Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

That whole drama doesn't make much sense in the movie. Theoden says "what do we owe Gondor?" or something like that. 20 minutes later the beacons are lit and Theoden changes his mind.

Well, what changed his mind? We don't really know.

thegooddoctor wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:What I loved about LOTR was that it Always kept Frodo (and Sam) at the emotional heart of the films, no matter if they were off screen for obvious reasons We Always had Frodos journey as the most important journey, Aragorn didnt swamp everything as Thorin does in The Hobbit. I never once thought that Aragorn or Gandalf took away Frodos importance. Bilbo in The Hobbit however is rarely present, he is totally sidelined and we never really get any progression or story arc even though we are two thirds the way in.
So LOTR gave due respect to the main characters, people can quibble about slight changes due to acting styles or slightly gentler or more introverse characteristics, but Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books. (apart from Faramir) some are improvements like Theoden and Boromir, but overall the characters are respected and not twisted and warped as in TH.

That's an interesting comparison. You're right, the LOTR trilogy does keep Frodo and Sam at the heart. And although it seems rather obvious that it has to be that way, I could have seen a bunch of movie executives deciding that Aragorn needs to be the MAIN character and changing things even more than they were.

I really hate the way Bilbo is portrayed in the Unexpected Journey. I have just started my rewatch of that movie, and I'm just over 30 mins in. They get Bilbo all wrong. I'm not even sure why this Bilbo ever would have started this adventure.

But I have to disagree about the majority of characters in LOTR. Peter Jackson gets most of them wrong. Elrond is a huge d**k. Theoden is also a huge d**k much of the time. Anytime Peter Jackson needs an obstacle in a scene, he just turns a character into a d**k. It even happens to Gandalf and Galadrial at certain times. Pippen and Merry are mostly buffoons, Gimli is never more than comic relief, and Liv Tyler is super annoying. And I hate the way Eowyn gets changed from an strong, brave, fiercely independent character to a pining love interest for Aragorn who needs a man to rescue her, even though she's supposed to be the heroine who killed the witch-king. It's the worst kind of misogyny.

Got to disagree with you about Elrond Theoden and Eowyn. Elrond was pretty dubious and world weary and he loved his daughter a bit too much for comfort, but his heart was in the right place. I Always felt his alien or non-human qualities, we shouldnt judge an Elf by human standards, they do things differently see things in the long term, Elrond was afraid for his daughters future thats all. Theoden was brilliant, his Death scene was one of the most moving in all the trilogy, the Ride of the Rohirrim is one of my all time favourite scenes from ANY film. They made Theoden full of pathos and desperate heroism, i thought Bernard Hill gave an excellent performance too, really subtle, it would have been so easy for him to portray Theoden as a stock hero ala King Arthur, but instead he was rather bitter and wary, but with a lion heart. Eowyn had some dodgy moments I will agree, the soup scene was stupid, really hated that bit, and you are right, it was hardly something a Shieldmaiden would stoop to, but when the chips were down she DID kill the Witchking and showed her quality. I was a bit perturbed by the Aragorn thing, but in the book she fell in love with a dream, not the man, in the film Aragorn DOES acknowledge this and tells her. So it was quite faithful to the book in that respect.

bungobaggins wrote:That whole drama doesn't make much sense in the movie. Theoden says "what do we owe Gondor?" or something like that. 20 minutes later the beacons are lit and Theoden changes his mind.

Well, what changed his mind? We don't really know.

Exactly. Creating drama where none exists. As if the Rohirrim don't know the battles Gondor is fighting? Ridiculous. PJ is hoping no one is paying attention or just doesn't give a rat's arse.

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.

Except he makes the point about Gondor not helping Rohan to Aragorn.

Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books - Figgs

But film Frodo is nothing like book Frodo- he is a wimp and he is taciturn and disloyal (sending Sam away for Gollum) and his character arc doesnt even have the right ending.

Radaghast wrote:Except he makes the point about Gondor not helping Rohan to Aragorn.

you may not agree with my opinion, but do you at least get my point? Once he has decided to muster the Rohirrim he is pretty much 100% committed to helping Aragorn, obviously he still has doubts and worries and past memories. I think thats what makes him more interesting, Theoden is not perfect, he is flawed, bitter and has moments of weakness. I would rather have that than the usual boring gung-ho stock heros we normally see in contemporary cinema.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books - Figgs

But film Frodo is nothing like book Frodo- he is a wimp and he is taciturn and disloyal (sending Sam away for Gollum) and his character arc doesnt even have the right ending.

thats your opinion, mine is the opposite.

Dont you fret. I can take you all on. One by one. I can take on Nine of you all at once if needs be.
 

Figgs against the Nine at the Ford of Forumshire. You will not pass!

Mrs Figg wrote:

Radaghast wrote:Except he makes the point about Gondor not helping Rohan to Aragorn.

you may not agree with my opinion, but do you at least get my point? Once he has decided to muster the Rohirrim he is pretty much 100% committed to helping Aragorn, obviously he still has doubts and worries and past memories. I think thats what makes him more interesting, Theoden is not perfect, he is flawed, bitter and has moments of weakness. I would rather have that than the usual boring gung-ho stock heros we normally see in contemporary cinema.

I appreciate your point but to me it smacks of false drama, an all-too-common device used by the Peej. All doubt about Theoden's loyalty was supposed to have been removed after Gandalf removed Saruman's influence. The doubt and drama that remained (in the book) came from Theoden's advanced age (he was visibly older than the movie version); whether the Rohirrim could get there in time; if their forces would be enough to help hold back the tide; and if they could even get there at all without running into enemy forces.

Mrs Figg wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books - Figgs

But film Frodo is nothing like book Frodo- he is a wimp and he is taciturn and disloyal (sending Sam away for Gollum) and his character arc doesnt even have the right ending.

thats your opinion, mine is the opposite.

Not all is opinion. For instance, Frodo is demonstrably a coward in one of the movies.

Except for complaining about "where was Gondor when..." I thought movie and book Theoden were pretty close (though I would have preferred the more subtle cure Gandalf provides in the book).

I think Figgs' point about Theoden delaying his whole-hearted embrace of being the Heroic King until the beacons are lit was actually a nice bit of drama/suspense that didn't really hurt the character that much. I suppose this lines up with Aragorn being the one to convince Theoden to ride out at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep. That last bit bothered me even more as it detracted I think too much from Theoden as King. The choice to ride to Gondor when he has enough problems of his own at home is a more acceptable decision point in my view.

I'll have to take you guys' word for it since I'm reluctant to watch the movie again, but I feel pretty confident I like the book version better.

Radaghast wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books - Figgs

But film Frodo is nothing like book Frodo- he is a wimp and he is taciturn and disloyal (sending Sam away for Gollum) and his character arc doesnt even have the right ending.

thats your opinion, mine is the opposite.

Not all is opinion. For instance, Frodo is demonstrably a coward in one of the movies.

I dont think so.

Backing away from the troll and bleating for Aragorn is not cowardly?

Running away at the end of Fellowship- in the book he goes not even knowing there is an orc attack- in the film he goes leaving Merry and Pippin to most likely be killed allowing him to escape-book Frodo would never have done that.
He was only leaving alone at all to protect the people he cared about, he would never have ran had he seen them being put in direct danger because of  him. It makes a mockery of his choice to leave.

Think of his words to Glofrindel when Glorfindel tells him his horse will bear Frodo away to safety -"No he will not! I will not leave my friends behind in danger" (paraphrasing very slightly there as I'm going on memory!)
I cant even imagine film Frodo saying that line- he is not the same character.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Running away at the end of Fellowship- in the book he goes not even knowing there is an orc attack- in the film he goes leaving Merry and Pippin to most likely be killed allowing him to escape-book Frodo would never have done that.

I don't even recall this part but, yeah, that's not book Frodo. At all.

There's not that much of book Frodo left in the movie to be honest.   Time after time he wimps out in the movie. It certainly hurts his character and is one of the changes I struggle most with in the movies.

Rhadagast its the bit where Frodo hides behind a tree stump, he looks over and sees Merry and Pippin likewise hiding, they see Frodo and realise he is leaving and deliberately jump out in front  of the orcs to distract them, and Frodo escapes leaving them, from his point of view, to what seems a certain death.
And then he has the cheek to go and stand and mope about for a bit on the beach staring at his Ring feeling sorry for himself! Not only a whimp but a whinger 

Yes, I think I recall it now. Yeah, it's a punk move on movie-Frodo's part to essentially sacrifice his friends. The whole point of his sneaking off was supposed to be to keep them from danger.

  

Bluebottle wrote:There's not that much of book Frodo left in the movie to be honest.   Time after time he wimps out in the movie. It certainly hurts his character and is one of the changes I struggle most with in the movies.

Yeah, the two seem different in practically every way, except that they both get from A to B via the same route and say some of the same words.

And they cut out what for me is a crucial character revealing moment- when Sam gives his opinion to the rest of the company on what Frodo will do, go alone, "He'll screw himself up tight as sure as his name is Baggins" or words to that effect- it shows that out of all them, even Merry and Pippin, its Sam who really understands Frodo best of all and how he thinks.

But hey why bother with character development when Aragon can have a ten minute gratuitously violent fight with an orc instead after ten minutes of fighting random cannon fodder orcs!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Running away at the end of Fellowship- in the book he goes not even knowing there is an orc attack- in the film he goes leaving Merry and Pippin to most likely be killed allowing him to escape-book Frodo would never have done that.
He was only leaving alone at all to protect the people he cared about, he would never have ran had he seen them being put in direct danger because of  him. It makes a mockery of his choice to leave.

Think of his words to Glofrindel when Glorfindel tells him his horse will bear Frodo away to safety -"No he will not! I will not leave my friends behind in danger" (paraphrasing very slightly there as I'm going on memory!)
I cant even imagine film Frodo saying that line- he is not the same character.

my my you do like to twist things up to make a false point. Nevermind I watched the film as well so I know what happened and its nothing like you describe.

Radaghast wrote:Backing away from the troll and bleating for Aragorn is not cowardly?

nope. Aragorn is a warrior, its his job.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But hey why bother with character development when Aragon can have a ten minute gratuitously violent fight with an orc instead after ten minutes of fighting random cannon fodder orcs!

One of which would have killed Aragorn, if not for Legolas's super-awesomeness