Did Peter Jackson screw up? (I mean badly)

[Inlé_rah]

"Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A Great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame." --Saruman

Movie stuff, right? Sound familiar? Ok.

When I first saw the FotR movie, I paused over that, but then shuffled it to the back of my mind to enjoy the awesomeness in peace. And quite honestly, while there are other things in the movies that I find more annoying...

(To name a few: Elves at Helm's Deep anyone? The fact that they keep calling the Battle of the Hornburg 'Helm's Deep'? Absence of the Grey Company and the Northern Dunedain and that crap about Aragorn renouncing his kingship? Elrond riding hundred of miles to deliver Anduril? Seriously?)

...this still remains for me the biggest error. And an actual error at that rather than artistic interpretation.

There is a quote by Gollum in the chapter of The Two Towers, The Black Gate is Closed: "Yes, He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand, but they are enough..."

Sarumans quote from the movie begs the question: what good would a ring do a spirit "lack[ing] physical form" anyways had he not any fingers to put it on? All the bling bling in Arda wouldn't do him any good. So how could the Dark Lord be only a powerful spirit manifested in the Eye?

Nevermind the fact that when I read the books, I was never convinced that that Eye of Sauron was an eye and any physical sense but more of a metaphor of his power. But of course the movies, as a visual medium, needed a visual interpretation of that, so no fault there.

*pours a giant bucket of Visine on top of Barad-dûr*

[AlecTrevylan006]

I've always said it was a big f!ck up, in previous debates and all. Don't get me started

[Yellow Banshee]

I can't stand it either. My biggest complaint, however, is the COMPLETE AND UTTER lack of Tom Bombadil! It's one thing to change crap around and add stuff, but it's another to acctualy REMOVE a character (it's just so sad...) (and one so important at that! I trust you've read the theory about how Tom is the Witch King?).

[shortkut]

no, david duchoveny is the witch king dumbass :P

i agree alec

[dangerwill182]

you need to get over the fact that the fairy-prancing Tom Bombadil isn't in the film. The movie is better because of that. Most people don't really want to see this guy jumping around. That would not get people interested in the film

[OBSIDION]

"Sarumans quote from the movie begs the question: what good would a ring do a spirit "lack[ing] physical form" anyways had he not any fingers to put it on? All the bling bling in Arda wouldn't do him any good. So how could the Dark Lord be only a powerful spirit manifested in the Eye?

Nevermind the fact that when I read the books, I was never convinced that that Eye of Sauron was an eye and any physical sense but more of a metaphor of his power. But of course the movies, as a visual medium, needed a visual interpretation of that, so no fault there."

Ok the eye of Sauron was phisical and metaphorical it was to show his effect on all Middle Earth because it is an all seeing eye. Now though an eye has no fingures other references in the book suggest that he would be come one with the ring suggesting a casting the ring into the eye or comming in contact with Sauron much like to destroy the ring it must be cast into the "Fires of Mount Doom."

Now the next part has been complained about alot. The elves at Helms Deep were put there as a refference to the turning of the tides. Much as with the 2nd age the union of elves and men brought victory. The reason they call it helms deep is uncertain but I can tell you this: Helms Deep was the name of the whole fortrace and the Hornburg is the horn that gimli blows and is also the name of that little room that they ride out of

The reason for Aragorn denouncing the throne is to use the theme of transformation and to have Aragorn have a meaningful journey not just a path that has a definite result.

Originally they were going to have Arwen give Aragorn the sword but instead they used yet another form of transformation and when Arwen talks to her father istills faith in Middle Earth and transforms Elrond in a scence.

The artistic interpretation was not what you think. When they were designing the gate of mordor there was a typo in the script that said "gates" so they made 2 and desided to just keep it

[OBSIDION]

I can't stand it either. My biggest complaint, however, is the COMPLETE AND UTTER lack of Tom Bombadil! It's one thing to change crap around and add stuff, but it's another to acctualy REMOVE a character (it's just so sad...) (and one so important at that! I trust you've read the theory about how Tom is the Witch King?).

The reason they cut out Tom Bombadil was because, though we all love his character (Including John Ronald Rule Tolkien himself was his favorite character), Frodo and the hobbits enter the forest get lost find eachother and run into Tom and when they leave they go to Bree and learn nothing nor change anything so to save money they just cut Tom :(

[Inlé_rah]

Ok the eye of Sauron was phisical and metaphorical it was to show his effect on all Middle Earth because it is an all seeing eye. Now though an eye has no fingures other references in the book suggest that he would be come one with the ring suggesting a casting the ring into the eye or comming in contact with Sauron much like to destroy the ring it must be cast into the "Fires of Mount Doom."
That would be an interesting addition to Middle-Earth metaphysics...

What references? I don't have them with me right now, but I think Tolkein confirms in his letters that Sauron does have a physical form.

And Sauron had already taken at least one form just prior to the War of the Ring: the Necromancer, the evil being who dwelt at Dol Guldur in Mirkwood before he withdrew to Barad-dûr. Remember that though the Wise had thought that the Necromancer was one of the Nazgûl, Gandalf later discovered that the Necromancer to be Sauron himself. Information concerning this is probable found in the chapters in which the Council of Elrond takes place or "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in the Silmarillion.

That pretty much settles it for me.

The reason they call it helms deep is uncertain but I can tell you this: Helms Deep was the name of the whole fortrace and the Hornburg is the horn that gimli blows and is also the name of that little room that they ride out of
Yeah. Aware of the fact. And they probably call it Helm's Deep in the film because that was the chapter name.

The reason for Aragorn denouncing the throne is to use the theme of transformation and to have Aragorn have a meaningful journey not just a path that has a definite result.
Though it probably makes for better in the film (given our rather post-modern sensibilities), I don't find the idea of a "definite result" problematic, in the context of the book. If you actually get into the stuff behind it, the morality of it, one could say, there is a definite idea of Providence in Tolkein's work.

"And why should not they prove true? Surely you do not disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
- Gandalf

Think of the three themes of Iluvatar in the Music of the Ainur (if you can suffer through reading it.) *chuckle* Yeah...as I said, I don't find this problematic within Tolkein's cosmology. In fact, I think it was actually meant to be that way.

If you want a "meaningful journey," complete with overused archetypal symbolism, I suggest the original Star Wars trilogy. :D

Originally they were going to have Arwen give Aragorn the sword
And what would Freud say to that? Lol. :chuckle:

but instead they used yet another form of transformation and when Arwen talks to her father istills faith in Middle Earth and transforms Elrond in a scence.
Now the next part has been complained about alot. The elves at Helms Deep were put there as a refference to the turning of the tides. Much as with the 2nd age the union of elves and men brought victory.
Yes, but the books makes the waning power of the elves in Middle-Earth very real. Any last traces of their dominion really end with the Third Age.

LOTR, the book poses the question whether men, who are not bound to Arda like the Elves (and whose hearts were darkened by Morgoth when their race awakened--(but nevermind---that's Silmarillion stuff)--hence their weakness for evil), can be faithful custodians of the good in the world.

Ok. So Sauron is crushed. The foundations of Barad-dur are broken (I think). Gondor and Arnor are united as they were originally meant to be. Aragorn becomes king. Ok. Is it over? I mean really over. Certainly, if you look at the history of Numenor, for example, this question is not settled.

Men are ever able to turn again towards the Nameless:
"… his name is Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedeom, and he shall make you stronger than they."
--Sauron, Akalabêth

"Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days."
--Quenta Silmarillion (last sentence)
As Peter S Beagle aptly put it: "There are no happy endings because nothing really ends."

---

Don't get me wrong. I love the movies. They are amazing, more than I would have ever hoped for, but there is simply so much more to the books.

And I also think that had Jackson tried to go deeper into certain things, it would seem to mired in bigger questions (like Matrix 2 & 3). The great thing about books is that they can imply many huge questions with subtlety in a way that film simply cannot.

[Argh]

The movies are very good to someone who hasn't read the books. Like any book made into a movie, the movie will not compare to the book.

I may be wrong but isn't LOTR loosely based on Norse mythology? No happy endings in Norse stories. Ragnarok anyone?

[Pyro_Bowser]

It seems more like a mix between the Huns(Rohan) and the Greek(Minas Tirith/ Helm's Deep) for appearance, and I don't think it's Norse just because of a Dwarf. But then again, I'm still wondering if Gandolf is the long-lost merlin.

[Argh]

Yea I think that's true about Rohan being based off of the Huns. There is Greek or Roman influence on Minas Tirith, but I don't see it in Helm's Deep. Merlin isn't Norse, ya know? Elves and dwarves are originally Norse. And Midgard seems like Middle Earth a little.

[Inlé_rah]

I always found this interesting. Make what you will of it:

«The foundational peoples of Britain are largely descended from these ancient races [the Saxons and the Celts]: their stories also carried traces of the Scandinavian legends and values. The Norman conquest in England in 1066 eventually prevented the widespread sharing of Celtic and Saxon myths throughout the land and many were lost to history. In the same way the opening of the movie summarises the history of Middle-
Earth from the first and second age into the Third Age:

"many things that once were are now lost for none now live who remember it. "

Tolkien had a great love of one of the few surviving epics, Beowulf, which he studied and lectured on for many years as Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Merton College, Oxford.

Tolkien wrote to a friend that his whole mythology came from a line in the second remaining Anglo-Saxon medieval writings we have, called "Crist of Cynewulf ". The line is…

"Hail Erendel, brightest of Angels/above the
middle earth sent unto humankind”

(Sound familiar much?

"Aiya Earendil elenion ancalima."
"Hail, Earendil, Brightest of the stars.")

Much later Tolkien wrote of this experience:
"I felt a curious thrill ... as if something had stirred in me, half wakened from sleep. There was something very remote and strange and beautiful behind those words, if I could grasp it, far beyond ancient English."

Tolkien wished to rebuild what Anglo-Saxon mythology might have looked like, from a phrase like this, and offer it again to the English speaking peoples as a taproot of their ancient heritage. A people with roots can branch and flower freely, and so Tolkien thought he was offering a crucial and inspirational lifeline for the identity and vision of English culture. »

[Argh]

Another thing I found interesting is that MiddleEarth looks like Wales. Compare the western coastline of both.

[Pyro_Bowser]

And Merlin is actually English folklore. :p

[shortkut]

Merlin is supposedly the wizard from king arthur's time when king arthur supposedly chased the romans out of england.

when i did beowulf in school a couple of weeks ago my teacher who is a big lotr fan was showing us comparisons between them. i'll post what i can find (ie: what i bothered to write down)

boromir's horn
naming swords
grendel's mere = description of mordor
most of the hobbit
mor thor = old english for hate => mordor

Battle of Malden
train farmers quickly to fight => helms deep

i had more but this is all i can find at the moment

[Pyro_Bowser]

Yeah, the romans were pretty stupid, trying to take over island; then getting stomped by the barbaric germanic tribes. :p

[Inlé_rah]

when i did beowulf in school a couple of weeks ago my teacher who is a big lotr fan was showing us comparisons between them. i'll post what i can find (ie: what i bothered to write down)

boromir's horn
naming swords


i had more but this is all i can find at the moment
You take good notes. :chuckle:

Naming swords is hardly original to Beowulf. Off the top of my head, I can think of three well-known legends in which certain swords were very prominent.

Durendal, the Sword of the Earl Roland --- La Chanson de Roland (The Song of Roland)
Excalibur, the sword of King Arthur Pendragon --- many legends who are best known through La Mort d'Arthur
Balmung, the magic sword of Siegfried --- Nibelungen saga

Yeah...and there's something rather interesting about certain weapons in the Nibelungen saga...
Notung. The name Wagner gave to the sword of Siegmund and his son Siegfried; he took it from the Nibelungen saga. Wotan personally embedded it in an ash tree, and only the "chosen one" could withdraw it. The name of the swordsmith remains unclear (in Wagner), but it can only have been Donar, the Germanic version of Hephaestus. Notung means "born of strife".
Balmung. In the Nibelungen saga Balmung is the sword that Siegfried forges from the broken Notung. (OMG Plagarism!!! :eek:) There are many versions of this story, however (and of the Nibelungen and similar sagas).

Yeah...sound familiar much? :D

Oh. And I always found it amusing that the father of Charlemagne was named Pépin le Bref (Pippin the Short). Makes no good analogy to anything, but it is amusing...

As for Boromir's horn, I find myself forcibly reminded of the horn of Roland in La Chanson de Roland, right down to the bowing-the-horn-to-call-for-aid-while-fighting-bunches-of-enemies part.

[shortkut]

he was mentioning that tolkien took most of his ideas from old english/anglo-saxon texts which is probably where those too come from. the naming of swords is certainly anglo-saxon in nature (or predominantly anglo-saxon)

[Inlé_rah]

he was mentioning that tolkien took most of his ideas from old english/anglo-saxon texts which is probably where those too come from. the naming of swords is certainly anglo-saxon in nature (or predominantly anglo-saxon)
And then there is the Kalevala, which is Finland's national epic. I think I read somewhere that Quenya is patterned off of the Finnish in terms of sounds and vowels or something...

[shortkut]

the anglo-saxons were germanic tribes like the geats (pronounced yay-ahts) and finland would be one of the areas where the germanic tribes came from.

come on inlé, you're usually smart not feigning ignorance :(

[Inlé_rah]

the anglo-saxons were germanic tribes like the geats (pronounced yay-ahts) and finland would be one of the areas where the germanic tribes came from.

come on inlé, you're usually smart not feigning ignorance :(
Ouch. Hurtness. *cries a sad cry*:cry:

But I think I'm right. I was going based on language, which I knew wasn't indo-european like any of your germanic or romance languages. It only naturally follows that a people with such a difference in language wouldn't be from the same ethnic group. Sound enough logic? Ok:

Finish isn't an Indo-European like the other Nordic languages, but Finno-Ugric; its closest major relative is Estonian (but even those two languages aren't really mutually intelligible), and it is distantly related to Hungarian, Sámi, and several minor languages spoken in European Russia and Siberia.
Doesn't sound much like a germanic people to me, common language being one of the chief things that comprise ethnicity. Whatever an ethnic Finn is, chances are they are not Germanic in origin.

Now...
Let's get over this before I decide to get annoying and make another argument about Lord of the Rings and racial purity with myriad references to the phrases "blood of Numénor" and "men of the West." :D

[shortkut]

modern finish isn't like the germanic languages but i think the ancient form was

:shrug: that argument was funny so feel free to make it again

[Inlé_rah]

modern finish isn't like the germanic languages but i think the ancient form was
If by "ancient form" you mean when Finland used Swedish as opposed to Finish as the lingua franca...
:shrug: that argument was funny so feel free to make it again
Ok.

Language is probably chief of those things that create the identity we call ethnicity.

Finish isn't an Indo-European language like the other Nordic languages (Swedish, for example) or Germanic laguages, or Romance languages.

It likely follows that whatever an ethnic Finn is, they are not a germanic people but have distant roots with those peoples with whom their language is distantly related.

Better?

[shortkut]

yes, that's what i meant and those damn swedes conquered the Geats :(

[Inlé_rah]

yes, that's what i meant and those damn swedes conquered the Geats :(
Well, I guess I won't get to have fun making analogies about Gondor, Arnor and the Third Reich after all. :D

[shortkut]

you can, who am i to stand in your way of having fun. i am but a devil's advocate :D