Oh, somehow I managed to blot out the horror of the deal with Arwen's connection or whatever with Sauron that is wholesale and nonsensically invented here. I unfortunately was reminded of it elsewhere and obviously should have commented on it.

I probably shouldn't do this but I am going to repost a comment from the blog Making Light by Graydon Saunders who also wrote The Two Towers commentary I posted a while back as a followup to my Fellowship commentary.

When he wrote this, he had not yet seen Return of the King, perhaps wisely.

He is much better than I able to express the deeper issues of the movies/books differences while I find myself focusing on the specific troubles but I strongly agree with him that Jackson's version loses so much of the wonder and sense of history of Tolkien's story and NOT by things forced upon him by the medium but by direct choices he made (and perhaps a belief that Tolkien's story wasn't appealing to modern audiences which I just don't agree with in the strongest of terms).

I really hope these are remade with a different vision in my lifetime but what upsets me most of all about this trilogy is that it is well enough done and appealing enough to most that remaking it will probably be incredibly difficult or impossible for a VERY long time.

From Graydon,
posted on December 19, 2003 10:19 AM:

Janice -

Thank you!

[Note this is in regard to a misunderstood statement regarding Aragorn's banner which does NOT appear on the ships in the movies and only appears at the very end at the Coronnation/Wedding scene.]

Explicit mention isn't required, but, in the structure of the tale in the text, the moment when that banner breaks from the bow of the first ship of the corsairs IS the return of the king, the Heir of Elendil returned from the sea as his longfather of old came to Middle Earth on the wings of the storm.

(I sometimes suspect the entire Paths of the Dead subplot of being in the book so that that JRRT could have Aragorn return from the sea, and not over land from the north with the host of Rohan.)

My own take on the dignity issue is that Peter Jackson is indeed a hobbit, and has their flaws along with their virtues, so the he simply does not believe in nobility of character or generousity of spirit on any sort of wide scale.

In consequence, the gift giving isn't there -- Galadriel's is, but oddly undercut, as mere things and not the intangible aid and unprecedented welcome it was in the text; Theoden's gifts of armor (gifts to his sires out of Gondor long ago), Treebeard's hospitality in Wellinghall, Merry and Pippin's heartfelt courtesy in the ruins of Isengard, Theoden, Eomer, and Aragorn's recognition of what is owing to Ghan Buri Ghan, all of that is just absent, and the tale is less for that absence.

That there are still some few of the Children of Luthien in the world, folk of Numenor who have, however thinly, the blood of a divine being in their veins and the shadow of mighty gifts from the Powers of the World still on them, and that they are not altogether as mortal men, this is something Jackson has not altogether ignored but it is clear enough that it is a thing he entirely disbelieves.

Similarly, that Elrond Half-Elven is the son of a man who became an orbid star, the fosterling of Maedhros son of Feanor, and high among the heroes of a two thousand year long war between the elves and Sauron in the Second Age, a lord higher and greater than any king of men, that is a thing entirely disbelieved. Imladris was founded as a fortress and withstood long seige by Sauron himself in the days of its founding, and has been a seat of power as well as learning for all the long years since. That Rivendell, like that Elrond Half-Elven, is not anywhere to be seen.

I should not be wise to consider of Jackson's portrayal of Galadriel, who was the student of several angels and remembers the day when the Sun and Moon were hung in the sky in thus wise at all, for I am then caught between wrath and sorrow.

In this is also (I think) the explanation of why Gimli is made such a figure of fun; the Naugrim are awkward, prickly, touchy people, made in a dim sight of future days and a present love of craft and the wreaking of beauty to resist dominion, and so creatures of an oft-affronted dignity, but also creatures ofmighty craft and grand passions. The Gimli of the text can say that his heart is given to the morning, and wake a real sorrow. The hobbit view has no sympathy for the affront and less for the dignity, and leaves behind no place for the sorrow or the passion, the will and delight that made Gimli Gloin's son Lord of the Glittering Caverns of Aglorond or had Dain die, fighting over the body of his friend, Brand King of Dale, until the darkness fell.

Perhaps in five years, or ten, or twenty, or fity, or in the time of three lives of men, someone will make movies of those books again, and do it from the angle of such knowledge, and not out of the beliefs of hobbits.

However well constructed these movies are -- and they are, the product of a real love and a very great craft -- I think I might like those future others better, for my heart also is given to the morning.

Posted to Aaron...
Dear Aaron;
I came across your commentary on Return of the King by chance.
Are you familiar with the 'Dunedain' people?
Their possible place in history?
Odd question, but I felt compelled to write you.
PK

Aaron-

I read the Trilogy in 9th grade when it first came out in paperback, back in 1962-63. I even remember the war of words between the unauthorized Ace edition and the official (Bantam?) one. I fell in love with Eowyn back then, and she has always been my favorite character. To me, the death of the Witch King is mishandled. I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to recall her having something more affecting to say than "touch him and I will kill you." Also, Theoden dies without ever knowing Eowyn was there (tragedy), and does NOT have a conversation with her! The ill effects on Pippin and Eowyn after stabbing the Lord of the Nazgul are simply dispensed-with. And Faramir's wound(s) are shown as orc arrows, not a Nazgul dart. (Gandalf riding from the gate as a white strwak to drive the Nazgul away from Faramir is also one of my favorite scenes.) Thus there can be no substantial Houses of Healing scene, even on the Extended DVD.

I know it can't happen, but I'd love to see Jackson back up and take another run at The Return of The King, and FIX these and the numerous other problems you mentioned in your review. Sigh.

I guess this is a case of the glass being 85% full. But I dearly miss some of that remaining 15%.

Bob Warzeski

Aaron,

You express the problem with ROTK much better than I ever could. After watching Fellowship two years ago, I decided that Peter Jackson has the "Dungeons and Dragons" view of the Lord of the Rings. To him it is all about going on a quest and fighting monsters. He doesn't seem to understand everything that truly sets Tolkien's books apart from run-of-the-mill epic fantasy. The following two movies have proved me right. It is a shame that the characterizations could be so botched when so much else was done to perfection.

I've been scouring the web (not the Shire) looking for someone who felt as I do about the Return Of the King movie. While disappointed on many levels with the Fellowship and the Two Towers, I was so repulsed by the Return Of the King that I had to see it again to make sure I wasn't just in a bad mood or something. Unfortunately, a second viewing only confirmed my initial reaction to it.

Tha apparent love for this movie must be coming chiefly from non-readers of Tolkien's work or those who have become brainwashed by Jackson's view that the story as written is not suitable for veiwing by the general public and, therefore, he had to construct, out of whole cloth, nonsense throughout. How can the three major confrontations, which show the evolution and culmination of Gandalf's power (second now only to that of Sauron)—with Saruman at Orthanc, with the Lord of the Nazgul at the gate of Minas Tirith, and with the Lieutenant of Barad Dur—be left out? Meanwhile, ridiculous additions—Legolas and the Mumakil, Denethor leaping to his death, Frodo sending Sam off, and others too numerous to mention here—be included.

I listened intently since the project's inception and thought I heard the right things from Jackson. I, therefore, gave him a good deal of leeway through the first two installments, hoping he'd tie much together in the third, but he failed miserably. The only reason I'll watch it again on DVD will be to stop the viewing every ten minutes to lambaste it piecemeal.

I can understand why non-readers would like these movies, but I, as someone who loves this story, grieve for the opportunity lost.

Saying that only non-readers love the movie is totally off-base. I've read the books twice (currently on my third round) and I loved the movies. Also, as a film student, I completely understand the changes that had to be made. Nobody wants to sit in the theater and watch a five hour movie.

Marlon, this is not what I said. I said that non-readers would NOT have the problems I have as they can't make the comparisons. I did not say that all readers would dislike the film - readers of the books seem reasonably split upon their reactions.

As for the book-to-film issues, I tried to be very clear (particularly in my earlier Fellowship review) that my troubles were absolutely not over the cuts for time (although certainly I would have made them somewhat differently) but over deliberate choices to change the nature of many characters in a manner which horribly reduced the power of the characters and story for me. None of these changes sped up the film, they just changed it. I repeat that I thought they were absolutely right to remove Tom Bombadil and many other elements, like moving the Houses of Healing scene to the DVD and probably right to remove The Scouring of the Shire scenes as well, which are more costly than the others in terms of the plot but also are long and at a bad time for a movie audience used to movies ending soon after the main climax.

http://www.chrisdrackett.com/news/archive/movies/000025.html

ok, even if you’re goal was to just shorten the lord of the rings into a two and a half hour (or so) long movie, it would be a huge job that would require an extreme amount of cutting.. taking this approach and not re-working the story would, in my opinion, be suicide for the production team.. you would end up with a story that didn’t make sense, and would not engage the moviegoing audience..

Why do the Dunedain not come to Aragorn with the banner of the king (which for some crazy reason isn’t even raised on the ships - one of the three most memorable points of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields - and doesn’t appear till the end) and now Anduril? Their presence is so much more sensible as they will then accompany him on the Paths of the Dead. The special trip by Elrond just to deliver a message and the sword doesn’t make sense. Why does Aragorn not use the Palantir himself? Why does he seem to barely know of the Paths of the Dead? Why don’t they bring the horses along, a point which is explicitly stated in the text to be vital in order to reach Minas Tirith in time? Why is Gimli again used for humor value and not shown as a courageous man deeply afraid of a primal fear overcoming it by force of will and love/loyalty of Aragorn. Where is the Stone of Erech? Why do the dead accompany him on the ships rather than the men of Gondor he releases from defending the coast? All of these things are not only changes but simply work MUCH better as they are written in the text, a point which is true throughout this movie. Yes, I’m biased but I can also be pretty damn objective and there is basically not a single plot change in this movie (of which there are MANY) which improves the story, or at least not without great cost to actions making sense.

0_o how long do you want to sit in a theater?!? the movie is already over three hours long, and you’re complaining about missing elements, or elements that would have needed additional explanation.. i think its a very hard task to adapt such a deep and rich book into a movie, especially if you are trying to keep the same overall feeling that the story gives.. a good storyteller, in any medium, is not trying to convey every single detail that they remember, but is relaying the story to their audience in a way that audience will find engaging.. if the storyteller keeps the same overall feeling that the story had when they heard it, they have succeeded (if you ask me..)

Theoden sitting around in Rohan not even marshaling the Riders of the Mark until he sees the beacons MAKES NO SENSE.

except that theoden in the movie isn’t the same as the theoden from the book.. at the same time gondor as a whole (especially it seward, denethor) isn’t the same as in book either.. keeping with these changes, in the movie theoden isn’t sure gondor is even worthy of help, especially if they won’t admit that they need it (by lighting the beacons.. an extremely well done scene)

That he [pipppin] then is immediately sent by Gandalf in the movie to betray Gondor (yes, for its own good but outright treachery as a legal issue) is sickening, particularly when Gandalf could trivially light the fire using magic from the ground without Pippin’s betraying his oath. The beacon fires must be admitted to look extremely cool but the cost in believability of the character’s actions is far too great and the fires could have been done without a viewpoint character to light them.

the point is, as i mentioned above, these aren’t the characters from the book.. they are close and based upon the book characters, but you can’t hold them to the same ideals.. i feel these events make total sense in the context of the movie (the only context that should really matter when talking about the capability of the movie)

a man soaked in oil and burning like a torch does not do a hundred yard dash down a runway (a runway which should not exist I might add and if it does exist why aren’t there siege engines on it as it is the best place in the entire city for them as shown in the movie).

its a movie! that dramatic zoom out from the top of minas tirith to show the battle is a nice shot ;)

Also, one of my very few objections over the design work is over Minas Tirith. The city looks too beaten down, the outer wall is not nearly strong enough and the Denethor runway while it exists to a degree in some Tolkien art is massively too exaggerated here and goes out way too far.

!!! this is probably the reason im writing this rebuttal.. i absolutely love the design of minas tirith.. i think it is probably the coolest model (and city design) i have ever seen.. perfectly monumental, detailed, and powerful.. i think its just wonderful.. i think the runway is one of the best parts in this design, and gives the city an amazing look that only cities in final fantasy ever come close to..

while Theoden squanders any surprise by speech making in full view of the enemy

how exciting would it be in a movie if he gave the speech while hiding somewhere out of sight? the fact that they are in view of the enemy makes this scene very dramatic..

is it realistic? no.

do good, entertaining movies have to be? i’d say no again..

Other problems with the battle - How are the Oliphaunts so full of arrows when the Rohirrim seem to have only few archers and this part of the battle seems too far from the walls of Minas Tirith for their archers to help, particularly when the men of Minas Tirith never seem to sortie out to support the Riders as they should.

all to make the movie visually interesting and exciting.. see above ;)

Why in a movie which is so long and needs to cut stuff do you add a long prologue scene that I doubt even made that much sense to viewers who hadn’t read the books and was unnecessary for anyone. Was Gollum just so liked in “The Two Towers” that Jackson wanted to take advantage of that momentum and so added a scene that doesn’t make much sense to show. The idea that Frodo could believe Sam was outright lying to him on multiple occasions and would believe Gollum over Sam is so contrary to every element of the character of all three as to absolutely sicken me that Jackson could so fuck this up. The scene with them watching the army and then climbing the stair in full view so that if any of thousands of soldiers look up, they are dead is insanely stupid.

i think the character of gollum in the movie is very well done and thought out (plus, very very well acted).. its important for the audience to know (or more accurately see) where gollum came from, and with this, where frodo is going.. in the movie frodo understands the connection he and gollum share, and it bonds them in a way sam can’t understand, and gollum proceeds takes advantage of.. this makes sams return (to defeat shelob), even after being turned away by frodo (who he loves dearly) even more heroic..

Why the watchers were moved from Minas Morgul to the Tower of Cirith Ungol I don’t know as it is a powerful scene in the books of Sam using the Phial of Galadriel to gain entrance to the Tower to rescue Frodo.

again, this would have added length and needed explanation to the movie.. these precious minutes are better used elsewhere, i think..

Jackson doesn’t get the Elven mentality one iota!!!

*sigh* i think he meant to say “jackson doesn’t get my personal unchanging opinion of what the elven mentality is one iota!!!”

Military issues. Some of this I’ve mentioned earlier but it bears having its own section because it is obvious that Peter Jackson doesn’t know shit about fighting while Tolkien does. There are like 4 major battle scenes and in every one of them, Jackson has the West making nonsensical moves while Tolkien has them fight rationally. First is the battle of Osgilliath where Faramir’s forces have one major advantage, they can defend the river crossing. In the movie, they literally sit and wait while the Orcs have a chance to land. This battle is hopeless without the natural barrier of the river. To be surprised by the attack and then intentionally give up the crossing when you are warned is STUPID!!! Second is the second battle of Farmair. Tolkien has a debate but Denethor deciding (probably unwisely) to defend the outer wall of the Pelennor (not even shown in the movie as far as I could tell) feeling he can’t give it up without a fight. Jackson has him ordering Faramir to make a suicidal charge against a defended position. This is an action of military incompetence to rival the worst in history. Should we defend a fortress with the high ground or suicidally charge a held position? Third is the charge of the Rohirrim which I have already mentioned. Tolkien has them prepare out of sight and fully take advantage of the element of surprise. Jackson has them prepare in sight and dilly dally while the opposition has a chance to prepare archers and pikemen against them. This is an insanely stupid move for horsemen. Finally there is the final battle of the Captains of the West at the Black Gate. Yes, the very move is basically crazy but at least Tolkien has it executed with military competence as the Captains array to defend two small hills with a pike wall in front and archers in the middle to shoot over them. Here, Aragorn crazily charges out from their solid position to spread themselves out against a vastly larger force. Again, this is military insanity!!!

but you have to admit, they makes some pretty exciting, dramatic, emotional, and powerful battle scenes in a movie.. “realistic” battles aren’t what this movie needs.. one very important thing to remember is that this is a fantasy movie.. not a history.. i will agree that the book is much more of an actual history, but when was the last time a historical battle was portrayed totally accurately in a movie, and was still exciting?

I continue to mourn for what this trilogy could have been with a different writer but the same wonderful team of actors and design people.

don’t mourn, i really don’t think these movies could have turned out any better than they did giving the constraints on time, money, and the health of the amazing people that worked on it especially the writers..

in the end, if you want a lord of the rings with character development as deep as the mariana trench, extreme detail, and author accurate stories read the book!

if they had gone and made the book page for page into a movie, not only would it be 10 hours long, but the flow would be all off, and the audience would lose interest (if it even developed) very quickly.. a movie is a different medium, and should be treated as such.. i think the adaptation of the lord of the rings to the film medium is amazing.. sure there is stuff missing from the books, but the books are still being printed, you and i can (and, at least for me, will) read them whenever we want in their original form.. i totally commend peter jackson, and everyone who worked on the movie, for a job well done…

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: