Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

Mrs Figg wrote:Before the beacons are lit Theoden is still recovering from the subtle influence of Saruman and years and years of Wormtongue poisoning his mind and body. He is still wary bitter and doesnt trust anyone. The beacons are lit, Aragorn rushes into the chamber and in that moment he sees Aragorns face, its a game changer, he throws off his last wavering dithering and becomes a King once more. His sword is returned into his hand, he decides to muster the Rohirrim. I thought it was a brilliant piece of cinema. The drama does exist, the King has returned to Rohan.

For some reason I started going through all this again.  In this case I agree with Figgy, though it changed Theoden a bit from the books it did make him a bit more interesting, showing a change and growth of character.  I don't think it really hurt the character in the end.

EDIT: turns out I had already said the same thing earlier. Oh well.

I dunno.  I could see where Mrs Figg is coming if we were talking about Theoden's equivocating in TTT.  I think that was increased from the book, but it fits where the character is (especially since in the film he was apparently possessed).  But by the time ROTK rolls around he's already fought a giant battle to defend his people and rejected Saruman to his face.  I'm okay with him still having his insecurities ("It was not Theoden of Rohan who led our people to victory"), but it feels like he just bounces back to his mid-TTT position ("I will not risk open war") before changing his mind again just as abruptly. At least in TTT there was a reason why Theoden changed his mind: he was forced to by circumstances, and as a result of the experience he grew and changed.  Theoden's a supporting character at best and we don't get to spend much time inside his head to explore his thought process, so I think continuing to have him waffle in ROTK is just redundant.

but he wasnt waffling. He was bitter about the apparent fact that Gondor had left the Rohrrim to rot in Helms Deep. At Helms Deep he was fighting a defensive position not an offensive one. He was like a Viking chieftain prepared to go out fighting to the last man. Then he sees Aragorn rush headlong into the hall and in that instant he decides to become a King again and ride out to face his enemy all fear thrown off. Its a very different sort of war and a very different sort of leader.

Mrs Figg wrote:but he wasnt waffling. He was bitter about the apparent fact that Gondor had left the Rohrrim to rot in Helms Deep.

Even if we ignore what the books have to say about this, the whole Gondor angst thing has never made sense to me.  There's no way that Gondor could have gotten to Helm's Deep in time (though PJ might not have known that based on some of his comments about time and distance).  More to the point, Theoden refuses to ask for help at all when Aragorn suggests it.

Then he sees Aragorn rush headlong into the hall and in that instant he decides to become a King again and ride out to face his enemy all fear thrown off. Its a very different sort of war and a very different sort of leader.

I can't say I've ever seen the scene that way, but your interpretation does make sense.  I still think the whole subplot was poorly conceived, but your way of looking at it makes it go down a bit easier.

thanks Eldo. for me that look between Aragorn and Theoden is the moment he a becomes heroic kingly figure, from then on he shows strength and purpose. The only moment from then on is when he has a moment of discomfort, if thats the right expression, at meeting Elrond in the tent.

Of course.  I think that, despite my attempts at keeping the book and film separate in my mind, this was one part where frustration with changes has prevented me from seeing those scenes from another perspective. So I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on it.

He can't really complain about Gondor coming to his aid at Helm's Deep, but he can complain about being expected to come to Gondor's aid: after all it's the same situation in reverse.

The fact that he rose above concerns of defense of his own kingdom, risking Rohan in order to aid the larger world shows a sort of transcendence not seen before. I hadn't noticed it before, but Figgs is right to point out that from that point on the acting style changes somewhat to reflect this. In this new way of looking at things it becomes more acceptable that Aragorn suggested riding out to meet the forces of Saruman at Helm's Deep instead of Theoden. The changes from the book become more self-consistent.

I agree with Figgs, I think Theoden see's something old & mythical in Aragorn, something that cannot be disputed & realises he must respect this man. The irksome itch he feels in the tent with Elrond, I think, is he knows also that Elrond is of a higher order & also to be respected, I think maybe Theoden senses the tight, magical bond these 2 have ??

for me personally I find the essence of the story is still there even though its condensed and altered for cinema.

Been thunking bout the movies last night, decided why I like the movies, even tho I know they got a SHED load either wrong, or muddled up, or character/plot changed (often for the worse) Its because it has, & kept, its Olde worlde flavour. I was thunking about the name "Sackville Baggins", It sounds quintessentially Tudor to me, (not the Baggins bit of course ! can you imagine....Elizabeth2, surname Baggins not Windsor)..........(its not even Windsor either !) anyhow, Its the little snippets & hints that encapsulate Olde history, even a surname can do that. And of course, the music. Ive said it before & bored you to death with that one but, music can make or break a film, it has to be just right. Ah well, thats my tuppence worth thrown in  

I agree Az, there's something fundamentally natural in LOTR that made me believe it was a real place when I was younger, and no one could tell me otherwise. Keep in mind I saw the films first, which I was actually reflecting on the other day. Everything I say about the Hobbit might have been said if I had read the books first, but I was introduced to the world through PJ, so I guess I have a PJ lens to look through. Though I will say that reading the Sil has realllllyyy re-done my imagination.

For all Peejeers faults, Many as there are, I have to thank him & team I guess (thru gritted teeth & a choking feeling in my throat!) for the 'LOOK' of LOTRs, I also would have argued anyone into the ground about ME, especially if you compare it to the films from yesteryear, where hair & makeup was immaculate, even after a long & bloody fight. It did feel real & natural. It looked real & natural. I think thought & care did go into the peripherals, (weapons, saddlery, costumes etc) & that, with sets & locals, gave it that authentic feel. So, he got that right, what happened to the story ? And, after riding on the crest of the publicity wave, couldnt Peejeers use that in The Hobbshit ???

 

I cant say I actually like the costuming of The Hobbit, its nowhere as good as Ngila Dickson. Just thinking about Galadriels signiture overdress. Its very nice in some photos but onscreen AND in photos it looks a dull flat greyish colour. The actual material is a shimmering silvery grey, very beautiful but totally doesnt come across in the film, they chose the wrong fabric. The White dress of the WC is nice though. I thought Bilbos Laketown garb was horrible, it reminds me of Ron Weasleys horrible dress robe for the Yule Ball.

Ditto, Costume design hit the bottom of the toilet in my view, especially after LOTRs. Im sure Peejeers raided the school lost property box for outfits !

I'm sure PJ raided the intellectual trash bin of every writer out there and said to himself "Hmmm this seems original. I'll use it!" and thus we get star-fish head, axe head, and bunny sled. Oh and Scar face. That one millisecond of screen time that the scar got sparked a wild fire for fanfiction writers.  

The real difference is that there is no dignity in the Hobbit films. They play to base emotions that are strictly sympathy with no empathy. A good story has sentiment, not sentimentality. I know it has the latter because of all the fan-girling about the dwarves and Evangeline Lily's complaints about the love triangle and Boyens trying to make her feel better about it because there are two hot guys she's being fought over. I mean REALLY? Everything about these films screams mediocrity because I'm pretty sure PJ just got stuck having to finish it and therefore doesn't give two shits about what everyone else thinks because he never cared about the films in the first place. LOTR, on the other hand, was his bread and butter, and you can tell.

I think you're right Tin, PJ was probably a bit peeved to land the job, and was just faxing it in.

{{{ You know, when I think about Tin's transformation from a respectable young teen into the sophisticated, world weary and sharp tongued young woman she is now, I cast my mind back to Norc and think: was she ever a demure young thing?

Then I have this image of her being cast out of the birth canal, bouncing off the crib cushion, looking around and exclaiming "What the FUCK was THAT?!"}}}

Tinuviel wrote:I'm sure PJ raided the intellectual trash bin of every writer out there and said to himself "Hmmm this seems original. I'll use it!" and thus we get star-fish head, axe head, and bunny sled. Oh and Scar face. That one millisecond of screen time that the scar got sparked a wild fire for fanfiction writers.  

What scar?

Yeah... Norc and I are different in the way in which we express crabbit and...well a lot of other emotions too!

Thrandypants face burn thing, bungo.

One nice thing about LOTR was REAL HORSES. Sadly, the horse that was Shadowfax died a week ago  

Jeez, I didn't even remember that! What an impact these movies have had on me!

You blocked out the scar. It was some creepy shite that had no place in the Hobbit. Did the TORNers actually rave about it?

that scar thing was bad, shock for shocks sake, but everyone has seen effects like that a million times in The Mummy 1 and Mummy 2 and The Mummy The Curse Of Running Out Of Ideas 3.

The Mummy was good, the sequels were lame. Then the Scorpion King take-off was actually fun.

It reminded me of Two-Face from Dark Knight, but pointless and dumb and DUMB!!!!

halfwise wrote:The Mummy was good, the sequels were lame.  Then the Scorpion King take-off was actually fun.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the classic Universal horror movie.