Book vs. Film

Well he did always say its main flaw was it was too short.  

He certainly did leave his readers hungry for more. Some might see that as a strength

As far as story flaws, I kind of feel that the Ringwraiths were not menacing or developed enough in the early going. I may have mentioned that already here or on the other board.

One of the things the movie fans seem to appreciate is the speeding up of events in the movie, which is all well and good, I suppose, but Jackson really doesn't give the viewer much of a sense of how big Middle Earth is and how much distance there is between Eriador and Gondor. To be honest, I really don't know why seventeen years lapses between Bilbo's 111th birthday party and Frodo leaving the Shire, but ME is big place and he had a lot to do. And Shadowfax is fast but he's not "Overnight Express" fast.

I think at least part of the reason why Tolkien chooses to let 17 years pass is to give the ring time to have its effect on Frodo. By that I mean how he ages, but still looks as though he were in his early thirties when he really is in his fifties. And Gandalf didn't know what they were dealing with at the time of Bilbo's 111th birthday, so maybe he gave other matters higher priority?  

I'm sure there's a very good reason for it. I think it's just my failure to fully understand it.

Forest Shepherd wrote:I have to say that these topics are becoming a bit tiresome. They don't look nice on the forum page, and the conversations within are often hijacked by various... individuals, which shall not be named (although I am most definitely not one of them, at all, for sure) due to the vagueness of their content.

Yeah, the endless vs. threads were the main giveaway of who Cowley was, but he has a habit of starting threads that result in (often through roundabout fashion) some worthwhile discussion, so I don't want to delete all these. They do get a bit tiresome on the forum index though, I agree.

Just ignore stupid obviously troll-threads, thats what i did.

I am largely trying to get a balanced view of things, I agree sometimes LOTR was disappointing in some places, and there are some things I personally would have done very differently, but its easy to critisize in hindsight. I would say for me 95% fit into my imagined view of the characters and 100% of the time Middle Earth looked how I imagined it, even better in some cases.

The character 'flaws' some people see in Frodo and Aragorn, ie being weak and uncertain, for me, make the characters even more interesting and multi-faceted, it makes them more ambiguous and complex. Aragorn in the book showed less uncertainty, and Frodo showed more oomph, but what people are basically saying is that Frodo and Aragorn lacked some of the assurance and aggression of the books, now I think there already was, in the books, a truck load of testerosterone flying about already, and it was nice to see a gentler Frodo and a more human Aragorn, I wasnt much into Aragorn once he lost his Ranger mantle, once he became a warrior he flattened out into a stock hero, but Viggos Aragorn gave him so much more interesting qualities.

well thats my opinion anyway.

he has a habit of starting threads that result in (often through roundabout fashion) some worthwhile discussion, so I don't want to delete all these.- Eldo

Thats one of the great things about Forumshire- we can take a troll and put it to good use, without having to keep the troll  

"They do get a bit tiresome on the forum index though, I agree."

Cant you just bung them all in off-topic?

I could, but that would make it pretty difficult to follow any specific discussions that resulted (especially for posts that don't use quote tags, such as this one ).

Edit: I will at least merge this and the Book vs. Film thread since they're nearly identical in topic. Hobbit vs. LOTR I'll leave as its own thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hindsight', Mrs Figg. The viewer doesn't have the luxury to criticize beforehand.

As for Frodo, his last name may as well be Baggage, since that's what he is for most of the movie (at one point, literally). He does almost nothing in the movie that he notably does in the book, aside from getting from point A to point B. It has less to do with testosterone than with exemplifying the intangible qualities of the hobbit; among them, bravery, resourcefulness and toughness in a pinch. Movie-Frodo showed none of these qualities that I could see. Movie-Frodo actually calls for Aragorn when threatened by the troll—this is practically a complete reversal of Book-Frodo.

"it was nice to see a gentler Frodo and a more human Aragorn, I wasnt much into Aragorn once he lost his Ranger mantle, once he became a warrior he flattened out into a stock hero,"- Mrs Figg

You and I come at this from two polar opposites Mrs Figg, and this highlights that perfectly.

For you the changes basically add greater emotional depth.
For me, I see what Tolkien was doing as part of his knowledge of myth with the character of Aragorn, and the type of mythic hero he represents which fell out of vogue.

For you the greater emotional attachment it brings you the better, and I understand that.
For me the further it alters the characters the further from the thing Tolkien was trying to achieve it becomes.

And I think in adaptation trying to transfer but preserve those things should be part of the job.

Frodo Baggage

 

  poor little mite with his sad little face. You lot are all horrible to him. How can you resist Elijahbobblkins smoochcheeks?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"it was nice to see a gentler Frodo and a more human Aragorn, I wasnt much into Aragorn once he lost his Ranger mantle, once he became a warrior he flattened out into a stock hero,"- Mrs Figg

You and I come at this from two polar opposites Mrs Figg, and this highlights that perfectly.

For you the changes basically add greater emotional depth.
For me, I see what Tolkien was doing as part of his knowledge of myth with the character of Aragorn, and the type of mythic hero he represents which fell out of vogue.

For you the greater emotional attachment it brings you the better, and I understand that.
For me the further it alters the characters the further from the thing Tolkien was trying to achieve it becomes.

And I think in adaptation trying to transfer but preserve those things should be part of the job.

I dont agree.
Firstly I also see what Tolkien was doing as part of his knowledge of myth with the character of Aragorn.
secondly I think Viggo pretty much nailed that part of the mandate. and Thirdly Viggo didnt differ dramatically from book Aragorn. There were moments in the films when he doubted, and there were moments in the books where he doubted, Aragorn of the films portrayed more soul searching about his Heritage being Isildur's heir, but that only added to his complexity. With no doubt he is less. Viggo fully becomes that which Tolkien set out to portray. Viggo fully portrayed a mythic hero, he did an excellent job and I cant imagine any actor today being a better Aragorn.

The very thing that defines the type of hero Aragorn represents in Tolkien is his certainty- thats the defining feature. Aragorn doubts over decisions he makes, he never once doubts his right, not even a little.
Book Aragorn never hides from who he is, he declares it in huge roll call of his heritage intros when he meets new people.
That aspect of his character is fundamental to the type of mythic hero Tolkien deliberately made Aragorn.
If you alter that even a little, and PJ did a lot making him actively reluctant, he can no longer be the type of mythic hero Tolkien intended him to represent.

The very things you say you like about what PJ altered are precisely the things which take the character away from what Tolkien wrote.
And I prefer Tolkiens and I dont think it should have been to big a hope to see him in the film of the book.

I think a scene that highlights the difference between book and film Aragorn well is the scene where Aragorn first meets Eomer.
Two almost completely polar opposites.

Agreed there RA- that is a good stark example of the difference in character.

I love how book version basically leaves Eomer somewhere between stunned and suspicous "..legends spring up out of the grass"- and the excellent how is a man to judge speech from Aragorn (I couldnt believe they left that out  )