The Exorcist

[doug*platypus]

I'm talking about the under-discussed scene in Edoras where... oh, what am I saying - you know <I>exactly</I> what I mean!<P>What the Utumno was up with that? Was anyone else embarassed and ashamed that an exorcism was brought into the movie, where it is nowhere near even hinted at in the book (IMO)? Of all the hideous sins perpetrated by the filmmakers, I think this may be the worst. Would JRRT have been a fan of The Exorcist? Are you?<P>Related threads found <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001447" TARGET=_blank>here</A> and <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001720" TARGET=_blank>here</A>.

[Liriodendron]

That scene didn't bother me at all! I thought it was a "filmy" way to show that Saruman was at the heart of the "problem" with King Theoden. I never quite understood what was implied (in the books) with the "magic" in Saruman's voice. Was there sorcery, (and did he pass this magic or spellmaking on to his mentor Wormtongue) or was the magic that of an extremely eloquent persuasive speaker, who knew just how to prey on someones fears and doubts? I've read the books many times, and this scene did not bother me in the least! In fact....I liked it!

[Balin999]

To be honest, I did like it, too.<BR>It is a very good attempt of P.J. to show how the power of Saruman worked on Theoden. And this helps P.J. to show how mighty Gandalf has become. Of course, many of the people who haven't read the books won't understand that Gandalf why Gandalf has become the White and what it means for him.<BR>But I think it was a good idea. It was one of the few changes in the story were I didn't think that I'd go mad.

[Neferchoirwen]

I agree with the "filmy" way of doing that scene. Though it was weird, but it emphasizes on the power of Saruman. The movie goers wouldn't have understood the whole thing. Like, if it came out in the movie as it reads in the book, no one who hadn't read it would have understood that Theoden was "healed" just by stepping into the sun. The moviegoers wouldn't even understand that it was Saruman who is in control of Edoras, and what was shown in the film was concrete enough.<p>[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Neferchoirwen ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A simple way of expressing what happened on the screen<P>I thought it was ok.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's an action-movie way of showing something that's handled much more subtly in the book. Saruman doesn't physically possess Théoden because he has Gríma to reinforce in the old king's mind the certainty that he's become decrepit. This scene was made as it was purely and simply because the film-makers didn't consider Tolkien's version to be sufficiently attention-grabbing.<P>Now what makes this worse is that Théoden in the novel is an old man who has been beguiled into early senility; but, given a prod in the right direction, realises that he is still able to do his duty. He dies fulfilled because he stops sitting around letting other people tell him that he's useless. That's a lot more profound in my opinion than some showy battle of wills between Gandalf and Saruman, which we could have had anyway if they hadn't cut the Palantír-hurling scene.<P>For me this is a perfect example of how a lot of the subtlety and intelligence of the source material has been lost in the films; presumably lest they should go over the heads of the mentally disadvantaged. Some things have been done well, but most of it I find over-simplified and too reliant on spectacle. This wouldn't normally upset me much, but this was <I>The Lord of the Rings</I>, a story with huge potential for a classic big-screen adaptation, and I for one am sick of films boring me out of my mind so that a few assorted cretins can follow what's going on.<P>Rant over. Normal service may now resume.

[Gorwingel]

It bothered me a little bit, I didn't think it was terrible, but it was a little harsh. I wish they would have found a way to show that Saurman was influencing Theoden, but that was closer to the book. It could have been a little more calmer, in the film it was very quick and kind of violent. I kind of have to agree that it was an action way of showing it.

[Aratlithiel]

Squatter of Amon Rudh is my new hero. Very well put and my sentiments exactly. Of course, I'll still be a hypocrite and go see the last one...AND buy the ext. TTT DVD...AND keep looking for RotK spoilers...AND buy the ext. RotK DVD...AND...well, you get the point.<P>Ah, the weakness of Men, er Women, er, whatever.

[Liriodendron]

I see what you are saying Squatter of Amon Rudh. There is certainly beauty in an old man realizing he still has power and value. I got that feeling from the movie though. (not as poignantly as in the book of course, but a book is more subtle than a movie. I don't think it really has that much to do with intelligence levels! )Theoden seemed reluctant to fight, some call it wimpishness, I thought it was more of what you described, the old man with the doubts, afraid he would let his people down. There was some talk among the Fellowship members that many of the Rohan ranks had seen too many winters. I don't think it was a strecth to include Theoden in this group.

[The Saucepan Man]

The Exorcist scene was <B>bad</B> (and I don't mean that in the Michael Jackson sense).<P>Don't get me wrong. I'm a great fan of the films - as film <B>adaptations</B> of the books. But what does annoy me about them is the scenes that just don't make any sense (for example, Faramir deciding that Frodo should take the Ring to Mor-dor after just seeing him almost give it up to a Nazgul).<P>And this was one of those scenes. Granted, it looked good for the film. But it didn't just weaken Wormtongue's character. It made him obsolete. Why bother with corrupting one so close to the King when you can just possess him yourself? Brad Dourif gave an excellent performance, but you're kind of left wondering "What are you here for?". <p>[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]