Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

STW, what you call PJ's improvements on the book may be separated into two categories. First: works better for movie medium

• the death scene of Boromir
• incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth

Second: improvement on the book

• entire portrayal of Boromir
• more emphasis on the character of Arwen
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• character developemnt of Aragorn

One of the two, "getting rid of weaker elements", overlaps into both categories.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

Incorporating Elves into Helm's Deep, I'm not sure it was necessary to the plot for the sake of the movie. It went against my sensibilities at the time, but I see why PJ did it; just not sure it was necessary.

I knew PJ would remove Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I recognized that they wouldn't fit into his movie, but I do contest that Tom Bombadil was not necessary to Tolkien's story. You say that Tolkien did absolutely nothing with it. This is not actually true. The issue of Tom came up in the Council of Elrond, and more is learned about him there. However, Tom Bombadil is used effectively by Tolkien to bring about the "growing up" of Frodo. But that's only his plot purpose. Tom Bombadil's setting and theme purpose within the whole corpus goes far beyond that, but that's an entirely different discussion.

As to the physical visualization of Middle Earth, it seems that you put the cart before the horse. The two Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee base their art on Tolkien's descriptions, and PJ's art department based their work on Howe and Lee's work. So what you call an improvement, I would call PJ actually achieving (in this one case) what he said he was trying to. So kudos to PJ on living up to Tolkien's descriptoins; but improving upon them? I don't think so.

Now onto what you claim as actual improvements over the book.

As to the entire portrayal of Boromir, it is certainly different. Boromir is more noble in the movie ( I can't help but place that beside his brother Faramir who is less noble in the movie). Boromir in the book is very much the son of his father, whereas in the movie the father is a ridiculous fool, which Denethor was not in the book. But back to Boromir. In the movie (seems odd to say but this just came to me) he had to die because he was more attractive to the viewing audience than Aragorn was. In the book Aragorn is clearly the more noble character. The problem with the representation of Boromir in the movie is that his brand of heroism is unabashadly glorified, whereas in the book the same type of heroism is shown to be shallow as compared to the purposeful and sacrificial heroism of both Aragorn and Faramir. So the book brings it deeper than the movie does. Sorry, I can't call that an improvement on the book per sé, but perhaps I can accept it in the movie (especially since Sean Bean is the actor).

I knew the movie would put more emphasis on the character of Arwen, since that's just the way Hollywood works. Again, not an improvement over the book in my opinion, but a necessary alteration for the movie.

As to the character development of Aragorn: this could take up an entire thread of its own, and I'm betting it already has. Notice that I could not discuss Boromir without mentioning Aragorn. Someone else has said that this is one of the biggest areas PJ "didn't get", and that the latter 20th into the 21st century just can't seem to "get", and that is the possibility of an actual good person, that such an entity simply cannot be believed. If so, that's just downright sad, and not a good sign for our times. If that comes off as smug and condescending, then all I can say is that western culture has apparently descended from something better that has been lost, and that's a shame. One of the things that Tolkien did best, was to communicate nobility of character. The death scene of Boromir in the movie was about the best I've seen it done by Hollywood! - - - and that was actually borrowed from another script (so I'm told)!

Originally Posted by STW

Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Originally Posted by STW

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing.

This comes as no surprise. And of course I think PJ has it wrong.

[Boromir88]

Folwren, nice insight about Gollum. The books set Gollum up as an even more repulsive and wicked person than the movies. So 'wicked' in fact that he has phantom stories about taking babies in the night and drinking their blood. But despite this, there is still that glimmer of hope that Tolkien created...and since there always is that small hope, I always wanted Gollum to pull through in the end.

Maybe it's just because I already knew Gollum wasn't going to repent, that I never got the same feeling in the movies, I don't know. Or also, I didnt like how they handled that Mount Doom scene (with the whole Frodo nearly tumbling in and Sam screaming REACH!!!)

Of course when we're talking about 'better' it's going to be subjective, on your own personal tastes. As far a who's the better 'story teller,' for me without a doubt it would be Tolkien. His knowledge of language, mythology, history...etc was just stunning. As CS Lewis said in Tolkien's obituary that Tolkien had 'been inside language.' And no matter what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created it could never come anywhere near the 'cauldron of a story' that Tolkien created.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for large battles and giant slugfests...which Jackson does do a nice job of creating. But that doesn't make LOTR a better story (in my opinion) that just made it cool to watch on screen.

So, let's see what we got...

the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book.

I actually preferred Boromir's death in the books. Seeing it through Pippin's eyes (as he describes it in the chapter The Uruk-hai) was more emotional than what the movie created:

His last memory was of Boromir leaning against a tree, plucking out an arrow; then darkness fell suddenly.

As great as the movies showed Boromir's final moments (absoluty the most tragic and touching parts of all the movies for me), Pippin's description of the battle made Boromir's last stand not only more heroic but more touching for me. As Boromir sent the Orcs fleeing twice, and the third time he was overcome as "they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir."

And I always found his last lines rather cliche: 'I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King'? I don't know that sounds a little too cheesy and would have preferred them to just end it with Aragorn's 'I will not let the White City fall' and have Boromir's "smile" as is described in the story.

the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did.

This is a tough one because I actually think the book Boromir is a lot nicer, it's just more subtle and harder to notice. But, I see what you're saying because I've seen the movies change the opinions of Boromir in people...they actually did for me.

When I first read the story, I never hated Boromir, I thought he was a great warrior, he made a mistake that he tried to rectify, but he wasn't my favorite by any means (I was a Theoden person). However, after seeing Boromir (and Sean's performance...Bean was a favourite actor of mine even before he did Boromir) I got a different feeling about him. The movie moments of him talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien and him teaching Merry and Pippin how to 'spar' show a more likeable Boromir.

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

Yes, I think Boromir is a sarcastic (and sometimes childish) person in the books, especially when he doesn't get his way. However, that just adds to Boromir's character and his 'growth,' plus it actually makes sense. In Gondor Boromir was used to having 'no rival,' he was used to making the decisions (as far as the military is concerned). He was used to giving orders and having people follow them. Then he's thrust into a situation where he is in far greater company than he, and he struggles with the fact that he is not the leader of the Company. He is not the one in a position of authority to 'give orders' when he's in the Fellowship. So, yes when Boromir doesn't get his way he can be stubborn (to put it lightly), he doesn't know humility. What really makes it work, is the contrast with Aragorn who is quite humble and willingly accepts orders (even orders from Boromir).

By Boromir's death however he has grown and learned humility. After trying to take the Ring from Frodo he goes back to the camp where Aragorn tells him to go find Merry and Pippin, and Boromir does so with no fight...then we have his final words to Aragorn: 'Go to Minas Tirith and save my people. I have failed.' Boromir's stubborn, sometimes childish, and 'anti-Gorn' qualities actually makes a great story because by his death we see how much he has grown through his journey with the Fellowship. Not only is he just a great warrior strongman now, but he recognized his mistake and I can't put it any better than Gandalf:

'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.'~The White Rider

I say it's a tough one because I've also seen people who have watched TTT EE when Denethor sends Boromir off to bring back daddy his little gift and seeing that Boromir's reason for joining the Fellowship was to sabotage it. I wish that part of the EE wasn't in there as FOTR did such a great job in creating Boromir's character, but that EE scene when Denethor pulls him aside is just irritating.

Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep.

But this was a fight that 'men' had to resolve...or mostly do on their own. Some Elves were staying around and had their own battles, but it was time for Men to deal with Sauron, the Elves have been doing it for too long.

Also, as I mentioned it is a distance problem, that isn't just recognized by a few book people...Jackson has actually been questioned about it many times. The Elves came from Lorien, well that was the wooded place way back in FOTR the Fellowship went to. And then Gimli says they've been chasing the Uruks for 3 days through Rohan...so this is something anyone can put together, you don't even have to know the name Tolkien to realize we have discontinuity. Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny. Aragorn actually remarks that he wishes he had the endurance of the Dwarves while they were chasing after the Uruk-hai (and it wasn't Aragorn making a joke). This adds to the trashing of Gimli's characters, as I've seen people making posts saying Legolas and Aragorn should have just killed Gimli because he was holding them back and he never does anything anyway. Making an argument that Gimli was a useless character that just cracks a bunch of jokes (I really liked Gimli's portrayal in FOTR, but by watching TTT and ROTK, I can't say I disagree with said people's view of Gimli when watching the movies).

Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film.

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there. Why Tom is so interesting? Perhaps its there is so much mystery about him, and an enigma such as Tom, can attract a lot of intrigue and interest from readers. I won't add much more than what was said, but also Tom goes to help forshadow the events at the end, when Saruman takes control of the Shire.

Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film.

Grant it book Aragorn seems much more certain and the all righteous hero in the books when compared to the movies; however this isn't so. Aragorn first serves as a good foil to both Boromir and Denethor, so all of Aragorn's good traits come through, so much so that it seems like Aragorn is just the perfect hero. However, this is not so, as Aragorn also has his own struggles and doubts in the books. Particularly after Boromir's death and the capturing of Merry and Pippin. Aragorn is at a loss, and starts doubting himself as the 'leader' of the company, but luckily for him Legolas and Gimli are there to pick him up. Plus, there is the confrontation with Hama when he asks Aragorn to hand over Anduril. Aragorn shows a little bit of power-hungriness as he tries to usurp Theoden's orders by saying he's the 'heir of Elendil' and his will should therefor trump Theoden's. But, again lucky for Aragorn that Gandalf is there to tell him he's being stupid.

I think this post that I came across a little while ago sums up elempi's (and many others) complaint about what Jackson did with the movies:

Okay, I started LotR a few days ago, and I am up to page 131. So far it has been a good read, and I like the way Tolkein writes, but so far it’s been pretty dull. When I say dull, I don’t mean bad, but just a little boring. It seems like it’s taking forever for little things to happen. Anyway, I’m just wondering, by what page or chapter does the action start to pick up? By action, I mean like fighting.

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that). They want to see the high action, Orli surfing adventure, Jackson created. There is a lot of action in the books, it's just not in 'fighting.' The action is the suspense, forshadowing, tension building, character interaction, character development, The Big Bad Read, and the language itself. Now, not everyone who was introduced to LOTR by the movies has these expectations from the books. But, I do think that Jackson did (whether intentionally or not doesn't matter) create a misrepresentation of the story, that leads to some fans when they go and read the books for the first time wondering why is this just a drag?

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet... it would seem that there is some middleground here that we both can stand upon with a degree of comfort. I am glad to hear you say that you see that some of the things Jackson did were better for the film.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

I see it pretty close to the way you do regarding this scene. A book does not have to be as dramatic and as emotional as a film does. What JRRT wrote was excellent for the book and worked extremely well. For the film version, it would have bordered on underplaying the whole moment. So Jackson made it more dramatic, more poignant and it turn took on more emotional resonance with the audience. And of course, that was Jacksons intent.

I see it much the same with the expanded role for Arwen within the LOTR story (as opposed to the Appendices). The entire Arwen-Argorn story is far more emotional in the film than it is in the book. In the book that type of showcase for the love story may have distracted from the rest of the tale and tried to turn the book into something it was never intended to be. But for the movie, what Jackson did worked well and it helped make the movie the success it was.

Perhaps the difference in how some of see these things is the perspective we are coming from. Allow me to explain how I have always seen this.

A book is one thing and a film is quite another. Each has its own internal laws, rules, constructions, devices, approaches, techniques and methods that further and aid in creating the world that it becomes. And each of these elements are somewhat different when you go from one medium to another. What makes for a great book does not always make for a great film.

I accept that and do not expect my films to look like my books.

I also accept the economic and business realities of the film making business and harbor no fantasies about what the true bottom line is and what the purpose of any film is.

In the end, I view the LOTR as a magnificent tale told by two different story tellers using two very different mediums. The story tellers are divided my more than half a century in time, and separated by different sides of the world. One had complete control of their end of the tale while the other had to work within from an established and beloved template and within a corporate and team concept. One had to answer to only himself since it was his own creation. The other had to answer to a host of masters, some of which had far different agendas.

So we end up with two LOTRs. The books and the films. Of course the books are THE LOTR. No doubt about that. The films are merely an adaption and can never supplant or gain the authenticity of the books. But having said that, the films are out there and were most likely seen by more people than who have read the books. In the minds of many, the LOTR has become the films. The story as portrayed in those films - for some viewers - is the LOTR. Sheer numbers have made it so.

The books are dearly loved by me ever since I read them right out of college in 1971. Among my most valued and treasured possessions are first editions - US sadly - of both THE HOBBIT and each of the three volumes of LOTR. I have the record album of THE POEMS AND SONGS OF MIDDLE EARTH with the actual signature of JRRT himself that came from the collection of a very well known and legitimate collector. I have lost count of how many times I have read the books and THE SILMARILLION over the last 36 years. And I have in the same room, shelf upon shelf of stuff from the films. I love and appreciate both for what they are.

The same story told by two different storytellers each emphasizing different parts and different characters but largely the same. At least, that is how I see it.

In reading many posts over the last six years on many sites, it is obvious that some people do not see it that way at all. And that is fine.

The one area we can debate about seems to be the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STW
Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

from littlemanpoet
What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Ends justifying the means? Who knows? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I certainly do not believe in cutting off peoples limbs but I certainly can also concede the need for it given certain medical situations. Lots of things are like that. The older I get, the less I cling to rigid principles, absolute black-and-white right and wrongs, clear cut moral choices and all that.

If we are going to engage in a discussion as to IF Jackson lied and seduced Tolkien fans with his early remarks it would probably be a good idea to find those exact remarks and reproduce them. To accuse someone of "base betrayal" is a pretty damning charge. I give you credit with the comparison to Saruman - its very cute and clever but we both know that Jackson is not Saruman or any such creature. He is a filmmaker who took on a task that even JRRT himself that was not possible. Jackson is not evil in the sense that Saruman was.

You ask if I think PJ was guilty of that. NO. What I do think happened was that Jackson wanted to make the best series of films he could that made the most money both for his studio and for himself. To do that he did not want to alienate hardcore and longtime Tolkien fans. He tried to enlist their support early on. Did he lie? Dunno. Does everybody "lie" when they promise to love someone forever and then things end sadly apart? A lie is not the words but what is in the heart as the words are spoken. Only Jackson knows what his intentions were.

Based on all the stuff I have read and watching all those features on the DVD's, it is my individual opinion that Jackson tried to satisfy all his constituencies as best he could given the realities of the situation. And that would include Tolkien fans.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny.

This is a sore point with me that you may have seen on another thread here. Having been a long distance runner for the past thirty plus years, the idea of an untrained dwarf running 140 miles in three days over rough terrain is simply ludicrous beyond anything remotely approaching reality. Sure, JRRT throws in the obligatory comments from other characters to help explain and justify the superdwarf feat that Gimli is undertaking, but its absurd just the same. And I do not give a single whit about how "hardy" or "strong" dwarves are. Running and especially ultralong distance running - is a world of its own that has nothing to do with strength or hardiness. I do not view the handling of that three day run any better in the film than it was in the books. But at least in the film we were spared a daily listing of milage which only added to the impossibility of it all .

from Boromir 88

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

I would mostly agree with your statement here. I too enjoyed the book Boromir more after seeing the films and picked up far more of the subtle nuances that Tolkien employed in his devolopemnt. If the film helped make that possible for both you and I, as well as others, then it is saying something very positive. You make a good point about the childish of Boromir being contrasted with is later growth as a character and that is valid. However, in the films, we have several other characters, dare I say more important characters, in their own stages of growth and development. Perhaps Jackosn felt that you could only have so much growth and development in changing characters and some had to be more constant. Especially in a character who is around for pretty much only the first film.

from Boromir88

Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Well, at least he had some explaination for it..... and I say that a bit sheepishly. There are mistakes both in the book and in the films and this could well be one of them. I do think that given the physical gifts of the Elves, you can make a far more rational and logical case for a squadron of trained Elven warriors to make that journey than you can for a squat, chunky untrained dwarf. But I do understand the point and concede some of its validity. I do think - and some will crucify me for this - that there is a "now thats cool" factor in movies. When we see something totally cool - like the Elves marching into Helms Deep - it aids to our willing suspension of disbelief and we push those nagging milage questions to the back of our mind. Perhaps only to be resurrected a few years later on sites like this one.

from Boromir88

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there.

Nice to see we agree on the film TB- or non-TB. I realize that this thread is not the place to discuss TB in detail. Perhaps you can refer me to where this has already been hashed out? Having read the books countless times I still see no actual purpose in him. If you excise him from the tale and come up with a different way to save the hobbits from the barrow wights, what is lost? Is that TBs main purpose? If not what is it?

from Boromir88

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that).

If that is happeneing, then it is sad that they do not see the beauty, depth and complexity that the books offer. I quickly concede the point that there is much more action and fighting in the films than in the books. But I thinks its an unfair oversimplification to hang the label of a mere action flick on the films. Just yesterday I was watching FOTR with my six year old grandson and the amount of slash'em up fighting is rather small. There are large portions of the film which move rather slowly and have nothing to do with violence or fighting. Of course, the battles are the set pieces of the last two films, but we still have lots and lots of exposition, character development and other bits of business that the standard thud and blunder film never has.

Again, the books are one thing. The films are quite another. I am glad to see there is some middle ground here for many of us.

[alatar]

Catching up a bit:

• Boromir, the more I read this thread, sounds a lot like Turin "I wanna build a bridge" Turambar in they both wanted what they wanted now...or else there's going to be some complaining. I agree that not only did Sean Bean's/PJ'S Boromir come off better than in the books - and the EE version added to that - but placing the Steward's son's death in FotR was a great idea. Score one for the Anti-Purists!

• Can't remember in which post it appeared, but think that I been told that certain changes had to be made to update the material from whenever it was written into today's language. And yet when I propose Gollum as a normal gent who suddenly splits his personality to deal with a horrible trauma (he lost a friend for gosh sakes! ), I'm told that this is not the deep character that could have been. So I'll retract that theory and add this one, based a little more on Peter Jackson's words: Smeagol/Gollum is an addict. The Ring, the "drug" effects all, but like the real world some fall sooner than others. Was Smeagol more animal that hobbit in that his id was more control than his superego, making him more open to the call? Gandalf had the sense to not touch the thing; if he did, would he have been quickly ensnared?

• The elves left for Helm's Deep while Galadriel was waving. Celeborn, having seen the future of Middle Earth in the hands of Pippin, thought that he'd better send help south as soon as possible.

• The elves were one of PJ's experiments. We judge the results of that experiment by (1) its result and (2) by what we already know. I was fine with PJ placing elves at Helm's Deep - initially. Couldn't help but feel emotional when Aragorn hugs Haldir. So far, so good. But when the elves rush an enemy when they have arrows to burn, and when none survive (and are quickly forgotten) then I'd have to say that PJ was careless with his thinking. I'm all for trying the new, but he could at least follow through. Given the result, I would leave them out. Score one for the Purists!

• More about the running. Back in the day, we were conscripted into going on these walkathons where we'd get people to give us money for each mile/kilometer that we successfully walked. This money was then donated to charity. So we'd walk, and the first mile was like, "We're walking! We're walking!" while the later miles weren't so Yellow Brick Road and Dorothy-like. My shoes were the cheapest that my parents could afford, and my one relief was extra socks. So, on all occasions I was able to make the 18-20 mile (29-32 km) walks. Afterwards I was sore - which I guess was the point of it all - and we would complain the next day at school about what a big adventure the whole deal was. During the event, note that some passed us by like we were walking with cinder blocks attached to our legs, as they made the mileage in much less time. Now, here's how my brain works: if I can complete a distance of whatever miles in so much time, having no training, no professional equipment/support and definitely no sense, what could someone in the top 1% of all walkathoners of the world do?

• The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

• What did Gollum want with the Ring? In the movie, as stated, it's shiny and he wants it. After this, he uses it as a way to eat (I think), but with the exception of getting him into the Books and Movies by giving him something to lose and pursue, what does the Ring do for Gollum?

• And lastly, regardless of Gollum, elves at Helm's Deep, Boromir and Faramir et al, PJ made successful films, and yet we will not ever know how much more or less successful if he were to have done it my way (which, of course, is the only right way of doing things).

[Sauron the White]

Oh Alatar... you take a great step forward but then.....

The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

Walking 20 miles in one day and then resting your tired cinder-block legs for the next few days is light years different than an untrained, stocky, short-legged dwarf running 140 miles over three days time. Lottery? Allow me to quote the great Robert DeNiro in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this." We are not talking about the lottery or odds of anything. We are talking about the possibility or not of a four foot dwarf weighing some 200 pounds carrying weapons and wearing heavy boots, without running training, running 1.6 marathons each day for three straight days. It simply is not in the cards - to keep with your gambling metaphor.

JRRT was a wise man who knew lots of things. He was a great writer. But he didn't know squat about long distance running or how the human body and its muscles work.

I can concede the Elf ---- and maybe under the really right conditions Aragorn IF we infer that he has been racking up great distances striding around for years and call that long distance training. I can meet you two thirds of the way in this. But the Dwarf. NEVER!!!!!!

[Quempel]

*pop*

Where does it say in the movies or books that Gimli was an out of shape, non-trained coach potato? Tolkien said that dwarfs were hardy....And by the time the three had taken up the chase, hadn't Gimli actually walked a long way, say from Moria to Rivendale and from Rivendale back to Moria by way of the mountain tops?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

I've anticipated your reply as in rereading my post I can see where I wasn't clear. Anyway, so here we go again:

One day a long time ago in class a friend of mine was rubbing her hands in a pained way. Seems that her fingers hurt, and this did not bode well as we were in a sign language class, and that required the use of one's fingers. I asked if she were okay, and she said that her arthritis was acting up. It was then that the conversation got interesting.

"Can't figure out why it's acting up...I've been eating peanut butter."

My brain stopped for a moment and reanalyzed what I thought that I'd heard. I checked the tape; yes she was somehow saying that peanut butter would help her joints. Sure, peanut butter, as far as I knew, wasn't bad, but somehow I guessed that she meant more than eating protein was good. So I asked.

My friend looked at me as if I were stupid and replied, "Peanut butter has oil in it. "

I must have still looked incredulous, so she continued, "The nuns told me that to prevent arthritis I should eat peanut butter." I figured that the nuns were just trying to get someone to eat peanut butter and found a lever in which to move one person. I asked by which mechanism peanut butter worked, and she explained, matter-the-factly that the oil therein lubricated joints, and with the quantity of peanut butter she was consuming, her joints should not be stiff.

She was and is a dear friend, and so I gently let her know that this isn't how it works.

Anyway, what does peanut butter oil have to do with Gollum/Smeagol and running? Little, but the point it that people see something - a creaky door hinge - and extrapolate from there. My friend, I think, saw the door hinge, saw how oiling it made it better, saw the hinges in her hands, knew that there is oil in peanut butter, added 2 + 2 and arrived at 22.

Tolkien gets us to 22 by choosing careful data from which to extrapolate - to go beyond the data. I can run so far (and though I am taller, not every reader obviously is, and just how much smaller do I see Gimli as being, having a mental and not real image with which to compare?) in a day. Aragorn and company are proved heroes. I've already bought the farm, and so 22.

Yes, I know you'll say 4, and in math/running/physiology/reality I agree, but Tolkien still gets most people to 22, and that's why he's one of the best. If PJ had Smeagol/Gollum wear a goofy hat each time the personality changed, the average viewer would add 2 +2 and get 4, then subtract 4 for stupidity.

0.

[Sauron the White]

Quempel ... I refer you to the thread here in Movies labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. If you look at pages two and three there is a debate there about this very topic with information I posted about the unique physical demands of long distance running. Simply put, its a unique physical activity that bears no relationship to strength, how hardy someone is, or how determined or motivated one is. Its a pure mathematical physiological formula based on training running long distances and the amount of glycogen one can pump and store into their muscles.

There is only one activity that prepares you for long distance running. It is long distance running. A person can work all day in a mine and labor hard and long and be in hardy condition. But that does not permit them to run even a mile.

Let alone the equal of 1.6 marathons for three days straight.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar ... aaaaahhhhh!!!! so what you are describing is your own unique way is what I call "willing suspension of disbelief". You believe it because you like the context of it all and want to go with it even though you know it makes no logical or real world sense.

I enjoyed the peanut butter story.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar ... aaaaahhhhh!!!! so what you are describing is your own unique way is what I call "willing suspension of disbelief". You believe it because you like the context of it all and want to go with it even though you know it makes no logical or real world sense.

Thank you. What I hope that I'm describing is the ability of an author/movie maker/etc to make you forget or dismiss the "reality" of it all and to go along for the ride. WETA's Gollum was so real that we argue the psychology of the creature. The facial emotions - all CG at the end of the day - made me feel sadness, loathing, pity. The song at the end of TTT, Gollum's song, to me is both sad and spooky - and telling of the psyche of Gollum, and yet what is it? Digital notes, assembled words, the vocal resonating of a human larynx, and yet it moves...me.

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Quempel ... I refer you to the thread here in Movies labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. If you look at pages two and three there is a debate there about this very topic with information I posted about the unique physical demands of long distance running. Simply put, its a unique physical activity that bears no relationship to strength, how hardy someone is, or how determined or motivated one is. Its a pure mathematical physiological formula based on training running long distances and the amount of glycogen one can pump and store into their muscles.

There is only one activity that prepares you for long distance running. It is long distance running. A person can work all day in a mine and labor hard and long and be in hardy condition. But that does not permit them to run even a mile.

Let alone the equal of 1.6 marathons for three days straight.

I have read the debate and almost posted there, however, I did not. Where in the movies or books does it say that Gimli was working in the mines before he went on the chase? He had been traveling, walking and running miles and miles each day, with the fellowship for many months. Does this conditioning count for nothing?

And just because Gimli is stout doesn't rule out he can't run. Those 250 pound linebackers are pretty stout and run miles every day, and during training its with their equipment on. The claim that Gimli is unable to run for miles, or even walk for miles because he hadn't trained is illogical, simply because he had been walking and running with the fellowship for many many months, not laying around in front of his big screen t.v. mining for cinderblock.

Even in American History there are stories of the pioneers walking 13-16 miles a day westward. These are men, women and children, none of which trained for marathons.

So again I ask where does it say Gimli was not in shape to run the distance?

Funny how some of us can suspend our disbelief and actually think an eyeball can float atop a tower, but a mythical dwarf can't run.

[Sauron the White]

Quempel .. I respectfully ask you this --- are you a long distance runner? people who are not know nothing about it. Check that - they know less than nothing because what they think they know is wrong. There is only one way to train for long distance running - check that - ultra-long distance running. And that is to put in lots of miles.

Its basic physiology and mathematics. Check it out on the net from someone other than me so you avoid my bias.

If you have evidence of Gimli doing long distance running to train to do those 140 miles in three days please post it so I can be corrected. I know of nothing that prepared him for this.

Do you? If so please post it.

Even in American History there are stories of the pioneers walking 13-16 miles a day westward. These are men, women and children, none of which trained for marathons.

This statement proves my point about non runners knowing less than nothing because what they think they know is wrong. A slow walk - the activity you are describing for the pioneers, would be about 3 miles per hour or five hours each day. The amount of calories burned would be about 250 to 280 per hour. An average person would deplete their glycogen reserves in about two hours and then experience fatigue and soreness. For a pioneer on the road for several months, they could build up where they could do this for five horus per day.

Please note that both you and I refer to walking. Walking is a far lower burn activity that takes a far lesser toll on muscles and glycogen reserves. A fast walk burns over twice that amount or nearly 600 calories per hours for a power walker. A runner burns 700 calories per hour.

To train for a 26 mile marathon, the normal person needs a base of 60 miles per week for 12 weeks with one day off each week to rest. This gives them a base figure of 10 miles per day. Rule of thumb is that you can do 2.5 times what you train for before you completely exhaust your body and begin to tear it down. So if you run 10 miles per day for 12 weeks you should be able to do 25 miles before "hitting the wall".

Look at the physiology of a dwarf. It is completely contrary to that of a long distance runner, let alone the ultra long distance runner. Running and power walking 45 miles in a single day would require a base of 12 weeks at nearly 20 miles per day. And then you hit the wall and need days more to recover before you can exercise at almost any level. The idea of running 1.6 marathons per day for three days in a row is something that only the extremes of the elite ultra-marathoners could ever attempt and do.

If you have solid evidence that Gimli trained at those levels please present it. I would be interested in reading it.

Funny how some of us can suspend our disbelief and actually think an eyeball can float atop a tower, but a mythical dwarf can't run.

I am happy you see this because that was my exact point when I brought up the ludicrous nature of Gimli running all those miles in three days time. It was my point from the very start of this that there are those who can read the books and can suspend their disbelief at those things but when it comes to things like the Denethor plunge, they get out their charts, graphs and distance measurements and show why it was physically impossible - because it was the movie. For them Peter Jackson is something a bit less than the anti-Christ and anything they can do to heap scorn or ridicule upon his movies is considered as fair game. But when it comes to the books, they give it wide latitude and willingly suspend their disbelief at far worse things.

I simply want all of us to play by the same rules. The books and the movies cannot work unless we engage in willing suspension of disbelief. Lets just have it work both ways.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Quempel .. I respectfully ask you this --- are you a long distance runner? people who are not know nothing about it. Check that - they know less than nothing because what they think they know is wrong. There is only one way to train for long distance running - check that - ultra-long distance running. And that is to put in lots of miles.

Now as I've admitted, I no nothing of running; however, as this article seems to indicate "The present analysis shows it falls by some 4.5% over 10,000 m, T approximately 1600 s, indicating that in establishing current world records at 5000 and 10,000 m athletes did not rely solely on glycogen as the source of aerobic metabolism;" [emphasis mine], Gimli's plumpiness actually was an asset. And note that I'm quote mining.

Plus dwarves were known for their aerodynamic helmets.

Think of the journey that Gimli was on. Having feasted in Rivendell he walks a fortnight to Hollin, Land Where Something Finally Interesting Happens to the Nine Walkers. After that, he hoofs it up a mountain - in snow - then back down again. After some more walking he trudges through Moria, the Black Pit of Stairmastery. He carboloads in Lorien (and that's First Age carbs), then, like the others, husbands his strength for the three+ days of running.

I simply want all of us to play by the same rules. The books and the movies cannot work unless we engage in willing suspension of disbelief. Lets just have it work both ways.

Much agreed, and thanks for putting up with my mindless posts and gentle taunting.

And did we mention that Frodo may have been doomed to the same split in personality as affected Gollum? At times in TTT and RotK he's nice then ready to kill Sam. It's Sam's love that keeps the split from occurring. PJ even has Frodo draw Sting to Sam's throat!

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

Can you be more ignorant and wrong? I do not think so. Sauron the White, your argument holds no substance. You are arguing that Boromir of the movies is better than Boromir in the books. WRONG. You can call me ignorant yourself if you like, but you are wrong. Boromir in the books is far more superior than PJ's mush ball Boromir. You obviously have little to no knowledge on the character, or at least have not studied his character. Maybe you should do that before making horrible misjudgments on Boromir.

I wish you would, before blurting out about Boromir, read the discussion Boromir88 and I had, in which he (Boromir88) kindly gave you the link. Here it is-

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...3&postcount=17

I would go on and on about defending book Boromir, the lordly and kind, and continue to tell you how wrong you are about movie Boromir's death scene being better than the book (for what Tolkien wrote is better) yet I see no need right now as Boromir88 laid it out on the table nicely.

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side. Read the SbS to see my scene by scene criticisms regarding Peter Jackson's work where I quibbled on most everything; yet in all of that I hope to never ever to be on 'your' side as it's been the Movie-lovers' points of view that have extended my appreciation for both the movies and books.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - I read the very short article you linked to. It said nothing which changes the information I have been giving in this and the other thread on running and the necessity for extensive long distance training to run long distances. The only mention of glycogen is that is not exclusive and that other things can be employed in addition to the function glycogen serves to fuel the muscles of the body. "Limited use of free fatty acids" are not the same as fat people or a 4 foot 200 pound dwarf. Again, walking, be it on level ground or up a mountain, does not prepare one for the equal of 1.6 marathons a day for three days. The only thing that would do that is extensive training sessions over at least a three month period structured around long distance running possibly mixed with nearly equally strenuous power walking. . By my calculations, it would take a three months base base of nearly 18 miles per day to be able to run the 45 miles necessary in a single day. And then what happens on days two and three? Answer - you are flat on your back nursing a very tired, aching and depleted body which would not be ready for exercise for many more days. And what would it take to get up to that 3 month base of 18 miles a day. Most probably a year of serious training. Again, this is all mathematical and psyiological.

The article you linked to has no research stats beyond 10,000 meters or 6.2 miles. That was the limit of their research. The training methods for ultra-marathon distances does not change because of the discovery of using fatty acids. Again, not the same as fat people or fat dwarves. But I think you already knew that.

Matthew M ... since Alatar already said it, I will allow his words to speak for me

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side.

more from Matthew

Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies.

Well it seems that indeed you have all four aces up your sleeves. You will willingly engage in playing with me and others but in the end you can always play your aces as you have now done. Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

more from MatthewM

They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

[Folwren]

My word! Why do things have to get so defensive and nasty?

Honestly, people, this isn't even on topic! If you want to discuss the three runners, why don't you do it on a thread made just for that? It seems that there is enough stuff to argue about!

This thread of Elempi's isn't even meant for whether or not the movie was accurate - or if the book was better. It was merely asking 'which do you prefer - the books' Gollum/Smeagol or the movie's - and why?' I don't believe Elempi meant for it to become a battle of whether or not PJ did a good job - because Gollum happened to be something that PJ did a particularly good job with.

Be reasonable and stop acting like children.

-- Folwren

[Quempel]

StW

I have been a long distance speed walker for some time now, and ok its not running, but I like my backbone and knee joints. Your assumption that Gimli wasn't physically able to run is just that, your assumption. No where in the book or the movie does it say that Gimli was unable to run. He would not have been able to keep up with over 6 foot tall Legolas and Aragorn simply because of stride length, but he is in shape. He had been walking and running with the fellowship for a long time, thus building up his endurance. And sorry StW, walking at a fast pace builds the same endurance as running, there are many medical studies that show walking does as much good as running, without the pain. So here is Gimli who has been out walking at a rather fast clip, in snow, over mountains, through mountains, and now all of the sudden he is so out of shape that he can't do anything.

The other flaw in your argument is that you are applying modern day human standards to non-human. Gimli is not human, he is a dwarf. You assume that Tolkien’s dwarfs fall under the same standards of humans, and Tolkien clearly distinguished the differences between the races in middle earth. Dwarfs did not have the same physical characteristics as humans. Same as humans did not have the same characteristics as elves. In fact the only paring of human with other races were with elves. There are no hobbit dwarf mating, no human hobbit mating. Perhaps this is because the DNA would not mix. Applying modern human standards to a fictional non-human dwarf is assuming that you know everything about Tolkien's dwarfs. The same standards you believe you know about the human body and running can and possibly do not apply to Dwarfs.

By the way are you a trained doctor? Or just a runner? There is a difference between a doctor who has spent years studying the human body and a lone runner who has only his own experiences to draw upon. It's like saying since you fix your own car you are certified mechanic.


And one more question, are you on Pete's payroll? Your disdain of Tolkien comes out loud and clear in your posts, and I have to wonder why you even read the books to begin with and simply didn't wait for Pete's much superior action flicks to come out.

[Sauron the White]

Quempel...

no I have never recieved on thin dime from Mr. Jackson. I have no disdain of JRRT - in fact I count LOTR as my all time favorite book. I truly love it. I have been reading it and rereading it for over 35 years now. I do however, view JRRT as a human being who created a book which has its own beauty, its own wonder and its own flaws. After all, it is a creation of a flawed human being and we are all in that category. Divine perfection is not achieved by any of us, JRRT included.

My entire point here began in the thread labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. In it, someone, I believe Knight of Gondor, went to great lengths to reproduce stills from ROTK to show the exact distance that Denethor had to run while on fire before his plunge off the edge. It was concluded that this would have take at least three minutes to complete and thus was impossible for a man to do while being consumed in flames.

Fine. He did a good job and was technically correct in his findings.

I pointed out two things: one, we only see Denethor on fire for a total of ten seconds in his run not three minutes - so what the audience saw was a ten second sprint - something they have seen many times in many movies with people on fire for far longer durations. Two - what ever happened to willing suspension of disbelief? You know what that is right? Its what every fantasy, horror and science fiction tale needs to survive beyond the "that cannot really happen" statement from viewers who apply actual science and reality to these type of tales.

None of us could enjoy the LOTR as a book or as a film if we did not employ a healthy dose of willing suspension of disbelief.

My point was a simple one: Why is it that when it comes to the books, many here can willingly engage in suspended their disbelief and just go with it - while at the same time - doing what Knight of Gondor did in the previously mentioned thread, applying reality and science to mock and ridicule the films?

In fact, when something in the books is criticized for not being feasible, even in the confines of a fantasy world, many here go to great lengths to come up with all manner of intellectual exercises to show that Tolkien could never have made a mistake. But when it comes to Jacksons films, its a whole different ballgame with a whole different set of rules.

I see that as a hypocritical double standard.

I merely used the example of Gimli not being able to run 140 miles in three days as an obvious hole in the book. As predicted by myself, many Tolkien book enthusiasts came up with all manner of intellectual explainations to show why a four foot, 200 pound dwarf, in heavy boots and carrying heavy weapons, with no long distance running training, could accomplish what a marathon runner could not do with months of training.

You still cling to this fiction. Your latest tact is that Gimli is not human and thus all bets are off. I refer you to this site

http://www.answers.com/glycogen?cat=health

If you read the article about glycogen and how muscles utilize it you will read that it applies not only to people - of which I thought Gimli was one - but to all animals as well. Somewhere in there is Gimli. Or is he such an alien creature that all normal rules of muscles do not apply to him. Thats a pretty big loophole if you are going to maintain that.

Even in a fantasy novel such as LOTR there is an internal logical structure that applies to its inhabitants. It is not by job to show you that Gimli DID NOT TRAIN. How does one point to what is not there? Proving a negative comes to mind. It is your job to demonstrate that he did. The book gives us no evidence that Gimli engaged in the type of long term long distance running or even race walking that is necessary to rack up the kind of miles that Tolkien uses. Tolkien gives us no evidence of it. Its simply not there. If it is please quote me the edition, the chapter and the page. I will be glad to read it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by alatar

And did we mention that Frodo may have been doomed to the same split in personality as affected Gollum? At times in TTT and RotK he's nice then ready to kill Sam. It's Sam's love that keeps the split from occurring. PJ even has Frodo draw Sting to Sam's throat!

Frodo does seem to oscillate between the normal hobbit and the socio/psychopathic one. This same event happens to Gollum where the creature is about 80-90% on the evil side with a few moments of old tired hobbit breaking through. Frodo always starts and ends the movies well enough, but in between he can really go crazy mad. With more than five hundred years of the same influence - and no tempering by Sam - Gollum is what Frodo (or, presumably any Ring user) would end up being.

Does Sauron wish, however rarely, for simpler times when he wasn't even Aulendil, let alone Annatar?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Even in a fantasy novel such as LOTR there is an internal logical structure that applies to its inhabitants. It is not by job to show you that Gimli DID NOT TRAIN. How does one point to what is not there? Proving a negative comes to mind. It is your job to demonstrate that he did. The book gives us no evidence that Gimli engaged in the type of long term long distance running or even race walking that is necessary to rack up the kind of miles that Tolkien uses. Tolkien gives us no evidence of it. Its simply not there. If it is please quote me the edition, the chapter and the page. I will be glad to read it.

Running? I have no idea if Dwarves are generally runners or not... but as regards their ability regarding stamina? Well, allow me to quote from the Silmarillion:

Since they were to come in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made the Dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not forever.

From Chapter II of the Quenta Silmarillion proper: "Of Aulë and Yavanna".

Furthermore, from the Lord of the Rings, I quote with regards to Gimli's running:

'Well, after them!' said Gimli. 'Dwarves too can go swiftly, and they do not tire sooner than Orcs. But it will be a long chase, and they have a long start.'

'Yes,' said Aragorn, 'we shall all need the endurance of Dwarves....

--from the last page of the Two Towers, Chapter I: "The Departure of Boromir"

'Even I, Dwarf of many journeys, and not the least hardy of my folk, cannot run all the way to Isengard without any pause,' said Gimli. 'My heart burns me too, and I would have started sooner; but now I must rest a little to run the better. And if we rest, then the blind night is the time to do so.'

--from about the seventh page of the Two Towers, Chapter II: "The Riders of Rohan"

So the third day of their pursuit began. During all its long hours of cloud and fitful sun they hardly paused, now striding, now running, as if no weariness could quench the fire that burned them.

--from the same chapter, approximately page eight or nine of that chapter.

As you can see, it is quite clear that Gimli, a Dwarf, was a hardy and resolute member of a hardy and resolute species, and it is quite clear that there was a good deal of running involved, though not constantly. Within the internal consistency of Tolkien's world, it seems fairly clear that he envisioned Gimli running--and keeping up with the others. There is a difference between "never been trained" and "unable to do something". The former implies the lack of a teacher, which I will grant: Gimli probably never had a long-distance, mile-covering teacher. However, given that he is said to be a Dwarf of many journeys, and given that Dwarves don't ride horses, and given that Aragorn admires his Dwarven resiliency, I think the implication is that Gimli was quite capable of the feat.

[Quempel]

Formendacil

Thats the Sil quote I have looking for. Bingo. Thanks.

[Sauron the White]

Hardy and strong does not equal training for ultra marathon distances - not once, not twice but on three consecutive days.

We will agree to disagree then.

Again, aside from the running, my main point was that many Tolkien book purists will go to the nth degree with all type of intellectual exercies and rationalizations to attempt to prove that the book is perfect and no errors or holes are in it. I think this discussion shows that beyond any shadow of a doubt. But it is our willing suspension of disbelief that helps us accept the improbable or even the impossible.

All I am asking for is the same willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to the films. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Someone should go back and read the first page and one-half of the thread DENETHORS PLUNGE and the mocking ridicule heaped upon the films by many here. The films seem to be fair game --- but heaven help anyone who raises a question about the books being inconsistent.

That is all I was trying to say from the beginning this subject came up.

[Sir Kohran]

As you can see, it is quite clear that Gimli, a Dwarf, was a hardy and resolute member of a hardy and resolute species, and it is quite clear that there was a good deal of running involved, though not constantly. Within the internal consistency of Tolkien's world, it seems fairly clear that he envisioned Gimli running--and keeping up with the others. There is a difference between "never been trained" and "unable to do something". The former implies the lack of a teacher, which I will grant: Gimli probably never had a long-distance, mile-covering teacher. However, given that he is said to be a Dwarf of many journeys, and given that Dwarves don't ride horses, and given that Aragorn admires his Dwarven resiliency, I think the implication is that Gimli was quite capable of the feat.

You provide some good reasoning, but I prefer to simply put it down to very subtle divine aid from Eru. Like Gollum's slip, it was something that had to be done for the triumph of good - Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli needed to reach Rohan for everything that was to follow to occur properly. Therefore Eru gave them an extra boost in speed and endurance to get them there.

And it's not as if Tolkien doesn't have ridiculous 'feats' elsewhere in his works...Hurin manages to kill *seventy* Trolls when he's completely surrounded. In a real battle he would have been overwhelmed and killed in seconds. And yet in Tolkien, he carries out this heroic, ridiculous deed and no-one criticises Tolkien...because this is a fantasy story and we can suspend our sense of reality.

As for the films...I think you're exagerrating the dwarf running thing a bit. Gimli is not shown as slow or weak, just not as fast as Aragorn and Legolas, which is quite fair as he has the shortest legs and (presumably) the most and heaviest armour. He doesn't break down and moan that he can't go on any further; he just has some trouble keeping up - however, he stays with them and doesn't actually fall behind.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

My comment towards you was pertaining to your remark on Boromir from book to film.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

Please do!

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

Yeah, right, because your posts did not hint at anything doubting your belief in JRRT's work... (extreme sarcasm)

It is obvious that there are, here at least, few people who agree with your book bashing movie thumping opinions.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

Touching. Funny enough, I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

It's also rather funny how my post toward you was concerning your skewed opinions of Boromir, and not so much on your flawless movie talk.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

You are very welcome, Sauron the White.

[Sauron the White]

from MatthewM

I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

Matthew - you are mistaken that I want you or anyone to defend one over the other. I am not picking the books over the films or the films over the books and I want nobody else to do that either. All I have asked for is one thing and only one thing: you employ your willing suspension of disbelief to aid in your appreciation and love of the book version of LOTR. That is great. Please also employ it when viewing the film version of LOTR. That is all I am asking.

[Quempel]

Dwarfs apparently, according to Aragorns qoute, also have high endurance. Is that not the main quality a long distance runner needs?

And you ask us to suspend our disbelief about the movies, yet are unwilling to suspend your own disbelief about Gimli.

[Sauron the White]

Quempel ... now you are aproaching wisdom. The only reason I brought up the entire Gimli running issue was to illustrate my point about willing suspension of disbelief and the necessity of being fair in its extension to BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE MOVIES. In doing so, I played Devils advocate and fought the fight to show how something in the books made little sense - at least to me based on my real world experience and knowledge. Knowledge which I believe Tolkien did not have.

I am more than willing to extend willing suspension of disbelief to the books. I have for the past 36 years of multiple readings. All I am asking is for the same courtesy for the films. I love both dearly. I really bothers me when I read the first page of the DENETHORS PLUNGE thread and I see the smugness, the ridicule, the "lets all pile on and show what a horses behind Jackson really is" attitude that comes in post after post. Oh sure, they will claim that its all in good fun. But only because its their favorite target.

ENDURANCE - yes runners have a special kind of it because they train for it. People who labor hard can also have endurance. It can also mean putting up with a lot of grief. Dwarves are described as a strong and hardy folk. There is nothing in the SILMARALLION or LOTR to indicate they prepared themselves to be ultra marathoners.

But that is not my point.

Does anyone out there see this?

[Quempel]

There is also nothing in the Sil or LoTR to say the peoples of middle earth were subject to our standards.

And I am rather wise already, thanks.

[littlemanpoet]

STW, you make much real world sense. Trouble is, we're talking about Middle Earth here. Gimli's famous run with Aragorn and Legolas is not the only instance in which Tolkien describes a Dwarf or Dwarves with such incredible running endurance. In The Hobbit, the Dwarves of the Iron Hills run a "forced march" trot all the way from the equivalent of the Aral Sea to Finland in (I believe) three days. That's a lot of miles. So Tolkien apparently intended Dwarves to be understood as capable of the kind of thing he describes.

That's all I have time for right now. I'll see to your previous post directed to me when time avails.

[Sauron the White]

Thanks for pointing that out. I will check it out.
Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Thanks for pointing that out. I will check it out.
Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?

I think your comment regarding double standards is well understood. You've certainly hammered at it enough that only the densest should fail to get it. Put simply put, you want us to overlook the unrealities in the movies in the same way we do with the books.

Which is a fair point, in my opinion--and the reason I left the Denethor plunge alone has nothing so much to do with the fact I'm no scientist/runner/pyromaniac (though that is case), but because when I watch the movies I'm able to suspend disbelief there.

There. Not everywhere else.

Basically, I think our willingness to suspend disbelief has to do with the "magic" cast by the work in general. Yes, for the Book, most fans are willing to go to outrageous lengths to gloss over how an inconsistency works out. That is a suspension of disbelief in practice, as you point out. And the reason so many fans will do it is because of the "magic". That is, they love the book.

Most book fans, simply put, found that the "magic" did not translate evenly into the Movies--regardless of consistencies in story, adaptation of plot, and other situations requiring suspension of belief. Myself, I found the "magic" there in the Fellowship, albeit dimmed from the book, and less so in the latter two movies.

Without the "magic" to motivate it, there is little or no point to the suspension of disbelief. It isn't just a rational exercise. If so then you would go to the movie, gloss over the part you needed to, then either forget about it, or deem the need to gloss in the first place a defect in the movie.

For a lot of fans--particularly those enamoured of the book magic--the "magic" was not in the movies, so the need to suspend disbeliefs was a defect in the movies.


I hope I'm making some sense... it seems clear up here.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?

Obviously not.

I've actually considered resurrecting or creating a thread where we can hash out which is better, the movies or the books and any piece, person or part therein, but then immediately realized while the thread would provide much heat (or not), little light would shine through. Neither side, when it comes down to it, can provide an objective argument as to why one is better than the other. In the end, it will boil down to opinion, and so we'd be no farther than we are today. If you think otherwise, go for it, and let's see me proved wrong - and I have no problem posting for posting's sake.


Speaking of dwarves, Galadriel or Arwen? Sound familiar?

We nitpick Jackson as he's given us the large target and some arrows to use. The movies are easy to criticize given the medium, to my knowledge we always rate movies and it's not hard in that we can look and see that! just ain't right. Doing the same thing in the books is a little harder as one might have to do more research before nocking an arrow (and in some cases, we only have one shot to get it right before persons return fire).

My previous post was yet another attempt to get this thread back on track for those so inclined.

[Sauron the White]

Thank you to both Formendacil and Alatar for the very good explainations. Some very good points were raised - and I like the part about "magic" since that seems the prime motivation for excercising ones willing suspension of disbelief. I will give it up on the running and Gimli --- for the time being bowing to discretion.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Some very good points were raised - and I like the part about "magic" since that seems the prime motivation for excercising ones willing suspension of disbelief.

I've been thinking about this as well, and even considered a new thread. Is it truly "willing?" I can never remember ever sitting, either in the theater or at home with a book, saying to myself, "Oh, this Balrog thing is going to take some belief suspension." alatar assumes the lotus position..."Hmmm. Hmmm. Balrogs exist. Balrogs exist..."

Whether Jackson or Tolkien, I think that when they're at their best, you don't even have to try to suspend belief. That, to me, is why LotR is so good, and why PJ really scored with Gollum.

I will give it up on the running and Gimli --- for the time being bowing to discretion.

Note that Sisyphus would quit if he could.

[littlemanpoet]

I also understand your point on "double standard"; I just disagree, for one simple reason: Middle Earth is Tolkien's creation. Jackson was given permission to borrow it. So the standard lies with Tolkien, and Jackson had a responsibility to be true to the standard.

Subsequent posts on "the magic" and "willing suspension of disbelief" bring to mind what may be objective distinctions between the book and movie, something to which I need give more thought: with "magic", are we talking perhaps about those old "mythic unities" that are all over the book but not in the movie? And with willing suspension of disbelief, Tolkien posited a higher level, which he called "secondary belief". I think these two concepts may bear upon this larger discussion.

By the way, I have no problem with this thread detouring onto bigger topics, so long as the original is considered to have been more or less resolved, and these new detours arise naturally from discussion of the initial topic.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it truly "willing?" I can never remember ever sitting, either in the theater or at home with a book, saying to myself, "Oh, this Balrog thing is going to take some belief suspension." alatar assumes the lotus position..."Hmmm. Hmmm. Balrogs exist. Balrogs exist..."

Whether Jackson or Tolkien, I think that when they're at their best, you don't even have to try to suspend belief. That, to me, is why LotR is so good, and why PJ really scored with Gollum.

A good belt of sub-creation beats suspenders any day, hey?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

STW, you make much real world sense. Trouble is, we're talking about Middle Earth here. Gimli's famous run with Aragorn and Legolas is not the only instance in which Tolkien describes a Dwarf or Dwarves with such incredible running endurance. In The Hobbit, the Dwarves of the Iron Hills run a "forced march" trot all the way from the equivalent of the Aral Sea to Finland in (I believe) three days. That's a lot of miles. So Tolkien apparently intended Dwarves to be understood as capable of the kind of thing he describes.

That's all I have time for right now. I'll see to your previous post directed to me when time avails.

To my mind there's no reason why a Dwarf would not be able to run an exceptional long distance at speed, after all, they are not homo sapiens! It's no more odd to me than an Elf having exceptional long life or the ability to walk on snow (or custard ) lightly as the fact that they are different species explains a lot. I have more problems with accepting that the Dunedain could live for a few hundred years as that seems to be not compatible with the species.

Middle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves. At one point in prehistory the earth itself supported at least three species too - homo sapiens, neanderthals and homo erectus. We can accept that each of these had quirks and big differences, so why not accept these between Men, Elves and Dwarves? They are not all the same, biologically speaking.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To my mind there's no reason why a Dwarf would not be able to run an exceptional long distance at speed, after all, they are not homo sapiens! It's no more odd to me than an Elf having exceptional long life or the ability to walk on snow (or custard ) lightly as the fact that they are different species explains a lot. I have more problems with accepting that the Dunedain could live for a few hundred years as that seems to be not compatible with the species.

Middle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves. At one point in prehistory the earth itself supported at least three species too - homo sapiens, neanderthals and homo erectus. We can accept that each of these had quirks and big differences, so why not accept these between Men, Elves and Dwarves? They are not all the same, biologically speaking.

One might also add that the home sapiens of the Middle-Earth seem to break down into three very distinct subspecies themselves: homo sapiens, homo sapiens hobbitas, and homo sapiens drúadan--that is, regular man, Hobbit, and Drúadan. And, if one wants to add the Dúnedain as an effective subspecies as well, you get four.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

TMiddle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves.

I'm guessing that the Dwarves were completely different as they were made in private by Aulë. Now, in his mind he may have had some of Eru's thinking, but from my point of view, the Dwarves were distinctly different from the other two races.

Now, we know that elves and humans can mate, meaning that at best each is a subspecies. I cannot think of any Dwarf-human/hobbit/elf cross, and so I'm guessing that they are completely different.

Not that Gimli didn't didn't consider the experiment with Galadriel...