The Weaknesses of Men...and Hobbits - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

ReededGoat · 12-20-2002, 11:00 PM

I've noticed now after seeing TTT that one of the biggest consistent changes made in the adaptation process was to make many of the characters weaker. Frodo is weaker, Aragorn is weaker, Faramir is weaker, Theoden is weaker...what gives? What do you all have to say about this observation?aaron[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ]

Have a day · 12-20-2002, 11:38 PM

I have to agree with you there. Faramir was the worst case of this. Book Faramir would NEVER have let the ring take him that far and well all know it. Frodo had more resilince (sorry if I can't spell) Against the ring in book four but by the end of that part Frodo had begun to show some faltering signs. In the movie it seems from frame one with him in it the ring had already twisted him. He seemd a lot weaker too, like he needed Sam more often than not. Theoden... I don't know what you're getting at there but I see it in a few characters.

ReededGoat · 12-20-2002, 11:44 PM

Theoden: "I don't want to go to war." Gandalf: "Your people are being attacked." Theoden: "I don't want to go to war." Aragorn: "People are making war on you already." Theoden: "I don't want to go to war" Aragorn: "The orcs are coming" Theoden: "I don't want to go to war"the orcs attackTheoden: "I don't want to go to war...well, okay..."

Have a day · 12-20-2002, 11:49 PM

OK, now I see it. Thanks for clearing that up. But how does this make Aragorn weak? I saw more weakness from the other characters you mentioned then him. (I'm one of the people that think they overdo the Arwen/Aragorn love thing) So much more screen time went to Arwen whose not even supposed to be in the book than someone such as Eomer? I know that's off topic but had to say it!

Elanor · 12-21-2002, 01:52 AM

I agree that many characters appear much weaker than they should be.Somebody made the point on another thread somewhere (and I forget who, so sorry, I'm not trying to steal your theory!) that many people have been made weaker in order to make Aragorn look better. If Faramir can also resist the Ring, and Theoden and Eomer can fight really bravely, then what is so special about Aragorn? One of my non-Tolkien friends actually said to me that "Aragorn is the only decent one there, the others are all wimps or evil" which kind of proves the point.I think it's a shame. We should still be able to admire Aragorn while admiring the strength and courage of others too.

ReededGoat · 12-21-2002, 07:42 AM

Aragorn's been weak from the get-go...at least when compared with his 'book' counterpart - There's nothing in the book about Aragorn doubting the strength of men or himself "The same blood runs in my veins - the same weakness" That's one of my least favorite lines of the two films so far. In the book, he's solid and proud of his bloodline - he's ready to take up the sword and the mantle of leader and king when he needs to. In the commentary on the extended FOTR, PJ says they made Aragorn 'more psychologically complex' I think it's this tinge of arrogance that led to so many unecessary changes in TTT - changes must be made, but they went nuts.

LePetitChoux · 12-21-2002, 07:48 AM

But Aragorn's pride in the book gets soooo annoying sometimes, he just rubs it in so much!"Well, I may not know much, but I am gonna be King" "Did you know I'm the next King? "Oh, I'm King" "Look at me everyone, I'm the heir to the throne!"Well, not quite in those words, but the principle is there

mollecon · 12-21-2002, 11:34 AM

Without commenting on the individual posts here, I think it's in part a matter of making the characters more credible for the audience - noone really believes in superheroes any more. Personally I actually like the 'movie-Aragorn' better than his book counterpart - on the other hand I wasn't too happy about Faramir either.

ReededGoat · 12-21-2002, 05:38 PM

Do you realize how many movies are being made about superheroes these days? They all bring in millions of dollars, so you can't say that no one believes in them anymore. It's not that Aragorn is a superhero in the book, he's just more confident in his bloodline and his abilities...

Diamond18 · 12-21-2002, 08:49 PM

But all the "superheroes" in superhero movies aren't perfect either, you know. And that's why they're so popular now. Look at Peter Parker. He was a wimpy nerd (a cute wimpy nerd, though ) and even when he had superpowers he didn't really know what to do with them for a while.So I also think that the weakness in the FotR and TTT movies is designed for audiences who want to identify with the characters instead of being in awe of them. However, I do agree that they went overboard on some characters. Theoden started to get on my nerves after a while, and Faramir...nuff said![ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

Man-of-the-Wold · 12-22-2002, 04:50 PM

Well, I think this explanation falls into one of the four fixations bordering on obsessions of Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends, as I've identified. These obsessions probably arise from three sources: 1) the Screenwriters' egotistical need to put their own mark on the Films; 2) Principles of Blockbuster 101, and last but not least, 3) their own intellectually honest interpretation of the Books in terms of themes and ideas most worth using or exploring. The four fixations are in my current view, as follows: a. Dark scary characters and scenes b. Maintain dramatic tension/pace at all cost c. Men as easily corrupted, power mongers d. Extreme character developmentThe issue here of characters who start out seemingly much weaker than in the Books has most to do with d: Extreme Character Development.You cannot just have someone grow a little or make modest moves on top of an otherwise noble foundation. No, they have to change 180 degrees.Now, this reflects the needs of film adaptation. All you have to work with appears on scene in a short time frame. Some roles like Gimli and Legolas can be who they are with rather prosaic growth, but after nearly nine hours of footage a number of characters will need to be seen to change "dramatically" in order to resonate with the viewer. But even three films doesn't allow for much subtly, unless you want a real dialogue-oriented, deep kind of film, which doesn't foot the bill for the type of special effects that are here, indispensable.Isildur, Faramir, Theoden, and Frodo all exemplify this, but lets look at Aragorn.In the Books we can see how what happens in the LoTR as the crowning moment of his entire life of sacrifice and learning. In the Books he knows he wants to wed Arwen, be King and so forth. Aragorn still grows close to those around him, and acquires the sense of leadership, confidence, destiny and kingliness, about which he had doubts at first. But this is really the crystalization of elements that the Book describes, very effectively and subtly, to us about his background and the type of person he had already become up to that point.The Film-makers rightly conclude that they need more contrast between early Aragorn and later Aragorn to actually demonstrate on screen. Whether they go too far is a good question, but in the Films he is a simple Ranger in Exile (whatever those terms mean?!); he reads books in Rivendell, and we assume does good deeds; he does not want to be King; is doubtful of his heritage because of Bad Isildur?!, and even has doubts about whether Arwen and he should be together.All of this is well done, and it certainly has a place over the longer history of Aragorn's life as explained in the Books, not least Appendix I. The filmmakers feel they need to convey all of this in real time, or Aragorn will come off flat, uninteresting and inexplicable to the average filmgoer. Maybe they are right. At least he doesn't become a cardboard action figure. It could be worse.Elrond provides another grating example. In the Books he is a very even-keeled guy, who loves and supports Aragorn and wishes the best for him and for Mankind. In the Film he is very pessimistic and disparaging of Men, but I still like the character; it's not too far off-base. What I think we'll see is that Film-Elrond comes more and more to understand that he must not give up on Middle-Earth, and otherwise, become more like the Elrond that we see in the Books, who after six thousand years is pretty much who he is, and we love him, but he'd be a bit dull, perhaps, to the non-reader.

Elanor · 12-22-2002, 06:46 PM

I agree with your theory, Man of the Wold - and very nicely put if I may say so.

doug*platypus · 01-02-2003, 06:23 AM

I agree, MOTW, that the excuse of "character development" is nearing the limit of its usage. I'd have to say, however, that <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> obsessions of Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> borders on getting you into a thread that might not turn out very pleasant, and that you should choose your words with more forethought next time.I've got no idea why so many characters have to develop from such terrible beginnings to placate the "character development" gods. I heartily agree that the movies take the line of: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You cannot just have someone grow a little or make modest moves on top of an otherwise noble foundation. No, they have to change 180 degrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All of these other characters' development take away from Frodo and Sam, at any rate. For me, Frodo's journey is the most important part of the story. It's like Peter Jackson found all his characters (barring Legolas and Gandalf) as babies in the woods and has to teach them about right and wrong, responsibility, etcetera. Most of Tolkien's characters had led full lives before we meet them, and are none the worse for it.

12-20-2002, 11:00 PM	#1
ReededGoat Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 32	The Weaknesses of Men...and Hobbits I've noticed now after seeing TTT that one of the biggest consistent changes made in the adaptation process was to make many of the characters weaker. Frodo is weaker, Aragorn is weaker, Faramir is weaker, Theoden is weaker...what gives? What do you all have to say about this observation?<P>aaron<p>[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ]

12-20-2002, 11:38 PM	#2
Have a day Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 15	I have to agree with you there. Faramir was the worst case of this. Book Faramir would NEVER have let the ring take him that far and well all know it. Frodo had more resilince (sorry if I can't spell) Against the ring in book four but by the end of that part Frodo had begun to show some faltering signs. In the movie it seems from frame one with him in it the ring had already twisted him. He seemd a lot weaker too, like he needed Sam more often than not. Theoden... I don't know what you're getting at there but I see it in a few characters. __________________ Laugh at me now, laugh at me later, laugh at me as I smash your face into a table "There once was an alliance between the preps and the punks..." From my unholy mockery 'Lord of the scrunchie'

12-20-2002, 11:44 PM	#3
ReededGoat Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 32	Theoden: "I don't want to go to war."<BR>Gandalf: "Your people are being attacked."<BR>Theoden: "I don't want to go to war." <BR>Aragorn: "People are making war on you already."<BR>Theoden: "I don't want to go to war"<BR>Aragorn: "The orcs are coming" <BR>Theoden: "I don't want to go to war"<P>the orcs attack<P>Theoden: "I don't want to go to war...well, okay..."

12-20-2002, 11:49 PM	#4
Have a day Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 15	OK, now I see it. Thanks for clearing that up. But how does this make Aragorn weak? I saw more weakness from the other characters you mentioned then him. (I'm one of the people that think they overdo the Arwen/Aragorn love thing) So much more screen time went to Arwen whose not even supposed to be in the book than someone such as Eomer? I know that's off topic but had to say it! __________________ Laugh at me now, laugh at me later, laugh at me as I smash your face into a table "There once was an alliance between the preps and the punks..." From my unholy mockery 'Lord of the scrunchie'

12-21-2002, 01:52 AM	#5
Elanor Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: my own corner of the Shire Posts: 316	I agree that many characters appear much weaker than they should be.<P>Somebody made the point on another thread somewhere (and I forget who, so sorry, I'm not trying to steal your theory!) that many people have been made weaker in order to make Aragorn look better. If Faramir can also resist the Ring, and Theoden and Eomer can fight really bravely, then what is so special about Aragorn? One of my non-Tolkien friends actually said to me that "Aragorn is the only decent one there, the others are all wimps or evil" which kind of proves the point.<P>I think it's a shame. We should still be able to admire Aragorn while admiring the strength and courage of others too. __________________ "When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." Henny Youngman (1906 - )

12-21-2002, 07:42 AM	#6
ReededGoat Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 32	Aragorn's been weak from the get-go...at least when compared with his 'book' counterpart - There's nothing in the book about Aragorn doubting the strength of men or himself "The same blood runs in my veins - the same weakness" That's one of my least favorite lines of the two films so far. In the book, he's solid and proud of his bloodline - he's ready to take up the sword and the mantle of leader and king when he needs to. In the commentary on the extended FOTR, PJ says they made Aragorn 'more psychologically complex' I think it's this tinge of arrogance that led to so many unecessary changes in TTT - changes must be made, but they went nuts.

12-21-2002, 07:48 AM	#7
LePetitChoux Vegetable of Doom Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 720	But Aragorn's pride in the book gets soooo annoying sometimes, he just rubs it in so much!<P>"Well, I may not know much, but I <I>am</I> gonna be King"<BR>"Did you know I'm the next King?<BR>"Oh, I'm King"<BR>"Look at me everyone, I'm the heir to the throne!"<P>Well, not quite in those words, but the principle is there __________________ je suis une bonne odeur

12-21-2002, 11:34 AM	#8
mollecon Wight Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 188	Without commenting on the individual posts here, I think it's in part a matter of making the characters more credible for the audience - noone really believes in superheroes any more. Personally I actually like the 'movie-Aragorn' better than his book counterpart - on the other hand I wasn't too happy about Faramir either.

12-21-2002, 05:38 PM	#9
ReededGoat Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 32	Do you realize how many movies are being made about superheroes these days? They all bring in millions of dollars, so you can't say that no one believes in them anymore.<BR>It's not that Aragorn is a superhero in the book, he's just more confident in his bloodline and his abilities...

12-21-2002, 08:49 PM	#10
Diamond18 Eidolon of a Took Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: my own private fantasy world Posts: 3,460	But all the "superheroes" in superhero movies aren't perfect either, you know. And that's why they're so popular now. Look at Peter Parker. He was a wimpy nerd (a cute wimpy nerd, though ) and even when he had superpowers he didn't really know what to do with them for a while.<P>So I also think that the weakness in the FotR and TTT movies is designed for audiences who want to identify with the characters instead of being in awe of them. However, I do agree that they went overboard on some characters. Theoden started to get on my nerves after a while, and Faramir...nuff said!<p>[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ] __________________ All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression.

12-22-2002, 04:50 PM	#11
Man-of-the-Wold Wight Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: With Tux, dread poodle of Pinnath Galin Posts: 239	Well, I think this explanation falls into one of the four fixations bordering on obsessions of Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends, as I've identified. These obsessions probably arise from three sources: 1) the Screenwriters' egotistical need to put their own mark on the Films; 2) Principles of Blockbuster 101, and last but not least, 3) their own intellectually honest interpretation of the Books in terms of themes and ideas most worth using or exploring. The four fixations are in my current view, as follows:<BR>a. Dark scary characters and scenes<BR>b. Maintain dramatic tension/pace at all cost<BR>c. Men as easily corrupted, power mongers<BR>d. Extreme character development<P>The issue here of characters who start out seemingly much weaker than in the Books has most to do with d: Extreme Character Development.<P>You cannot just have someone grow a little or make modest moves on top of an otherwise noble foundation. No, they have to change 180 degrees.<P>Now, this reflects the needs of film adaptation. All you have to work with appears on scene in a short time frame. Some roles like Gimli and Legolas can be who they are with rather prosaic growth, but after nearly nine hours of footage a number of characters will need to be seen to change "dramatically" in order to resonate with the viewer. But even three films doesn't allow for much subtly, unless you want a real dialogue-oriented, deep kind of film, which doesn't foot the bill for the type of special effects that are here, indispensable.<P>Isildur, Faramir, Theoden, and Frodo all exemplify this, but lets look at Aragorn.<P>In the Books we can see how what happens in the LoTR as the crowning moment of his entire life of sacrifice and learning. In the Books he knows he wants to wed Arwen, be King and so forth. Aragorn still grows close to those around him, and acquires the sense of leadership, confidence, destiny and kingliness, about which he had doubts at first. But this is really the crystalization of elements that the Book describes, very effectively and subtly, to us about his background and the type of person he had already become up to that point.<P>The Film-makers rightly conclude that they need more contrast between early Aragorn and later Aragorn to actually demonstrate on screen. Whether they go too far is a good question, but in the Films he is a simple Ranger in Exile (whatever those terms mean?!); he reads books in Rivendell, and we assume does good deeds; he does not want to be King; is doubtful of his heritage because of Bad Isildur?!, and even has doubts about whether Arwen and he should be together.<P>All of this is well done, and it certainly has a place over the longer history of Aragorn's life as explained in the Books, not least Appendix I. The filmmakers feel they need to convey all of this in real time, or Aragorn will come off flat, uninteresting and inexplicable to the average filmgoer. Maybe they are right. At least he doesn't become a cardboard action figure. It could be worse.<P>Elrond provides another grating example. In the Books he is a very even-keeled guy, who loves and supports Aragorn and wishes the best for him and for Mankind. In the Film he is very pessimistic and disparaging of Men, but I still like the character; it's not too far off-base. What I think we'll see is that Film-Elrond comes more and more to understand that he must not give up on Middle-Earth, and otherwise, become more like the Elrond that we see in the Books, who after six thousand years is pretty much who he is, and we love him, but he'd be a bit dull, perhaps, to the non-reader. __________________ The hoes unrecked in the fields were flung, __ and fallen ladders in the long grass lay __ of the lush orchards; every tree there turned __ its tangled head and eyed them secretly, __ and the ears listened of the nodding grasses; __ though noontide glowed on land and leaf, __ their limbs were chilled.

12-22-2002, 06:46 PM	#12
Elanor Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: my own corner of the Shire Posts: 316	I agree with your theory, Man of the Wold - and very nicely put if I may say so. __________________ "When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." Henny Youngman (1906 - )

01-02-2003, 06:23 AM	#13
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	I agree, MOTW, that the excuse of "character development" is nearing the limit of its usage. I'd have to say, however, that<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> obsessions of Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>borders on getting you into a thread that might not turn out very pleasant, and that you should choose your words with more forethought next time.<P>I've got no idea why so many characters have to develop from such terrible beginnings to placate the "character development" gods. I heartily agree that the movies take the line of:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You cannot just have someone grow a little or make modest moves on top of an otherwise noble foundation. No, they have to change 180 degrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>All of these other characters' development take away from Frodo and Sam, at any rate. For me, Frodo's journey is the most important part of the story. It's like Peter Jackson found all his characters (barring Legolas and Gandalf) as babies in the woods and has to teach them about right and wrong, responsibility, etcetera. Most of Tolkien's characters had led full lives before we meet them, and are none the worse for it. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.