I don't know half the Harry Potter films half as well as I should not like, and I like less than half of them half as well as they deserve

Then why did he film Sam's vision in Galadriel's mirror?  Was she just fucking with him?  That scene is in the book because Saruman has enslaved Hobbiton.  It's a set-up, taken from the source material, that never pays off.

It's kinda getting late for me to rewatch now to check, but doesn't Saruman die offscreen in the films?  That's a major let down, compared to how Wormtongue does him in the book.

Finally, as they all return to their home town and find it occupied, we see the lasting positive effects the battles against evil have had on our hobbits.  They left home sheltered fat kids, and returned able to take care of themselves. Very much the way military experience changes surviving soldiers.

If you're cutting stuff I can see losing the days with Bombadil (it's kind of a non-event in the book, also, but shows how helpless and naive the boys all start out), but then I'd have also cut the gray havens scene, which most people don't understand at all anyway.

In the film, only Frodo looks in the mirror, and Galadriel prefaces it by saying: "[The Mirror] shows many things -- things that were, things that are, and some things that have not yet come to pass."

In other words, it's a vision of what would happen if they fail. It doubles-down on the stakes by re-establishing that the Shire will be destroyed if the Ring is not. Frodo doesn't give a fuck about the Mark of Rohan or the blood of Numenor, he just wants to save the Shire. It's motivation, perfectly valid in cinema language -- and the "worst case scenario" vision/prophecy is likewise a common fantasy trope -- and only seems like a set-up if you know the books. The pay-off is that he succeeds in his quest and therefore it never happens -- and the twist is that he's so changed by the journey he can no longer be a part of it.

In the theatrical version he's basically just declared to no longer be a threat, trapped in Orthanc. In the EE he dies onscreen, and way more dramatically than the silly dirt road hobo-stabbing in the novel.

Except it takes them all of five minutes to convince the other hobbits -- who didn't go through the war -- to fight back, which makes it seem to me like that's really just how hobbits are if someone gives them the right push.

It undermines the whole point of the quest, as mentioned above: protecting the Shire. If the scouring is necessary, they failed. The story is about destroying the One Ring. Once that's done, wrap it up. There are already too many endings for many people's taste, throwing in an entirely unnecessary mini-movie at the end to boot would be ridiculous.

EDIT: what Trey said.

Last edited by Dorkman (2012-03-10 03:15:20)

Save all this for tomorrow guys, you're shooting your load way too early. There's nine fucking hours of this.

Oh, I have no qualms about repeating myself tomorrow.  Or ever.

Also, I have no qualms about repeating myself.

Sorry, what?

As a doctor*, I'm proscribing you regular tonics of the restorative, Gin.

TWELVE HOURS???!!!!  Dang.  Y'all will have earned my respect if you can keep a straight head through all twelve.  Trey has already earned my respect by working on Ark for a year w/o compensation.  That's dedication!  I still think Brian will be the first to go batshit crazy though...

Last edited by switch (2012-03-10 04:30:54)

Forgive a fanboy for having his favorite scene from the book cropped out. 
Our heros got the heroine's journey.

I have to agree with Dorkman. I was thinking about this commentary and the movies and thinking on parts of the book that I wished had stayed, but the scouring of the Shire does not fit with the tone of the film at all. If they let Saruman live and let him go, then I could almost see it working, but that is more fitting with the book, not the movie. So, agree with Trey and Dorkman on this point, and with the above quote that Bombadil did not fit.

Since I am not able to participate in this venture, due to work, I decided to list out some things that I have been thinking on for this discussion. I hope someone in the huge panel will consider discussing the following:
(WARNING-Nerd rant to follow)
1. LOTR is not an allegory! While this discussion is on the film, and the perspective of those making the film, and understanding that Tolkien despised allegory as a story telling motif probably should be stated and realized. Most people put their own interpretations of who Gandalf represents, who Aaragorn represents, what the Ring represents. While some of them represent abstract concepts-such as the Ring being industrialization versus agrarian society-most of the characters stand alone without any interpretation. That was Tolkien's intent.
2. I wonder if anyone realized the Balrog's origin? I didn't while watching it, but reading the book gave far more insight in to the dynamic of that battle. The Balrog was not just some obscure demon that just happened upon the Fellowship. He and Gandalf were the same species, if you will, and the battle between them was close to power against power, but Gandalf's source of power was greater.
3. What parts do you think were added that should not have been-or taken out that should have stayed?
I'm sure this is a long discussion for the movies, but obviously, there is so much to the books that not everything could remain in.

Tis' all for now

Here's a topic for vigorous discussion that I've seen blow-up on forums: racism and LOTR.

Specifically it's possible to pre-judge each member of each race by the average characteristics of that race. All orcs are evil, all elves are noble, all hobbits over-eat & over-drink, etc.

Then there's the broader point of overlaying Middle Earth onto Europe - inhabitants get more nasty the further you travel to the south and east.

Frodo = Luke (no love interests, both raised by their uncles)
Gandalf = Obi Wan (respawning wise old mentors)
Merry & Pippin = C3PO & R2D2 (comic relief)
Aragorn = Han (able to take out countless enemies)
Legolas = Chewy (bow/bowcaster)
Orthanc/Isengard & Barad-Dur = Death Star (all three under construction)
Drop the ring into the volcano = Drop the photon-torpedo into the exhaust port (all problems are solved)
Tatooine = The Shire (the farm)
Saruman = Darth Vader (the deputy)
Sauron = The Emperor (evil personified)
Prancing Pony at Bree = Cantina at Mos Eisley (an altercation, pick up Aragorn/Han)
Nazgul & Orcs = Stormtroopers
Elves & Rohan & Gondor = Rebel Alliance
Frodo loses a finger = Luke loses a hand
Galadriel = Yoda (help along the way)
Look in the mirror = Look in the cave
Sting = Lightsaber (both are inherited and both glow blue!)
Balrog / Shelob = Wampa / Rancor (obstacles along the way)
Watcher in the Water = creature in the trash compactor
Wearing Orc amour as disguise in Mordor = wearing Stormtrooper armour as disguise on Death Star
Ents = Ewoks (both allies from the forest)
Wagnerian leitmotifs in the score = Ditto
Enemies have superior numbers but inferior fighting skills = Ditto
'My friends, you bow to no one' = Applause & Medals

Anything else?

Last edited by avatar (2012-03-10 13:58:17)

Tolkien was born in Victorian England and in many ways was a man of his time in respect to class, women, religion, race, reaction to modernity, etc.

If one were re-imagining LOTR today, you'd need to include at least one woman in the fellowship, probably a kick-arse woman (maybe Legolas would change gender). And Sam couldn't be Frodo's gardener (i.e. social inferior). And having dark skin wouldn't imply that you're evil. Maybe an Orc would betray his race and help out the fellowship. And maybe some of the pseudo-religious aspects would be toned down.

What other aspects of LOTR feel antiquated today i.e. if you were writing the novels now, you'd feel compelled to change?