Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The truly amusing thing about this read was the fact that the early parts of this retrospective, from when it started in 2007, read to me almost exactly like debates from right when the movies were new.

I remember the first debates with real nostalgia. That was a lot of fun.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I distinctly remember the utter fear that the movie adaptation would *RUIN* my favourite obsession, and being completely torn between wanting it to be an utter, validating success, and wanting no one to go see it and ruin the exclusive hold to "expert" that I held over a wonderful world.

And there, in a nutshell, are what it was claimed anyone against the movies must have based their feelings on. For me, at least, it wasn't quite like that.

I looked at the movies with a jaundiced eye from the start. That stemmed from a basic conviction that movies, as a whole, are an inferior form of entertainment compared to books. I wasn't enthused at all. I didn't think seeing someone else's vision of the books brought to "reality" was necessary. I knew nothing anyone could produce, no matter how expensively done, could surpass, or even augment, the scenes in my mind. So my thought was : "Why bother"?

Second, while I didn't fear the story would be "ruined", I was convinced fundamental things would be changed, and again, I had no interest in seeing that done.

Thirdly, I despised the inevitable commercialization that would follow the movies. McDonald's collectibles, action figures, and all that.

But, people said, the movies would have an upside, in that some who hadn't read the books would be induced to do so after seeing the movies. I was rather sceptical, even though I'm sure that has indeed been the case for a few. And another part of me railed that that would even be necessary. Such great books, and people won't pay any attention to them unless there's a Hollywood blockbuster associated? I thought that was a bloody shame, and I still do.

I've heard the arguments; books and movies are different, can't hold them to the same standards, one can enjoy both, ad infinitum. Personally, I'll take a book over a movie any time.

All that said, I did see the movies, sort of. My girlfriend, who later became my wife, wanted to see FOTR, so we did. I ended up sleeping through about a third of it, though a few pints of the local 1420 I'd had with dinner might have had something to do with that. I do remember seeing Arwen show up in place of Glorfindel, rolling my eyes at the exchanges between her and Aragorn, and the ludicrous alteration to the scene at the Ford of Bruinen. After that, it's sort of a blur.

We did see the other two movies as well. At this late date, however, I don't remember much about those excursions. I recall the bits in Two Towers with Arwen rescuing Aragorn who had fallen from his horse (), and the (Lórien!) elves showing up at Helm's Deep, and those are good enough examples of what I thought from the start the movies would be up to.

We now have all three on DVD, but I've never watched them all the way through. I start thinking "There has to be something better I can be doing", and I wander off.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Almost ten years later, it's kind of funny to look back at how obsessively afraid I was that the movies would be utterly terrible--or worse, terrible AND popular. I'm still a Tolkien nut; still probably the biggest Tolkien nut in the circles I usually frequent (and these circles include more Tolkien nuts than they used to)... and I almost never think of the movies. At the time I was afraid they would change my mental pictures forever, afraid they would ruin my enjoyment forever... things have come a long way.

I was never "afraid" of the movies; I just thought them unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps, after a decade, what I think now is that the movies were ultimately forgettable. I could (and do) go on a long tangent about the pros and cons of different parts of the movies, but the point at the very end would be the same: at the end of it all, I feel a lot more charitable to the movies than I feared before them (and, after the euphoria of just watching them, tended to feel bitterly for sometime thereafter), but they've lost their grip on me. The movies were a monumental explosion of light, but it was ultimately just a gigantic flash in the pan.

"Forgettable", indeed. Yet, they certainly have their enduring fans, and in that PJ at least has been wildly successful. All I can do is quote Jean Brodie: "For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like."

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

In the book he just seems very unkind to everyone.

Well, you could say this: Ugluk is also very unkind to everyone, but I hope you won't put him on level with the book-Boromir. He's not unkind just for the sake of it. He's not ungentle for the sake of being rough. He has more to his character than you put on. He's much deeper, and his motivations much more complex.

I don't believe that he was there "just to provide some drama". As I said, he is very important both plot-wise and character-wise to the story. It's like he doesn't die until the very end.

But that is just one character. Is that enough to completely ruin a read?


I first watched the movies when I was around six. My only reaction was WOW. They were cool. Not that I really understood anything, but they were cool. Shelob's lair was my favourite part, and the troll (he's not a troll! He's an orc! - I scream now) who jumped out at Frodo in Moria always scared me, even long after I knew that he was gonna do that. I probably had more impressions, but these are the only ones that I remember now.

I don't jump in my seat when the troll comes out anymore. I kinda miss that. And once I began actually understanding both the books and the movies, I came to like the book just that much more. Maybe I'm in the same situation as the almost-15-year-old-Formy, and my passion for PJ-hating will fall away. We'll see in a decade. But for now, books over movies without a doubt.

Edit: xed with Zil

[sassyfriend]

I'm thinking of reading the books again and hopefully be able to enjoy em better than i did. Not dissing book Boromir just haven't learned to love him in the books yet. But I do love Faramir in both books and Movies

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't believe that he was there "just to provide some drama". As I said, he is very important both plot-wise and character-wise to the story. It's like he doesn't die until the very end.

But that is just one character. Is that enough to completely ruin a read?

You may have mistaken me, if you think that I prefer the movies to the books (I *did* write the SbS pages ).

I'm just noting a point where I found something nice to say about the movies, that they broadened and deepened my understanding of the Boromir character - something I may never have gotten from the books.

So say that either are 'all good' or 'all bad 'would be, to me, unreasonable.

Note that, when they are on TV, I may leave them on if I am hoping to fall asleep as the movies serve as great background noise. I hate to watch them intently, as in the SbS I've picked them mostly to the bones, and feel that I needn't go back.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by alatar

You may have mistaken me, if you think that I prefer the movies to the books (I *did* write the SbS pages ).

I was talking to sassygriend in that sentence. I know you like the books.

It's true, the movies have good points, but they are just so few compared to the bad points.

[sassyfriend]

Why is that? Yeah I know they leave stuff out in the movies but what can you or any of us do about it? Would've loved to hear Legolas sing. I think that would've been so cool!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I was talking to sassygriend in that sentence. I know you like the books.

I just want to be sure. Would hate to lose my 'hater' status...

[sassyfriend]

Lol no worries, alatar!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

Why is that? Yeah I know they leave stuff out in the movies but what can you or any of us do about it? Would've loved to hear Legolas sing. I think that would've been so cool!

First of all, they not only left stuff out (something that I tend to forgive movies), but they put stuff in as well, stuff that wasn't supposed to be there. Stuff that directly contradicts the ideas and images of the books.

What can we do about it? Well, join the "haters" club... Joking aside, nothing really. But that doesn't stop me from disliking them.

And thirdly, Legolas is a nice guy in the books (and he does sing!), but the movies' version is not him: it is a hollywood-ised elf, not a Tolkien elf. Being his fan isn't being Legolas' fan, but Orlando Bloom's fan.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

He glorified the wrong guy.

You mak a really valid point. And maybe even glorifying Aragorn "in battle" isn't enough.

I daresay that Aragorn and Boromir are equals when it comes to strength and fighting skills and that sort of thing. (Reminds me of that passage on Caradhras, where one is described to be broader in the shoulders but the other taller... so different, but equal...) Nonetheless, Boromir dropped his pride and let Aragorn take the lead. It wasn't only because of Aragorn's high title (kings of Gondor scorned Arnorians before, so why not follow suit?). It was more because Aragorn was, well, Aragorn. It's the inner him that is superior over Boromir. He's glorified from the inside, if that makes sense.

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

By the way, nice new siggy, Bb!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

A reader needs to be able to connect with the characters in the story. I'd never connected with Boromir, as he just seemed bratty and headstrong. The movies have helped me take a second look.

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Did not Boromir return at Parth Galen, even when the entire Fellowship was against him? Even when he sinned?

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

I was just talking about that this morning with the kids.

To quote Nickelback, "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait." For some reason, this seems appropriate.

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

I now understand his 'story,' his motivations, and he seems less of a cardboard cutout antagonist ("Boromir want Ring. Want Ring now!") and more the proto-Sam who sacrifices/overcomes.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

The movie is a bit messed up, and I may have written on that somewhere.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

Definitely not!

[sassyfriend]

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.

I think you should start a separate thread just about book vs movie Aragorns and Boromirs, if that topic interests you, sassyfriend. Or did you mean the whole books / movies discussion in general?

[sassyfriend]

I think in general. And I didn't mean Aragorn should let them get killed.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

We barely see the Houses, much less what exactly goes on in them. And I don't think we ever find out that athelas only releases it's full healing power when Aragorn holds it in the movies. So viewers don't know about this special connection and ability.

[Mister Underhill]

Interesting discussion here on book versus movie Boromir, and his function in the story. My (now quite rusty) HoME-fu reminds me that Boromir was originally conceived as a nastier piece of work than he ended up being. There’s a suggestion in HoME VII that he starts thinking of seizing the Ring soon after the fall of Gandalf. In several early sketches, he and Aragorn head to Minas Tirith after the breaking of the Fellowship (he lies about why Frodo ran off), and when Aragorn is accepted as Lord there, Boromir heads off to seek an alliance with Saruman to help him get his position back. In one version Tolkien, contemplating the play of events after the fall of Mordor, muses, “What about Boromir? Does he repent? No – slain by Aragorn.” It was actually only late in the process that Tolkien settled on Boromir’s death and redemption. It would be interesting to discuss how Aragorn doesn’t hesitate to forgive and comfort Boromir, not to mention cover up for him (“The last words of Boromir he long kept secret.”).

Anyway, the history of the composition aside, for me Boromir calls to mind Chekhov’s Gun – there’s all this talk about the powerful temptation of the Ring, you eventually have to have someone from the good side give in to it. And Boromir is tailor-made for it. From his point of view, the answer to any problem is to meet it with as much power as possible. “Valour needs first strength, then a weapon,” is his motto. He can’t really see alternatives to strength and power; if they don’t suffice, then (a la Byrhtnoth), “We shall fall valiantly in battle.” He was always the guy who was going to make a play for the Ring sooner or later.

I would agree that the movie made Boromir more likable. I reckon if you want to reposition his death to the climax of FotR, you want to have him be a character that audiences really care about, and you want to make his redemption more complete.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies.

This is an intriguing idea but I’m not sure I follow you. Could you elaborate on this point?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.

I think that what we may mean is that regardless of what needed to be done, Aragorn did not appear leaderly when doing it. Pretending that he's the trilogy hero and making people accept that he's the hero are two different things.

Plus I can never get over how he pronounces 'orc.' Always sounds like he's holding his nose.

[sassyfriend]

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

I'd say that Boromir did it out of duty more than compassion. Aragorn is not only compassionate - he's empathetic. But again, I speak for the books.

[sassyfriend]

Why? What do you mean out of duty?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

Why? What do you mean out of duty?

Duty to the fellowship. Even though none of them gave actual oaths to help destroy the Ring and etc, I betcha they made "mental" ones. Boromir felt that it was his duty to help this bunch of oddballs. They would have had a much harder time without him on a number of occasions, it's true. They needed him. But he didn't go with them because of that. He went because he felt duty there, and to stand for the honour of Gondor.

[sassyfriend]

Ok now I understand. Sorry about that.