and speaking of Aragorn falling off a cliff and surviving, did anyone else get bothered by just how much the big three (Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli) always seemed to be leaping straight into the enemy, often bristling with spear heads and swords and by the freaking thousands and yet NEVER get hurt or even scratched while the enemy drops left and right like flies. Now I can accept that those three are much better combatants then any orc and I can accept that they are brave to the highest degree and have no fear of death or pain or anything and I dont really have a problem when say one of them decides yeah i can take on 40 orcs and come out ok. I actually liked that scene in the first movie where Aragorn first encounters the Uruk kai and theres DOZENS of them and he just jumps right in damn the torpedos. That was kinda cool. But I think they took it too far in the second movie. Its like there was a force field around them or something especially at Helms Deep. Really that warg battle was nice simply because Gimli gets knocked down in combat and pinned under a pile of wargs. He doesnt just mow everything down with his axe. And of course Aragorn falls off a cliff.... which we can argue about how tacky that is but at least it made 2 of the big 3 seem in relative peril for a few minutes.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
...the Ents "hasty-ness" is out of character. It's more in line with what people are used to today.

It's easy to criticise Peter Jackson's hasty Ents but I would love to hear how you would have portrayed them differently for the big screen. I thought Jackson did a nice job of cutting back and forth to the Ents during their "Entmoot" to give the audience the feeling of a looooooong drawn-out discussion even though the film couldn't possibly give us the real thing.

My 15 year old daughter loved the Ents in the book...Treebeard was her favorite character. Before TTT came out, she was worried about how the Ents would be portrayed. She confided in me that if they got the Ents wrong, it would be hard for her to like the rest of the series. FYI - Her TTT review: She thought Treebeard and the Ents rocked!

[Cirdan]

Not much to respond to since you apparently didn't read my post or have again chosen to respond to some self-generated point. The Ents say, "we are not hasty", in the film, and yet they acy hastily in the descision to go to war. It makes them sem silly. We wouldn't want talking trees to seem silly, now would we.:P But seriously, if they truely wanted to capture the spirit of Tolkien as they claim they would have left them as is, w/o using them to boost Merry and Pippen. I see why they did it and I don't care that much about it since my expectations for the Ents part was low (very liimited screen time). At least they looked cool stomping Isengard.

Tolkien was fastidious about believability and tying up loose ends. PJ likes to have his characters start at one point and end up somewhere else. It's a matter of how much the events effect the character and how much the character affects events. Tolkien's characters are very defined and specific individuals are chosen for the character dynamism. Frodo is the penultimate character awash in change; molded by the events, even so, his character is centered on his moral base. PJ takes the opposite tack in having a few characters as solid rocks (ie. Arwen, Elrond, Eomer), and the rest in transition.

[eowyngirl14]

I agree with Cirdan, atleast about them seeming hasty@

[LuthienTinuviel]

useless flame:
.

My 15 year old daughter

oh dear god it's raising children!

thank you and goodnight

oh BTW, im all with you Cirdan

[olsonm]

I disagree that the ents were protrayed as hasty in the movie or that they acted out of character, but agree with Cirdan about transition being important to PJ.

[Diamond]

I didn't find them hasty (if they had taken anymore time to decide, Peter Jackson would have been over his time limit), but my friend Daphne said it was amusing how Treebeard took a big, rambling speech to say how they don't say anything unless its worth taking a long time to say.

::toasts a marshmallow::

Di

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
There is a distinct philosophical difference in how characters are portrayed. The film focuses on a theme of redemption while the book is more about moral character. There is thought to be more drama in the dynamism of the "rise to the occassion" rather than "the tough get going" of Tolkien.

This is pure baloney. Your distinct philosophical difference between the two is primarily the difference between a film portrayal versus a book characterization. The themes Jackson illustrates are Tolkien's own. If Sam isn't a clear example of Tolkien's moral character on screen I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Ents say, "we are not hasty", in the film, and yet they act hastily in the decision to go to war.

Wrong again. Jackson gives us the beginning of the entmoot...cut to other action...then we have Treebeard leaving the entmoot to tell Merry and Pippin that they have made a decision (long pause)...a decision that the two hobbits are not orcs. When Merry asks about the war decision, he's told not to be so hasty...cut to other action. The audience is led to believe that another LONG period of time has been spent by the entmoot in deep discussion. When we return to the entmoot, Treebeard says that they have decided not to go to war. If you're not paying attention it WOULD seem hasty, but given the medium, the Ent's slowness to action was well portrayed.

[Nurvingiel]

BB, your question on how Cirdan would have portrayed the Ents in the movie is interesting. It got me thinking...

Nurvingiel's Ent Scene, cut from TTT due to time constraints:
Author's note: I don't have a copy of TTT in front of me! I want so much to quote it! Aaa! Let's see what I can do from memory...

*After the scene that is in TTT: Merry and Pippin are set down by Treebeard, the Entmoot begins. After some time, Merry and Pippin are informed they have been introduced to the Entmoot, and it's agreed they are not orcs.*

Scene 1:

A tall, lithe ent with less branches on his head materializes from the Forest.

Treebeard: This is Quickbeam. He's already made his decision, hoom, hoom, and he will accompany you until the Entmoot is hmm concluded.

Treebeard turns away, and the Entmoot continues. Quickbeam leaves the circle, and Merry and Pippin follow.

Pippin: What did you decide Quickbeam?

Quickbeam: (Quickbeam's voice is higher than Treebeard's, but he still has a deep, slow, Entish voice.) We should go to hmm war. I knew many strong and ancient trees that were destroyed by burrarum Saruman. And many who were sleeping, but we must protect them.

Quickbeam looks sad, thinking of his murdered friends. Merry and Pippin look uncomfortable and sad.

Quickbeam: (Smiles and enty smile) But come, we will refresh ourselves at my house, and wait until the rest of the Entmoot reaches a decision.

End of Scene 1.


Scene 2:

*Quickbeam's house*

Quickbeam, Merry, and Pippin are drinking from wooden bowls. The hobbits are telling Quickbeam about the Shire.

Merry: ...most of the Shire is open, hilly country, but we do have the Old Forest.

Pippin: Quickbeam, what is this? (Holds up the bowl.) It's delicious!

Quickbeam: Entdraught! Makes young saplings grow tall and strong.

Quickbeam smiles and looks very jovial.

Merry: Have the Ents reached a decision yet? What will Treebeard do?

Pippin: I reckon it's the middle of the third day of Entmoot.

Quickbeam: The forest is awake today.

Merry and Pippin look at him quizically, Quickbeam elaborates.

Quickbeam: I can feel energy, hmm, change. I believe the Entmoot is concluded!

Quickbeam strides out the door. Merry and Pippin follow, but they are some ways behing the quick-marching Ent.

Pippin: He seems pleased, the Ents must be going to war.

Merry: (grins) Yes.

Quickbeam waits for them and the Hobbits catch up. He picks them up and sets them down, one on each shoulder.

In the background you can hear "We come, we come!" sung in deep, strong, angry voices, and much loud hooming.

Quickbeam, Merry, and Pippin meet up with all the Ents who are now marching to Isengard.

End of Scene 2.

*reinsert into the scene where the Ents go to Isengard.*

[Black Breathalizer]

Bravo, Nurvingiel. I would have enjoyed seeing your version!

[Cirdan]

Nice dramatization, Nurv! You're more motivated than myself. You got hte Entdraught in as well. I think giving Merry a speech in the Moot would satisfy PJs need for maintaining interest in him through TTT to his big moment in RotK.


Excuse me a moment, I need to take out the trash.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Sam isn't a clear example of Tolkien's moral character on screen I don't know what is.

You don't. You are completely missing the point, as usual. If you can say that Aragorn's character, made the central role in terms of screen time, hasn't been changed from a long suffering king to be, waiting for his time to ascend the throne, to an ambivelent man, uncertain about his place i the world, then you are completely absent-minded when you read a book or view a movie. Everyone has noticed the difference. That you can find an exception in Sam is weak as I already provided examples of exceptions. Is English a second language for you?

]Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you're not paying attention it WOULD seem hasty, but given the medium, the Ent's slowness to action was well portrayed.

Again you make my case for me. I did say the Ents were set up as averse to being hasty. Everyone, except you apparently, has noticed the change to make the Ents make up their minds about not going to war, on the spur on the moment decision (hasty), based on the emotional viewing of the destroyed forest. What movie were you watching?

Again it goes back to my original point. The characters changed in response to events instead of reacting in a predictable way. A device to heighten drama. Aragaon in the fellowship (movie) says he never wants to be king. Do you think he will change his attitude and become decisive and certain about his destiny by Return of the King? Don't rush now...

I think your analysis is... a bit hasty.

[Lanelf]

The Ents go marching one by one, hurrah! hurrah!
The Ents go marching one by one, hurrah! hurrah!
The Ents go marching one by one, one of them stops to soak up the sun and they all went marching, off to destroy Isengard.
Etc, etc.

Can't you just see it?
Lanelf.