9 ms·

I have a love/hate relationship with the movies. While the trilogy brought to life Middle-Earth to a degree I never thought imaginable, there were some elements

by scop 7y ago

I have a love/hate relationship with the movies. While the trilogy brought to life Middle-Earth to a degree I never thought imaginable, there were some elements that just fell incredibly flat. If I had to pin it on one thing, it was that Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill (which admittedly is not an easy thing to do!). While the honest goodness of the Hobbits was wonderful, the portrayals of "good" characters such as Aragorn and Galadriel fell very flat. This is not to blame on the actors at all as I thought Viggo did an awesome job; but the screenplay needlessly muddled the character. Also, where was the damn poetry?

low_common 7y ago
Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by the portrayal of Aragorn "falling a bit flat"? Perhaps he was a bit too gruff or something, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring? I could possibly see that because in the book he was definitely clear-cut 'rough and ready good-guy'.
- scop 7y ago
  No problems with his "gruffness" as you term it; that indeed very much captured his Ranger walkings in Fellowship etc. What was a tough pill to swallow was the self-doubt infused into the character. I know I know, character development, relatability, etc etc. But, c'mon, Aragorn is the damned KING and a leader with unflinching will (a contrast to many around him). ... Also, where was the damn standard w/ the White Tree, Elendil when Aragorn arrived at the boat?!
  - Pigo 7y ago
    As someone who had not read the books before seeing the movies (I know, I know) it added a lot of context when I found out why the elves were leaving at the end. I remember wondering why everyone was leaving if they had won. I know it was already long, but I wish they'd explained the ring's connection to magic better. It also would have explained why everyone was so willing to take the rings of power in the first place, and given more weight to the somber tone at the end.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  murdering an ambassador is a little beyond "falling a bit flat"
  - scop 7y ago
    wow, I honestly forgot about that. I'll leave my original comment untouched, but per your reminder let the record show that "falling a bit flat" fell a bit flat.
- hoorayimhelping 7y ago
  In the books, he's a confident, charismatic leader. He has self doubt when things go wrong, but he knows who he is and he has a plan - reforge Narsil, go to Gondor, unite all men, fight Sauron. In the books, he fights off 4 ringwraiths with nothing but a couple of flaming sticks (he didn't have a sword at this point). He was courage incarnate - he looked into the Palantir knowing Sauron was looking back, and he beat him. He led his men through hell - they literally go to a crypt and recruit a bunch of undead - and it was only his will and his courage that kept all of them except legolas (who doesn't fear the dead) from losing their shit. In the movies he's a blubbering wuss. He whines about how weak he is and how weak men are, he talks about how he doesn't want to lead, he can't lead, blah blah blah. It takes Elrond saying, "you're not getting any elf strange if you don't act like a leader," for him to shape up.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    Yeah but in the first movie someone accidentally threw a real knife at him, which you can see Aragon (Vigo) unscriptedly deflect it with his sword so I think that notches him up a bunch
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    Elf strange?
    - low_common 7y ago
      Elf pussy aka Arawen
  - laurus 7y ago
    Totally agree, glad you brought this up. The actor was good but the script and the direction didn't fit with the original character at all. It felt like a modern take on the role.
  - analbumcover 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure Elladan and Elrohir were perfectly comfortable traveling the Paths of the Dead as well.
- vkou 7y ago
  The problem with Aragorn in the films is that he is... An important protagonist. And Storytelling 101 tells us that an important protagonist needs to have a character arc. The thing is, Aragorn doesn't have a character arc in the LOTR books. His character is largely static. His entire arc was in the backstory, prior to the events of the books. By the time the book starts, he knows exactly what he wants, he knows exactly what he's willing to do to get it, and he does it. The film, in order to give him an arc, muddied those waters. He turns from being a noble, confident, driven man, into a wishy-washy one-foot-in-one-foot-out wandering stoner, who spends most of his time moping, and the rest with no idea of what he wants, or what he should do to get it. It makes for character development, but it is not an accurate portrayal of his book character. Much of his nobility in the books comes from him not having these kinds of hangups - he knows what the right thing to do is, and he does it, and people around him are awed by his conviction and charisma. I usually don't like 'great man' stories, but I have a soft spot for his part in the LOTR books.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > His entire arc was in the backstory, prior to the events of the books. Not only that, but even the character arc in the backstory (the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen) is nothing like the arc portrayed in the movies. Even as a young man, Aragorn is noble, confident, and driven: he is only twenty years old when he returns from great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond and is told his true name and lineage, and from that point he knows he wants to fulfill that lineage; he is never in any doubt about it. His character arc is about all of the things he has to do and all of the knowledge he has to gain in order to be able to fulfill his lineage when the time comes.
    - vkou 7y ago
      That too. In the film, he hemms and hawws, and can't make up his mind of whether or not he wants to be king, but he never actually articulates a single reason for why he would not want to be one. The film: * Expects the audience fill in the blank for why he doesn't want to be a leader. * Tries to make him more sympathetic as a leader, by turning him into a reluctant leader, as opposed to a guy seizing power because... Something something nobility, something something hereditary monarchy is how things are done in Middle Earth, but doesn't fly super-well for modern audiences..?
saityi 7y ago
It's been almost a couple decades, and I've not watched Return of the King, but I felt Faramir's changes were especially egregious. I've heard Return of the King didn't even have the Scouring of the Shire. There were too many radical departures from what JRR Tolkien was trying to do for me to still enjoy it.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  The Scouring of the Shire would've turned the theatrical cut into a 4 hour movie, and the extended cut into a 5 hour movie. Perhaps it would've made ROTK the first dual-part series finale movie (like The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, Avengers) of its kind.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    LotR is a book about hobbits. They start off protected by the rangers, grow and learn throughout the book, and finally use their experiences to liberate their homeland from Saruman. So, one of the main points (the main point?) is missed, as well as Saruman's proper death.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      You're not wrong, but ROTK has already been criticized for having multiple endings in the sense that the post-Battle of the Morannon parts drag on forever, and audiences were satisfied with the hobbits getting a happy ending without having to add an extended coda about Saruman calling himself "Sharkey" and the threat of sovietization coming to the Shire. It wouldn't have flowed well as a movie. If ROTK had been made into a two-parter finale it could have worked, perhaps. Or maybe a separate spin-off film for the Scouring.
      - brewdad 7y ago
        We went to see ROTK 12 hours before my wife was heading to the hospital to give birth. Her poor bladder almost didn't survive the numerous "is it over now?" endings.
ryanmercer 7y ago
What kills me the most about the movies, especially the Hobbit ones, is the CGI. I watched 2 of the 3 Hobbit films this past fall and the CGI is so jarring and dated. Worse, it's heavily used and just ruins the experience for me. For example, when they're going down the river and being pursued from the shore... come on, nearly everything in that scene is CGI and screams "we were hoping to make a theme park ride, here's the trailer!", honestly I could have lived without that scene entirely. I did not watch any of them when they first came out though, perhaps they were better at the time but watching them now they almost feel The 10th Kingdom quality.
- veggieburglar 7y ago
  The Hobbit movies are far more egregious in their use of bad CGI than the original trilogy. That river scene is one of the worst offenders in modern movie history for me.
- goda90 7y ago
  The Hobbit movies were a travesty. But The Lord Of The Rings movies made excellent use of miniature models, full size sets, make-up and costumes, and great locations. They come from a period where CGI was much more limited, and the artists behind it weren't trying to do everything with it. When you use CGI for everything, like in The Hobbit movies, you lose connection with reality and it is jarring no matter how detailed it is.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    Smaug in particular is rendered as a different creature across two movies. Shrug. (Wyrm vs dragon)
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  The Hobbit films had a troubled production and were terribly rushed. Here's the first video in a small YouTube series on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs
- baggy_trough 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 7y ago
Yes, exactly. He effectively mangled the stories of Aragon, Faramir, and Denethor, apparently to be more "cinematic". Good is very hard to portray without being cloying or simpleminded, but geeze, he could have tried. The weirdest part is Gollum; everyone seemed to like the portrayal in Fellowship, but then Jackson threw it out the window.
pdonis 7y ago
> Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill I think that's a fair comment. I would go even further--in fact I did, some time ago: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html
- laurus 7y ago
  I haven't read the whole essay yet, but I'm really glad I caught your comment here. Thank you for writing this back then and for sharing it now!
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Thank you for writing this back then and for sharing it now! Thank you for the feedback!
- olvy0 7y ago
  I just read you essay myself. That was one of the best pieces of writing that I personally read this year, to the point I found myself nodding my head in agreement the whole time, and even becoming strangely emotional when I read it. Finally I was able to articulate my mild dislike and indifference to the movies. It made the books shine in my mind with an even stronger light than before. While the last time I read the whole trilogy was around 1988, while still at school, it (and the Silmarillion) are sort of etched into my memory. I've been putting off re-reading it for ages, but maybe it's time to do that. I will be sure to re-read your essay too. Thank you again.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    Thanks for the kudos! I'm glad you liked the essay. I have lost count of the number of times I have re-read Tolkien's works. I first read The Hobbit in 7th grade, and went right on to LotR. It was some time before I was able to get my hands on a copy of The Silmarillion (the hard cover edition--I still have it), but I remember reading it almost straight through once I got it, because I was so keen to see what was in it after reading the appendices to LotR.
sifar 7y ago
No poems, Faramir is pretty one-dimensional with no scope whereas in the books his character is much more nobler. And the worst of all - they left out Tom Bombadil. His character showed what state you need to be in to not be affected by the ring.

by scop 7y ago

low_common 7y ago

Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by the portrayal of Aragorn "falling a bit flat"? Perhaps he was a bit too gruff or something, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring? I could possibly see that because in the book he was definitely clear-cut 'rough and ready good-guy'.

scop 7y ago
No problems with his "gruffness" as you term it; that indeed very much captured his Ranger walkings in Fellowship etc. What was a tough pill to swallow was the self-doubt infused into the character. I know I know, character development, relatability, etc etc. But, c'mon, Aragorn is the damned KING and a leader with unflinching will (a contrast to many around him). ... Also, where was the damn standard w/ the White Tree, Elendil when Aragorn arrived at the boat?!
- Pigo 7y ago
  As someone who had not read the books before seeing the movies (I know, I know) it added a lot of context when I found out why the elves were leaving at the end. I remember wondering why everyone was leaving if they had won. I know it was already long, but I wish they'd explained the ring's connection to magic better. It also would have explained why everyone was so willing to take the rings of power in the first place, and given more weight to the somber tone at the end.
m4r35n357 7y ago
murdering an ambassador is a little beyond "falling a bit flat"
- scop 7y ago
  wow, I honestly forgot about that. I'll leave my original comment untouched, but per your reminder let the record show that "falling a bit flat" fell a bit flat.
hoorayimhelping 7y ago
In the books, he's a confident, charismatic leader. He has self doubt when things go wrong, but he knows who he is and he has a plan - reforge Narsil, go to Gondor, unite all men, fight Sauron. In the books, he fights off 4 ringwraiths with nothing but a couple of flaming sticks (he didn't have a sword at this point). He was courage incarnate - he looked into the Palantir knowing Sauron was looking back, and he beat him. He led his men through hell - they literally go to a crypt and recruit a bunch of undead - and it was only his will and his courage that kept all of them except legolas (who doesn't fear the dead) from losing their shit. In the movies he's a blubbering wuss. He whines about how weak he is and how weak men are, he talks about how he doesn't want to lead, he can't lead, blah blah blah. It takes Elrond saying, "you're not getting any elf strange if you don't act like a leader," for him to shape up.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  Yeah but in the first movie someone accidentally threw a real knife at him, which you can see Aragon (Vigo) unscriptedly deflect it with his sword so I think that notches him up a bunch
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Elf strange?
  - low_common 7y ago
    Elf pussy aka Arawen
- laurus 7y ago
  Totally agree, glad you brought this up. The actor was good but the script and the direction didn't fit with the original character at all. It felt like a modern take on the role.
- analbumcover 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure Elladan and Elrohir were perfectly comfortable traveling the Paths of the Dead as well.
vkou 7y ago
The problem with Aragorn in the films is that he is... An important protagonist. And Storytelling 101 tells us that an important protagonist needs to have a character arc. The thing is, Aragorn doesn't have a character arc in the LOTR books. His character is largely static. His entire arc was in the backstory, prior to the events of the books. By the time the book starts, he knows exactly what he wants, he knows exactly what he's willing to do to get it, and he does it. The film, in order to give him an arc, muddied those waters. He turns from being a noble, confident, driven man, into a wishy-washy one-foot-in-one-foot-out wandering stoner, who spends most of his time moping, and the rest with no idea of what he wants, or what he should do to get it. It makes for character development, but it is not an accurate portrayal of his book character. Much of his nobility in the books comes from him not having these kinds of hangups - he knows what the right thing to do is, and he does it, and people around him are awed by his conviction and charisma. I usually don't like 'great man' stories, but I have a soft spot for his part in the LOTR books.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > His entire arc was in the backstory, prior to the events of the books. Not only that, but even the character arc in the backstory (the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen) is nothing like the arc portrayed in the movies. Even as a young man, Aragorn is noble, confident, and driven: he is only twenty years old when he returns from great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond and is told his true name and lineage, and from that point he knows he wants to fulfill that lineage; he is never in any doubt about it. His character arc is about all of the things he has to do and all of the knowledge he has to gain in order to be able to fulfill his lineage when the time comes.
  - vkou 7y ago
    That too. In the film, he hemms and hawws, and can't make up his mind of whether or not he wants to be king, but he never actually articulates a single reason for why he would not want to be one. The film: * Expects the audience fill in the blank for why he doesn't want to be a leader. * Tries to make him more sympathetic as a leader, by turning him into a reluctant leader, as opposed to a guy seizing power because... Something something nobility, something something hereditary monarchy is how things are done in Middle Earth, but doesn't fly super-well for modern audiences..?

saityi 7y ago

It's been almost a couple decades, and I've not watched Return of the King, but I felt Faramir's changes were especially egregious. I've heard Return of the King didn't even have the Scouring of the Shire. There were too many radical departures from what JRR Tolkien was trying to do for me to still enjoy it.

Apocryphon 7y ago
The Scouring of the Shire would've turned the theatrical cut into a 4 hour movie, and the extended cut into a 5 hour movie. Perhaps it would've made ROTK the first dual-part series finale movie (like The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, Avengers) of its kind.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  LotR is a book about hobbits. They start off protected by the rangers, grow and learn throughout the book, and finally use their experiences to liberate their homeland from Saruman. So, one of the main points (the main point?) is missed, as well as Saruman's proper death.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    You're not wrong, but ROTK has already been criticized for having multiple endings in the sense that the post-Battle of the Morannon parts drag on forever, and audiences were satisfied with the hobbits getting a happy ending without having to add an extended coda about Saruman calling himself "Sharkey" and the threat of sovietization coming to the Shire. It wouldn't have flowed well as a movie. If ROTK had been made into a two-parter finale it could have worked, perhaps. Or maybe a separate spin-off film for the Scouring.
    - brewdad 7y ago
      We went to see ROTK 12 hours before my wife was heading to the hospital to give birth. Her poor bladder almost didn't survive the numerous "is it over now?" endings.

ryanmercer 7y ago

What kills me the most about the movies, especially the Hobbit ones, is the CGI. I watched 2 of the 3 Hobbit films this past fall and the CGI is so jarring and dated. Worse, it's heavily used and just ruins the experience for me. For example, when they're going down the river and being pursued from the shore... come on, nearly everything in that scene is CGI and screams "we were hoping to make a theme park ride, here's the trailer!", honestly I could have lived without that scene entirely. I did not watch any of them when they first came out though, perhaps they were better at the time but watching them now they almost feel The 10th Kingdom quality.

veggieburglar 7y ago
The Hobbit movies are far more egregious in their use of bad CGI than the original trilogy. That river scene is one of the worst offenders in modern movie history for me.
goda90 7y ago
The Hobbit movies were a travesty. But The Lord Of The Rings movies made excellent use of miniature models, full size sets, make-up and costumes, and great locations. They come from a period where CGI was much more limited, and the artists behind it weren't trying to do everything with it. When you use CGI for everything, like in The Hobbit movies, you lose connection with reality and it is jarring no matter how detailed it is.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  Smaug in particular is rendered as a different creature across two movies. Shrug. (Wyrm vs dragon)
Apocryphon 7y ago
The Hobbit films had a troubled production and were terribly rushed. Here's the first video in a small YouTube series on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs
baggy_trough 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mcguire 7y ago

Yes, exactly. He effectively mangled the stories of Aragon, Faramir, and Denethor, apparently to be more "cinematic". Good is very hard to portray without being cloying or simpleminded, but geeze, he could have tried. The weirdest part is Gollum; everyone seemed to like the portrayal in Fellowship, but then Jackson threw it out the window.

pdonis 7y ago

> Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill I think that's a fair comment. I would go even further--in fact I did, some time ago: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html

laurus 7y ago
I haven't read the whole essay yet, but I'm really glad I caught your comment here. Thank you for writing this back then and for sharing it now!
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Thank you for writing this back then and for sharing it now! Thank you for the feedback!
olvy0 7y ago
I just read you essay myself. That was one of the best pieces of writing that I personally read this year, to the point I found myself nodding my head in agreement the whole time, and even becoming strangely emotional when I read it. Finally I was able to articulate my mild dislike and indifference to the movies. It made the books shine in my mind with an even stronger light than before. While the last time I read the whole trilogy was around 1988, while still at school, it (and the Silmarillion) are sort of etched into my memory. I've been putting off re-reading it for ages, but maybe it's time to do that. I will be sure to re-read your essay too. Thank you again.
- pdonis 7y ago
  Thanks for the kudos! I'm glad you liked the essay. I have lost count of the number of times I have re-read Tolkien's works. I first read The Hobbit in 7th grade, and went right on to LotR. It was some time before I was able to get my hands on a copy of The Silmarillion (the hard cover edition--I still have it), but I remember reading it almost straight through once I got it, because I was so keen to see what was in it after reading the appendices to LotR.

sifar 7y ago

No poems, Faramir is pretty one-dimensional with no scope whereas in the books his character is much more nobler. And the worst of all - they left out Tom Bombadil. His character showed what state you need to be in to not be affected by the ring.