Amazon, Warner Bros in Talks for LOTR Series Adaptation: Variety

MFW I see there's a whole new sub-forum for the Amazon series.

I like the "unexpected" part.

{{{ Eldo- if memory serves film Aragorn tells film Frodo something along the lines of "I would have gone with you to the bitter end" so we know his plan up to that point was broadly the same as in the book- to accompany Frodo (why he changes his mind now of all times is another film mystery!)
I would argue that his closing Frodo's hand back over the Ring when Frodo asks if he can trust himself with it, and then following with those words that he would have gone with Frodo to the end, is an indication that the story arc in fellowship of reluctant Aragorn and his fear he will succumb to the Ring is resolved right here (the fact its clumsily resurrected in later films is no more relevant than the equally clumsily Thorin resolves differences with Bilbo at end of Unexpected Journey then it too is forgotten about once that films resolution is out the way- its the same shit different font size thats all).
Nor am I convinced the regret line from Gandalf is even meant to fit in the context the film presents it- as I am not convinced they had not already shot some stuff and ended up leaving it in because it was done- see numerous examples of this with Arwen who has at least three distinct versions of the character they presented and shot and what we end up with is a poorly combined version of all three incompatible takes on her character. So I am not inclined to believe it is thought out- it would be a rare example of something actually being thought through if it was.
And I dont see it as justified- other than that one look Aragorn displays no regret whatsoever over his actions, nor does he voice any regrets over his decision to let Frodo go- and why would he? He makes a conscious choice apparently to not go with Frodo but to send him on his way alone instead.
Even that scene makes no sense as even if film Aragorn did want to send Frodo off it would be far more sensible to have accompanied him to the boats- yes orcs are near but they haven't been spotted- its not till Aragorn tells Frodo to bugger off a couple of times, stands and stares till he does so, then slowly goes and crests the hill the orcs are coming up the other side of that the orcs are even aware of their presence. There was tons of time for Aragorn to do something sensible instead of what he actually does which is stupid, risks everything unnecessarily and especially the Ring and its Bearer- its completely out of character for Aragorn to do this- it exists as it does not for sensible reasons but purely for a 'cool' Aragorn takes on all the orcs moment.}}}

Elthir wrote:

And just for clarity, whoever wrote that tale with Legolas and Mithion, isn't me.

noro lim Elthir!

suspicious denial!

Elthir wrote:I like the "unexpected" part.

Presumably we may get a more succinct title once more details about the show come out.

Forest Shepherd wrote:

Elthir wrote:

And just for clarity, whoever wrote that tale with Legolas and Mithion, isn't me.

noro lim Elthir!

 suspicious denial!

I looked for this story. The part I found is called "Deeper than Skin"... but that Mithion's an Elf.

Mine's a young horsey.

And I wouldn't write "... he was indeed of Noldor descent"... I would use Noldorin there (see also Elvish Noldorinwa)


Unless I did that on purpose in 2003 to later claim I wouldn't do it, to throw folks off the trail.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ Eldo- if memory serves film Aragorn tells film Frodo something along the lines of "I would have gone with you to the bitter end" so we know his plan up to that point was broadly the same as in the book- to accompany Frodo (why he changes his mind now of all times is another film mystery!)
I would argue that his closing Frodo's hand back over the Ring when Frodo asks if he can trust himself with it, and then following with those words that he would have gone with Frodo to the end, is an indication that the story arc in fellowship of reluctant Aragorn and his fear he will succumb to the Ring is resolved right here (the fact its clumsily resurrected in later films is no more relevant than the equally clumsily Thorin resolves differences with Bilbo at end of Unexpected Journey then it too is forgotten about once that films resolution is out the way- its the same shit different font size thats all).
Nor am I convinced the regret line from Gandalf is even meant to fit in the context the film presents it- as I am not convinced they had not already shot some stuff and ended up leaving it in because it was done- see numerous examples of this with Arwen who has at least three distinct versions of the character they presented and shot and what we end up with is a poorly combined version of all three incompatible takes on her character. So I am not inclined to believe it is thought out- it would be a rare example of something actually being thought through if it was.
And I dont see it as justified- other than that one look Aragorn displays no regret whatsoever over his actions, nor does he voice any regrets over his decision to let Frodo go- and why would he? He makes a conscious choice apparently to not go with Frodo but to send him on his way alone instead.
Even that scene makes no sense as even if film Aragorn did want to send Frodo off it would be far more sensible to have accompanied him to the boats- yes orcs are near but they haven't been spotted- its not till Aragorn tells Frodo to bugger off a couple of times, stands and stares till he does so, then slowly goes and crests the hill the orcs are coming up the other side of that the orcs are even aware of their presence. There was tons of time for Aragorn to do something sensible instead of what he actually does which is stupid, risks everything unnecessarily and especially the Ring and its Bearer- its completely out of character for Aragorn to do this- it exists as it does not for sensible reasons but purely for a 'cool' Aragorn takes on all the orcs moment.}}}

I'd say making "epic" movie footage a lot of times will necessarily depart from actually telling, at all times, a coherent story. It is part of exposition. That said, it doesn't help when you are not telling your own story. The writing team's hands were tied here, as far as Aragorn going or staying, but the inborn tendency of all writers is to stamp their own brand on it, tell their own story somehow through someone else's. And they had to put some of their own influence into Aragorn's choices. This is one major problem with adaptions, I think. Changes in themselves are not necessarily bad, but changes need to follow the stream of consciousness of the original author, or they will be out of tilt with other things that happen in the rest of the story. Of course, there is another approach to this, the reimagination. Like, for instance Howl's Moving Castle by Miyazaki. Amazing movie, might even have topped the original, but it is not a strict adaptation. The problem is people say they do an adaptation, and then under the table rewrite it wildly, while demanding the recognition of the adaptation. Like Fran Walsh's publicized "self-delution" of Tolkien scholarship. They made a blockbuster for a blockbuster audience, as CT famously said, and the story suffered.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Eldo- if memory serves film Aragorn tells film Frodo something along the lines of "I would have gone with you to the bitter end" so we know his plan up to that point was broadly the same as in the book- to accompany Frodo

You remember correctly. You can see a transcript of the scene (and the rest of the films) along with screenshots at this link:

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/fotr/30.html

(why he changes his mind now of all times is another film mystery!)
I would argue that his closing Frodo's hand back over the Ring when Frodo asks if he can trust himself with it, and then following with those words that he would have gone with Frodo to the end, is an indication that the story arc in fellowship of reluctant Aragorn and his fear he will succumb to the Ring is resolved right here (the fact its clumsily resurrected in later films is no more relevant than the equally clumsily Thorin resolves differences with Bilbo at end of Unexpected Journey then it too is forgotten about once that films resolution is out the way- its the same shit different font size thats all).

I just gave my interpretation of what I think was going through film!Aragorn's head in these scenes on the previous page and I don't really feel like hashing it out again here, but let it suffice to say that I disagree that this is a mystery even though I don't claim to know exactly what the screenwriters were thinking.

And I dont see it as justified- other than that one look Aragorn displays no regret whatsoever over his actions, nor does he voice any regrets over his decision to let Frodo go- and why would he? He makes a conscious choice apparently to not go with Frodo but to send him on his way alone instead.

You keep saying this, but I confess I am unclear as to why you think the fact that Aragorn made a conscious choice means that he can't (or shouldn't) feel doubt or regret about it later. Have you never second-guessed yourself about a decision even though you felt pretty sure about it at first? I know that not everyone doubts themselves as much as I do but I don't really think it's that uncommon an occurrence. I'm asking honestly because I'm pretty baffled here.

Even that scene makes no sense as even if film Aragorn did want to send Frodo off it would be far more sensible to have accompanied him to the boats- yes orcs are near but they haven't been spotted- its not till Aragorn tells Frodo to bugger off a couple of times, stands and stares till he does so, then slowly goes and crests the hill the orcs are coming up the other side of that the orcs are even aware of their presence. There was tons of time for Aragorn to do something sensible instead of what he actually does which is stupid, risks everything unnecessarily and especially the Ring and its Bearer- its completely out of character for Aragorn to do this- it exists as it does not for sensible reasons but purely for a 'cool' Aragorn takes on all the orcs moment.

Here's the scene in question:



Aragorn's eyes narrow which implies to me that he heard or sensed something even though neither Frodo nor the audience don't at first (he is a Ranger after all). Frodo then pulls Sting partway out of its scabbard and its already a very bright blue. There are less than 10 seconds of screen time (some of it in slow motion, at that) between Aragorn unsheathing his sword and the Uruk-hai entering the clearing. The fact that Aragorn decides to hold off the Uruk-hai while Frodo escapes on foot does not strike me as particularly unbelievable, especially since Frodo (being small and a Hobbit, which are known to be stealthy) is more likely to escape detection by himself (as he does in the film) than he would running alongside Aragorn.

More to the point, however, trying to nitpick every little decision made by the characters strikes me as a fruitless endeavor for two reasons. First, the characters are not always in a position to think things through carefully, and it would be silly to expect them to always make the best and most prudent decision. Second, and more importantly, the films (like most action-adventure movies) were not aiming for absolute realism, but take place in more heightened and "dramatic" universe. That's not to say that we shouldn't criticize egregious breakdowns of realism or rationality, but there is an acceptable margin of error in this kind of film. For example, it's not like actual medieval swordplay really works as it's depicted in the films, but if you watch the bonus features Bob Anderson* was very clear that they were not aiming to exactly recreate that.

You can criticize the decision to make the films in the action-adventure blockbuster model (and indeed, I know that you have, since we've discussed this before ) and I'd agree that it's not the most faithful the book, although I question whether it would have been possible to secure the necessary budget to depict Middle-earth otherwise. But the fact that the movies were deliberately made in a certain way does not mean that every resulting decision was stupid or not thought through, even if one disagrees with the initial choice.



*The famous swordmaster and fight choreographer who also worked on The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Princess Bride, and the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.

Simulpost with Blue.

Bluebottle wrote:I'd say making "epic" movie footage a lot of times will necessarily depart from actually telling, at all times, a coherent story. It is part of exposition. That said, it doesn't help when you are not telling your own story. The writing team's hands were tied here, as far as Aragorn going or staying, but the inborn tendency of all writers is to stamp their own brand on it, tell their own story somehow through someone else's. And they had to put some of their own influence into Aragorn's choices. This is one major problem with adaptions, I think. Changes in themselves are not necessarily bad, but changes need to follow the stream of consciousness of the original author, or they will be out of tilt with other things that happen in the rest of the story.

I agree with your last sentence especially, and I have complained about this in relation to the LOTR films a number of times in the past. One of the ones that still bugs me (though not as much as it used to) is the confrontation between the Witch-king and Gandalf. Earlier in the film the WK states that he will "break" Gandalf personally, establishing the desire to confront him as a personal motivation. Once they come to face to face, the WK very quickly breaks Gandalf's staff, but he flies away as soon as he hears the horns of Rohan blowing. However, he's not in a position to immediately do anything about this (and indeed, he doesn't) and he has field commanders who are in a better position to get their troops in a position to face the charge (as they do), but obviously they can't let Gandalf die in Minas Tirith.

Honestly though the part that bugs me the most is not the lack of realism but the role it plays with the narrative. Aside from the Witch-king's statement, the film sets up the promise of the confrontation as early as Gandalf and Pippin's confrontation during the "deep breath before the plunge", where we learn that Gandalf is concerned by the prospect of coming face-to-face with the WK (and we get a really cool cutaway to the WK being armored for battle, even though his spiky helmet is pretty ridiculous). But there's no payoff. We get to the confrontation, we see the beginning of it, we see for ourselves why Gandalf was so worried, and then ... nothing. The scene just ends. The subplot has no purpose whatsoever and Gandalf never has to deal with the after-effects of his failure to face the WK because someone else kills him not long after.

There are a variety of other logical inconsistencies that I used to nitpick a lot (an especially bad one is why the Rohirrim and Elves sacrifcied so many lives guarding the Deeping Wall when the movies put the entrance to the Glittering Caves inside the Hornburg), but I've come increasingly to feel that this sort of thing is beside the point if the film is able to hit the emotional notes it aims for (though as noted above, I don't think they always do). And then there are some things that are just too ridiculous to ever take seriously, like the "cocoa puffs" skull scene in ROTK-EE.

Of course, there is another approach to this, the reimagination. Like, for instance Howl's Moving Castle by Miyazaki. Amazing movie, might even have topped the original, but it is not a strict adaptation. The problem is people say they do an adaptation, and then under the table rewrite it wildly, while demanding the recognition of the adaptation. Like Fran Walsh's publicized "self-delution" of Tolkien scholarship. They made a blockbuster for a blockbuster audience, as CT famously said, and the story suffered.

I dunno man...

Howl's Moving Castle spoilers:

I don't know. I think people sometimes forgive mistakes to easily. Two things can be said about the LotRs adaptations, I think. (1) They were a success, for what they were, blockbuster cinema, they were a success. (2) There are many glaring story telling errors, that I think were to quickly forgiven because of the "Oh, this looks good, is new, is glitzy, is exhilarating part. You can tell a coherent story while striking the same points that made the movies so popular. This ultimately comes down to the people behind it, and the fact that they struck gold without really having the necessary background and reflection to do so fully on purpose. PJ certainly have something going as a director, but he was never interested i the story here, beyond it being compelling cinema. The others.. the less said the better..

I'm not arguing that we should ignore serious deficiencies in plot and character development just because a movie is pretty or exciting in places, but I think the LOTR films are better on the plot and character front than they are sometimes given credit for (though they're also not as good as they are sometimes made out to be in other parts of the Internet ). I will acknowledge that they have more story flaws than most of my other favorite blockbusters (which are largely down to adaptation changes, as you point out) and I am comparatively more lenient because I think the highs of the trilogy are also much higher than most of the competition. But no matter how good an individual sequence such as the charge of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor is (and I think it's fantastic), it wouldn't be effective without the emotional legwork to get to the audience to care about Merry, Eowyn, and Theoden.

Simulpost for me too I'll try to get into the non-Howl stuff later. I should go to bed, it is late in Madrid.

Eldorion wrote:

Howl's Moving Castle spoilers:

Spoiler:

Hope you sleep well, Blue. If you don't mind I'll respond to the Howl's stuff in the anime thread.

you think the fact that Aragorn made a conscious choice means that he can't (or shouldn't) feel doubt or regret about it later- Eldo

{{No, of course someone can second guess themselves- but we dont see or hear Aragon do that in the films save one glance you have to interpret the meaning of. And that one glance the audience are supposed to connect to Gandalf comment in the sequel, which was a year later in the manner they presented it. And is the first thing Gandalf picks up on to talk about with Aragorn. With everything going on at that point?- it makes sense in the book because Aragorn beats himself up over everything going wrong, Boromir's death, Frodo buggering off with Sam, Merry and Pippin getting captured, and a sense that he has let down at the first hurdle everyone who has invested in him and his potential future, Gandalf most of all he feels he has let down- 'vain was Gandalfs trust in me!" -but even putting aside the book its simply not earned on its own film terms without that stuff - in fact in the context of the films alone its a rather random thing for Gandalf to settle on to say and I believe is mainly there as a means to transition into their cut to Frodo and Sam which immediately follows Aragorn telling Gandalf Frodo did not go alone, that Sam went with him- that's the point the script is trying to reach and the dont regret line is just a means to bring the subject of Frodo up- its not really attached to what has actually happened in the film regards Aragorn and any signs of actual regret of his decision (of which there is no hint at all in TT whatsoever making it entirely reliant for its relevance on that one single glance in the previous film- thats just not good set up or writing). Given we see almost no regret at all from Aragorn, save that glance, andnone in the actual film the conversation takes place in, why would it be the first thing Gandalf wants to say to him upon his return?}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No, of course someone can second guess themselves- but we dont see or hear Aragon do that in the films save one glance you have to interpret the meaning of.

When else was Aragorn supposed to express doubt? He had been pretty consumed with the hunt for the Uruk-hai up until the meeting with Gandalf when they learned that Merry and Pippin were safe. His conversation with Gandalf is literally the very next scene that includes Aragorn.

And is the first thing Gandalf picks up on to talk about with Aragorn.... Given we see almost no regret at all from Aragorn, save that glance, andnone in the actual film the conversation takes place in, why would it be the first thing Gandalf wants to say to him upon his return?

No, it's not the first thing Gandalf says. The majority of the scene is Gandalf talking about how Sauron fears Aragorn because he's the heir of Númenor. He only mentions Frodo at the very end of his monologue and only makes his "do not regret..." comment in response to Aragorn's reaction. It's a subtle reaction (see the video below at about 1:36); I think he looks sad, regretful, and perhaps a bit guilty, but I make no claim to having an authoritative interpretation. However, given that Gandalf's immediate reaction is to try to reassure Aragorn, I personally think the intention of the writers and actors is fairly clear. Nor do I think such subtlety is a bad thing, since film!Aragorn's feelings of guilt are clearly not as intense as his book counterpart's.

And that one glance the audience are supposed to connect to Gandalf comment in the sequel, which was a year later in the manner they presented it.

The conversation scene was only in the Extended Edition so technically it was even longer, but the EEs were made with the assumption that viewers would be familiar with the preceding films. And since they're home video releases they easily lend themselves to rewatching in sequence, whether in a single day marathon or over the span of a couple of days or weeks at most, which the filmmakers were also aware of.

When else was Aragorn supposed to express doubt?- Eldo

{{Where it happens in the book? That would seem a rather good point! From a scriptwriting point of view some expression of regret or doubt over his decision to Legolas or Gimli during the Three Hunters piece would have at least earned the Gandalf comment more and made it somewhat relevant in the same film.

I stand corrected on its placing in Gandalfs conversation, but I stand by its main reaosn for being there is simply a tool to bring up Frodo as a subject in order to have the Aragorn response and the cut to Frodo, not because its relevant to what has been happening in the film with Aragorn or signs of regret.

Its particualry annoying because for me there are five pivotal revealing Aragorn moments that give the most insight into his character- this one, his conversation with Eomer upon meeting him for the first time, his departure from Eowyn in Dunharrow, his claiming and use of the palantir to challenge Sauron at Isengard and how he treats the men under his command to afraid to go to the Black Gate- and PJ either screws them up completely or leaves them out entirely! }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where it happens in the book? That would seem a rather good point! From a scriptwriting point of view some expression of regret or doubt over his decision to Legolas or Gimli during the Three Hunters piece would have at least earned the Gandalf comment more and made it somewhat relevant in the same film.

I take your meaning, but since Three Hunters sequence was changed into more of a chase scene montage (a decision that one can validly criticize and that I'm not a huge fan of, though I think it's a fairly understandable change), I think it's fine that the film's depiction of Aragorn's (more modest than in the book) doubt was more subtle. I'm a little surprised by the argument since subtlety is usually the last thing people accuse PJ of on here.

Edit: and to be clear, it's not something the films make a big deal out of. There are two brief moments where Mortensen nonverbally indicates that Aragorn feels conflicted about his decision to leave Frodo. In response to the second one, Gandalf gives one line of reassurance. I really don't see how this is problematic for Aragorn's character arc in the films (which we both know is very different from his characterization in the book for many other reasons than just this).

I have stated repeatedly that I consider film!Aragorn and book!Aragorn to be two different characters (in two different stories) and that I am considering these scenes from the point of view of how they work in the films' story. I have made no claim that they are a faithful rendition of the corresponding portions of the book. My only disagreements with you have been over whether or not the film's characterization of Aragorn in these scenes is consistent with itself. If this discussion is returning to being about how the film is different from the book then I don't really have anything further to add to this sub-thread.

since Three Hunters sequence was changed into more of a chase scene montage- Eldo

{{One with enough time for a Gimli falls over joke!}}

I'm a little surprised by the argument since subtlety is usually the last thing people accuse PJ of on here.- Eldo

{{well there is an irony to Pj using some attempt at subtly just when its not needed- Tolkien certainly isn't subtle about it- Aragorn's regret and personal lament are out in the open for all to see and hear.

And it is relevant to the film only topic because if you are going to remove an insightful character moment and replace it with something of your own you have to make it count as much- and PJ's version of events doesn't- making Gandalf's line- which should be a big deal for Aragorn- the one person he felt in that moment he had let down the most is telling him he did the right thing in the circumstances- is instead just a passing remark with little connection to the ongoing narrative of Aragorn in the film. Its poor writing and whilst on its own not necessarily a huge deal it is completely indicative of how poorly portrayed the books characters are in PJ's films, Aragorn not least, a character the writers seem to have failed to grasp or understand from the outset.}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:One with enough time for a Gimli falls over joke!

Yeah, that's part of the reason why I'm not a huge fan of the scene.

And it is relevant to the film only topic because if you are going to remove an insightful character moment and replace it with something of your own you have to make it count as much- and PJ's version of events doesn't- making Gandalf's line- which should be a big deal for Aragorn- the one person he felt in that moment he had let down the most is telling him he did the right thing in the circumstances- is instead just a passing remark with little connection to the ongoing narrative of Aragorn in the film. Its poor writing and whilst on its own not necessarily a huge deal it is completely indicative of how poorly portrayed the books characters are in PJ's films, Aragorn not least, a character the writers seem to have failed to grasp or understand from the outset.

I find this to be a rather strange way of looking at an adaptation. Whether or not film!Aragorn is a well-written character (and there's certainly room for criticism there) is not dependent on whether the major emotional beats of his arc take place at the same points in the story as they do in the book. Especially not when considering whether the character works from a film only perspective; whether or not something is "indicative of how poorly portrayed the books characters are in PJ's films" is by definition not part of a film only analysis.

{{{My point was more that the replacement for the book within the films terms is weak, tells us almost nothing new about film Aragorn, if anything at all, is poorly set up, poorly executed and largely irrelevant to the film it appears in- that does not strike me as good writing, for a film or otherwise}}}

I've already responded to your claims that film!Aragorn expresses no doubt about leaving Frodo and that Gandalf brings the subject up out of nowhere. The fact that it is a very minor part of the film as compared to the book (ie, "largely irrelevant") has no bearing on whether it works in that small role from a film-only perspective.

{{Basics of film- make things count- one of the worst ways to screw that up is to simply repeat something already long and well established- the best you can say for the Aragorn regret thing is that why wouldnt Gandalf assume he regrets it because this Aragorn seems to regret, self doubt or double guess himself all the time anyway, so why not this too? But that is already well established by this point therefore in pure film terms there is no purpose being served here, its repetition of a character trait long established- its a waste of film time as much as Gimli falling over is. And thats not good film making. }}

I disagree that briefly expressing certain already-established character traits in a later scene is bad film-making but this discussion has drifted far enough from its inception point that I'm gonna stop mucking up this thread before it hits the next page. The last word is yours if you want it.

Some potential names for a Lord of the Rings TV series:

Law & Mordor
Orc & Mindy
Mordor, She Wrote.