4 ms·

Well, you can count myself and my 10yo son in on the Tom Bombadil fan club members, for sure (my son knows from listening to the audiobook version). As far as

Well, you can count myself and my 10yo son in on the Tom Bombadil fan club members, for sure (my son knows from listening to the audiobook version). As far as shortcomings go, I feel that the movie's bastardization of Faramir was the worst travesty because his honor in the face of having the ring in his grasp is one of my favorite parts of the books. Making him drag the ring-bearer back to the city ensured that I will never watch the movies again. As well, that crap with Aragorn getting lost and then fighting back by himself was an utter travesty, and the crap with his fiance was crap, too (except for where they subbed her in for Glorfindel in the race to Rivendell), as much as I understand that they wanted a woman to play a more prominent role. That said, Eowyn's story should have been enough and at least they didn't mangle her. But, yeah, it would've been really cool to have a Patrick Stewart Tom Bombadil.

hopler 8y ago
All in all, better to make an existing king a queen, or make an existing knight a lady (but with otherwise same plot and dialogue), if you feel it is necessary, than to take one of most carefully researched and written novels in history and just rewrite it. Or make a spin off story that focuses on the role of some overlooked women. Or better, a satire or a separate work that alludes to LotR as commentary.
_bxg1 8y ago
I'm a little biased towards the movies because they were what I experienced first, but I respect the criticisms of them. That said, I personally feel their treatment of Aragorn was the best liberty they took. He felt fairly one-dimensional in the books; his whole character was about his destiny to be king and he reminded everyone he met. In the movie he doesn't want power; he struggles between his fear of it and his desire to help the world. This struggle over the kingship mirrors the struggle over the ring (which both he and Gandalf face, among others) and makes him much more compelling as a character. I also liked the Arwen subplot; she really wasn't a character at all in the books. I thought their relationship was powerful and expanded upon his being pulled between the realms of elves and men (of which his Numenorean heritage was a microcosm).
- OneWordSoln 8y ago
  That's the thing with deep goodness: it is always the same. It is always simple, humble, powerful, long-suffering and generally unappreciated. The vast masses of humanity just rarely give a crap, as evidenced by the populace's fascination with tribes such as the Kardashians and the ascendancy of our current US president. I don't remember where I heard it, but it was many years ago, that the "bad guys" can come in some many varieties, have so many different kinds of character defects and obsessions and whatnot, but that the true hero is always the same kind of boring because goodness itself is not flashy. That is why Hollywood always portrays their heroes with some kind of serious character defect, unless it just writes stories with only an anti-hero of some kind. One must never forget that Tolkien lived through WWI whose horror and tragedy gave him a firm grasp of the complex realities of both good and evil. The resulting simplicity is why LoTR has stood the test of time as a truly epic story.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    The innocent goodness you're talking about is embodied in the hobbits (and, indeed, in Tom Bombadil). But it tends to be driven out by the acquisition of power, like oil from water. Holding both goodness and the power to act on goodness within oneself at the same time is incredibly difficult and pretty much impossible to do perfectly. It takes great strength and constant struggle, which is what Aragorn in the movies represents. History has shown us that any powerful figure whose sense of inner direction comes without struggle or conflict is probably incredibly evil, even (especially) if they don't see themselves that way.
    - OneWordSoln 8y ago
      The perfection of humanity is very rare but not only possible, but definitely attainable. It takes a lifetime of effort, of questioning one's own motives and past actions and one's societal traditions through the lens of love and brutal honesty. Love is defined as selfless service to others without regard for recompense except for the inner peace and happiness that results; i.e. loving behavior is the opposite of selfishness. It is our political and industry leaders' selfish pursuit of power and wealth at the expense of others that has dominated the world since time immemorial and is the driving force behind why things are so miserable for the vast majority of human beings on Earth today (and getting worse). Only when we choose "public servants" to be our leaders will the sh*t stop rolling downhill. Everyone who says that the perfection of the human being is impossible have never tried, thus they are acting just as the contemporaries of Boltzman and Einstein who derided their advanced understandings of the universe. The reality is that most people never try to better themselves, especially if the techniques suggested stray beyond their preconceived notions of the nature of the universe and themselves. As well, most people are caught up in their desires for pleasure and material wealth and generally have no concern for those outside of their social circle, be it based upon ethnicity, form of religion, class, sexual orientation or gender identity. That the incremental perfection of each human being is possible is provable simply by noticing that every choice we make can be better chosen each day, by conscious thought and honest self-reflection on our past deeds combined with earnest study. We must consciously shift our societies' dynamics from destructive competitiveness to constructive cooperation, from selfishness to selflessness, from callous indifference to caring compassion. Love is the essence of humanity, without such agape (service-based love for all other human beings) we are left as the unenlightened animals we all begin as. Only we human beings have the ability to consciously rise above our foibles. It is also our nature to require an inward connection with our Creator to effect our transformation from selfishness to selflessness. There is a science of spirituality that is beyond any form of religion but most modern scientists deny such science for lack of external evidence. The evidence must be perceived within oneself, just as Boltzman and Einstein's contemporaries needed to read the papers and understand the processes that they were describing. The difference is that denying the spiritual path indeed makes it not exist for that person, for each person must embark on that endeavor themself before being able to feel its reality. Those outside of that circle of understanding must have an open mind and heart to enter that circle or else they will never experience it and that is just another aspect of our human reality: we are free to choose to remain ignorant of it, but we all know what history says about Boltzman and Einstein's deniers. "The Way goes in." --Rumi

hopler 8y ago

All in all, better to make an existing king a queen, or make an existing knight a lady (but with otherwise same plot and dialogue), if you feel it is necessary, than to take one of most carefully researched and written novels in history and just rewrite it. Or make a spin off story that focuses on the role of some overlooked women. Or better, a satire or a separate work that alludes to LotR as commentary.

_bxg1 8y ago

I'm a little biased towards the movies because they were what I experienced first, but I respect the criticisms of them. That said, I personally feel their treatment of Aragorn was the best liberty they took. He felt fairly one-dimensional in the books; his whole character was about his destiny to be king and he reminded everyone he met. In the movie he doesn't want power; he struggles between his fear of it and his desire to help the world. This struggle over the kingship mirrors the struggle over the ring (which both he and Gandalf face, among others) and makes him much more compelling as a character. I also liked the Arwen subplot; she really wasn't a character at all in the books. I thought their relationship was powerful and expanded upon his being pulled between the realms of elves and men (of which his Numenorean heritage was a microcosm).

OneWordSoln 8y ago
That's the thing with deep goodness: it is always the same. It is always simple, humble, powerful, long-suffering and generally unappreciated. The vast masses of humanity just rarely give a crap, as evidenced by the populace's fascination with tribes such as the Kardashians and the ascendancy of our current US president. I don't remember where I heard it, but it was many years ago, that the "bad guys" can come in some many varieties, have so many different kinds of character defects and obsessions and whatnot, but that the true hero is always the same kind of boring because goodness itself is not flashy. That is why Hollywood always portrays their heroes with some kind of serious character defect, unless it just writes stories with only an anti-hero of some kind. One must never forget that Tolkien lived through WWI whose horror and tragedy gave him a firm grasp of the complex realities of both good and evil. The resulting simplicity is why LoTR has stood the test of time as a truly epic story.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  The innocent goodness you're talking about is embodied in the hobbits (and, indeed, in Tom Bombadil). But it tends to be driven out by the acquisition of power, like oil from water. Holding both goodness and the power to act on goodness within oneself at the same time is incredibly difficult and pretty much impossible to do perfectly. It takes great strength and constant struggle, which is what Aragorn in the movies represents. History has shown us that any powerful figure whose sense of inner direction comes without struggle or conflict is probably incredibly evil, even (especially) if they don't see themselves that way.
  - OneWordSoln 8y ago
    The perfection of humanity is very rare but not only possible, but definitely attainable. It takes a lifetime of effort, of questioning one's own motives and past actions and one's societal traditions through the lens of love and brutal honesty. Love is defined as selfless service to others without regard for recompense except for the inner peace and happiness that results; i.e. loving behavior is the opposite of selfishness. It is our political and industry leaders' selfish pursuit of power and wealth at the expense of others that has dominated the world since time immemorial and is the driving force behind why things are so miserable for the vast majority of human beings on Earth today (and getting worse). Only when we choose "public servants" to be our leaders will the sh*t stop rolling downhill. Everyone who says that the perfection of the human being is impossible have never tried, thus they are acting just as the contemporaries of Boltzman and Einstein who derided their advanced understandings of the universe. The reality is that most people never try to better themselves, especially if the techniques suggested stray beyond their preconceived notions of the nature of the universe and themselves. As well, most people are caught up in their desires for pleasure and material wealth and generally have no concern for those outside of their social circle, be it based upon ethnicity, form of religion, class, sexual orientation or gender identity. That the incremental perfection of each human being is possible is provable simply by noticing that every choice we make can be better chosen each day, by conscious thought and honest self-reflection on our past deeds combined with earnest study. We must consciously shift our societies' dynamics from destructive competitiveness to constructive cooperation, from selfishness to selflessness, from callous indifference to caring compassion. Love is the essence of humanity, without such agape (service-based love for all other human beings) we are left as the unenlightened animals we all begin as. Only we human beings have the ability to consciously rise above our foibles. It is also our nature to require an inward connection with our Creator to effect our transformation from selfishness to selflessness. There is a science of spirituality that is beyond any form of religion but most modern scientists deny such science for lack of external evidence. The evidence must be perceived within oneself, just as Boltzman and Einstein's contemporaries needed to read the papers and understand the processes that they were describing. The difference is that denying the spiritual path indeed makes it not exist for that person, for each person must embark on that endeavor themself before being able to feel its reality. Those outside of that circle of understanding must have an open mind and heart to enter that circle or else they will never experience it and that is just another aspect of our human reality: we are free to choose to remain ignorant of it, but we all know what history says about Boltzman and Einstein's deniers. "The Way goes in." --Rumi