Anyone feel the same way? (Film and Book related)

[Jemima Aslana]

I'd say he could write songs - songs where the feet are actually the same in all the stanzas which is more than can be said for many a famed poet. Whether said songs are poetry, that's another discussion, but they're most definitely apt for putting to music.

As for the novels as a whole: I read them the first time a long time ago (can't quite place it) I enjoyed the story greatly. As I've grown older and more experienced with literature I've come to realise that story-telling was not Tolkien's strong suit. He was not a story-teller, he had an immense amount of creativity, an immense imagination and a flair for artful language, but these three alone doth not make a fantastic book. He created one of the most vast and detailed worlds fantasy literature ever saw, he 'realised' his imagined world in an impressive scope and thought of almost everything - from languages and eating habits to History of world and races, and he put it all down in a beautiful language - but he forgot all about characters. I can't think of any character from his books that is anything but a stereo-type, they are all flat and quite inconsequential personality-wise, and that takes away from the work enough for it to no longer qualify as a 'good' work of fiction. Tolkien simple did not have what it takes to make his story and characters engaging. He wrote History - epic history, as it is written in the Kalevala and the Icelandic sagas, but not a well-told story.

I'm a fan of Tolkien - I won't bother denying it, I still enjoy reading his works, enjoy it greatly even, but only as a world/History-creation project, not as a fictional novel.

 

[blob212]

i think tolkein actually intended the lord of the rings to be a historical tale. rather than just a bed time story he wanted to use all his background work on elves and hobbits and to somehow place them in a world that readers will understand. he wanted to use his former work in something big so he could get the attention of a wider audience

 

[Jemima Aslana]

i think tolkein actually intended the lord of the rings to be a historical tale. rather than just a bed time story he wanted to use all his background work on elves and hobbits and to somehow place them in a world that readers will understand. he wanted to use his former work in something big so he could get the attention of a wider audience

If you read his letters you'll find that you're on to him.

 

[Fantasy Moon]

I started reading the LotR trilogy the summer before the first film hit theaters. As good as the films were, I still can't get over the fact that Arwen was given such a big role in them. I want to re-read them sometime when I get a chance.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Now there's somebody that had absolutely no need to be in the book.

I totally agree - he served no purpose except to ward off potential readers. I know that the only reason my Dad has not read them is because he cannot get past this bit in the book, and I'm sure that there are many other like him. I forced myself past this part because I really wanted to read them before seeing the movies to see how well Peter Jackon translated the books into movie form (well, how well in my opinion).

I still can't get over the fact that Arwen was given such a big role in them.

I noticed that as soon as I saw the movie (I had only recently finished the book), and I wasn't too happy with it. The main reason they did it, IMO, is because of the lack of major female characters, which would have had the feminists burning bras and a lot of the males staying at home.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Not really the feminists. More the fact that you don't hire an actress like Liv Tyler and give her 5 minutes screen time total.

Though I did hear that Jackson had chosen to give Arwen a bigger role so women would have something to enjoy in the movie. Excuse me? Does he honestly think that women are interested in watching Tyler's quivering lips and breathy sighs? Give us more of Eowyn's bad-assed coolness if anything. Miranda Otto has my eternal love for her Eowyn.

Besides, something for the women... psh. I should think the womenfolk would be happy enough with Legolas, Aragorn, Elrond(yay!), Frodo, Pippin(also yay!) Eomer, Boromir, Faramir and Haldir around.

 

[Zolipara]

Originally they wanted Arwen to be a part of the fellowship. That would have made her into more of a asskicking warrior elf kinda thing. Thats probably what he is talking about.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Though I did hear that Jackson had chosen to give Arwen a bigger role so women would have something to enjoy in the movie.
Excuse me? Does he honestly think that women are interested in watching Tyler's quivering lips and breathy sighs? Give us more of Eowyn's bad-assed coolness if anything. Miranda Otto has my eternal love for her Eowyn.

That's interesting! I agree totally with your comment - Eowyn was far more appealing to watch than Arwen.

Besides, something for the women... psh. I should think the womenfolk would be happy enough with Legolas, Aragorn, Elrond(yay!), Frodo, Pippin(also yay!) Eomer, Boromir, Faramir and Haldir around.

Heh Merry and Pippin were my favourites.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Originally they wanted Arwen to be a part of the fellowship. That would have made her into more of a asskicking warrior elf kinda thing. Thats probably what he is talking about.

You've got to be kidding me... part of the Fellowship? How could that thought even cross their minds? There's a reason Tolkien wrote a Fellowship of 9, and a band of 9 Ringwraiths. Sheesh. And I'm sorry to say it, but Liv Tyler as ass-kicking elf-warrior didn't work too well at the ford (where she should never have been in the first place - Frodo was alone! Dammit!) and I really doubt it would've worked much better if displayed at length. Blah!

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

And I'm sorry to say it, but Liv Tyler as ass-kicking elf-warrior didn't work too well at the ford (where she should never have been in the first place - Frodo was alone! Dammit!)

I didn't like that part when I first saw it either. To me they extended Arwen's role a bit much to be acceptable.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

I was prepared to accept many changes, I would even have accepted Arwen's extended part if only they'd made her an interesting character. But they didn't. A quick "See my heroic girlfriend save the day"-scene and lots and lots of kissy, huggy, stuff that didn't add anything to anyone's character... maybe aside from a hard-on in the case of the boys It was not the size of Arwen's part that annoyed me - but rather the size of all the nothing they used her for.

They extended Elrond's role to bringing Anduril formerly known as Narsil to Aragorn at Mundburg, when in fact he should have carried it with him all the way from Rivendell, of course this was only so Elrond coulf get to deliver some words about how Arwen would leave with her people before Aragorn went off into danger but still, this extension of Elrond's role had some sort of meaning, whereas Arwen's breathy sigh and quivering lips - in slow-motion nonetheless!!! - had no point at all.

Now as for Eowyn, who isn't actually portrayed very precisely in the books iirc, they actually made her a very good character, and as I said, I absolutely loved Miranda Otto's way of capturing her stubborn and assertive but also somewhat uncertain nature.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Agreed. The main reasons that I did not like the extension of Arwen's role were that the extensions served no real purpose, as you stated, and that they were extended at the expense of other characters/plot that would have been a much better use of the time. Just my opinion.

 

[Zolipara]

You've got to be kidding me... part of the Fellowship? How could that thought even cross their minds? There's a reason Tolkien wrote a Fellowship of 9, and a band of 9 Ringwraiths. Sheesh. And I'm sorry to say it, but Liv Tyler as ass-kicking elf-warrior didn't work too well at the ford (where she should never have been in the first place - Frodo was alone! Dammit!) and I really doubt it would've worked much better if displayed at length. Blah!

That was the original plan. Arwen was going to be a warrior type and be a part of the fellowship because they thought they needed more female characters. That would possibly have meant that they would have dropped legolas as well to keep the original number in the fellowship. They didnt really need two elf warriors. Many fans protested and they changed their plans.

I'm not so sure it was Peter Jackson that wanted Arwen to have a bigger role though.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

@ Zolipara - Heh, I must say I doubt it was in Jackson's tastes to change the Fellowship, he seems too much of a fan himself to do such a thing. I could be wrong though.

@ MC - I'm not sure about the "at the expense of other characters" statement of yours. What characters did we lose? Glorfindel who was.... lemme think.... completely inconsequential overall. So no, to me it was not a requirement that he show up, just like Tom Bombadil wasn't a necessary part of any bits of the story. It did not take away from the story told to remove those, just like I'm pretty darn sure no one missed Fatty Bulger and the original way the hobbits left the Shire. Does anyone even remember the House in Crickhollow, where they sing a most wonderful bath song?

I really don't think any characters we missed all that badly. I simply wish that those that were there had had a bit more... well... character instead of just a bunch of fluff.

On a happier note: I was impressed with how much Jackson made me like Boromir. Jackson portrayed the corruption of Boromir by the Ring much better than Tolkien did, having Boromir practicing sword-play with the hobbits the way he did was great, it showed him as a friendly, fun-loving human, not just the bitter, desperate man we saw in Rivendell whom anyone would immediately expect to steal the Ring. So a cadeau to Jackson and Bean for Boromir

Back to your points: As for lacking plot, there was only two things I was really missing, it was the explanation as to why Merry's sword can harm the Witch King of Angmar, and it was Gimli's gift from Galadriel - a lock of her hair... dammit, and now I'm suddenly in doubt, I don't recall whether that was included in the extended version, or whether it's just me placing the movie faces on my images from reading the book.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

@ MC - I'm not sure about the "at the expense of other characters" statement of yours. What characters did we lose?

It wasn't really the characters that we lost, but the plumping up of the characters who were included. I would have liked to see more of Treebeard, well more of all of the ents for that matter, for one.

As for the plot, I thought it was silly that they missed out Galadriel giving out her gifts. Some of the things that they used after leaving the Golden Woods (was that the name.. I've forgotten ) seemed to appear out of nowhere and the effect they had on things was not properly explained, such as why Gollum was complaining so much about the rope being around his neck (it was Elvin woven, I believe, and he could not stand the goodness that it beared).

 

[Fantasy Moon]

I read the books before the movies were released and I really enjoy them. I find myself engaging in that awfully bad habit of being too critical of movie adaptations for leaving out/changing things from the books when it comes to this series. However, I feel myself justified this time in certain cases! Arwen's role should not have been that big! I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to get over that.