Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » question about ending of LOTR:ROTK
question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227190] Di, 28 Februar 2006 05:42
tan2002  
Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
books!

Thanks!
Cyn

--
********************************************
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

My eBay items for sale:
http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl

Amazon Affiliate:
http://tinyurl.com/7wde9
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227191 ] Di, 28 Februar 2006 06:03
Tar-Elenion  
In article <otQMf.41637$UD1.36164 [at] bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net says...
> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?

Aman, the Blessed Realm.

> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??

No, "Atlantis" (Numenor, Atalante) sunk more than 3000 years before the
War of the Ring.

> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
> books!

--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227192 ] Di, 28 Februar 2006 11:21
Stan Brown  
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from <tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net>:
> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?

Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)

Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
island near the east coast of Valinor.

The key to this is Arwen's remark to Frodo, "If your hurts grieve you
still and the memory of your burden is heavy, then you may pass into
the West, until all your wounds and weariness are healed."

What is that West? Sam talks about it in the pub, all the way back in
Book I Chapter II: "'They are sailing, sailing, sailing over the Sea,
they are going into the West and leaving us,' said Sam, half chanting
the words, shaking his head sadly and solemnly."

Long ago in the Elder Days, thousands of years before the War of the
Ring, the Valar invited the Elves to leave Middle-earth where they
were born and move to Valinor, the Blessed Realm. Some later returned
to Middle-earth and fought in the wars with the first Enemy, Morgoth.
(Strider talks and sings about this in "A Knife in the Dark".) The
invitation is still open to their descendants at the time of /The
Lord of the Rings/.

All these matters are explained fully in /The Silmarillion/.I don't
want to say too much for fear of spoiling your enjoyment of that
book.

> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??

No.

(There was an Atlantis-like island in Tolkien's legendarium, but it
was called Numenor and was inhabited by Men. The first part of
Appendix A talks about Numenor, and there's more material in
/Unfinished Tales/ and in the "Akallabeth" portion of /The
Silmarillion/.)

> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get
> into the books!

Well, you're much larger than they are, aren't you? :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227194 ] Di, 28 Februar 2006 13:34
tan2002  
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e6dee375a0cbb4798a160 [at] news.individual.net...
> Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from <tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net>:
>> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
>
> Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
> the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)
>
> Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
> island near the east coast of Valinor.
>
> The key to this is Arwen's remark to Frodo, "If your hurts grieve you
> still and the memory of your burden is heavy, then you may pass into
> the West, until all your wounds and weariness are healed."
>
> What is that West? Sam talks about it in the pub, all the way back in
> Book I Chapter II: "'They are sailing, sailing, sailing over the Sea,
> they are going into the West and leaving us,' said Sam, half chanting
> the words, shaking his head sadly and solemnly."
>
> Long ago in the Elder Days, thousands of years before the War of the
> Ring, the Valar invited the Elves to leave Middle-earth where they
> were born and move to Valinor, the Blessed Realm. Some later returned
> to Middle-earth and fought in the wars with the first Enemy, Morgoth.
> (Strider talks and sings about this in "A Knife in the Dark".) The
> invitation is still open to their descendants at the time of /The
> Lord of the Rings/.
>
> All these matters are explained fully in /The Silmarillion/.I don't
> want to say too much for fear of spoiling your enjoyment of that
> book.
>
>> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
>
> No.
>
> (There was an Atlantis-like island in Tolkien's legendarium, but it
> was called Numenor and was inhabited by Men. The first part of
> Appendix A talks about Numenor, and there's more material in
> /Unfinished Tales/ and in the "Akallabeth" portion of /The
> Silmarillion/.)
>
>> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get
>> into the books!
>
> Well, you're much larger than they are, aren't you? :-)
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
> http://OakRoadSystems.com
> Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
> Tolkien letters FAQ:
> http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
> FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
> Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
> more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Thanks so much for your explanations Stan...I truly appreciate it!

Cyn

********************************************
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

My eBay items for sale:
http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl

Amazon Affiliate:
http://tinyurl.com/7wde9
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227198 ] Di, 28 Februar 2006 19:40
Stan Brown  
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:34:06 -0500 from <tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net>:

> Thanks so much for your explanations Stan...I truly appreciate it!

You're welcome, and welcome to the group. You might like to read the
first section of Steuard's FAQ (URL below), "Newsgroups and
Netiqette".

>"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
>- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Your signature is your own prerogative, but you may not be aware that
you're waving a red flag for many of us by ascribing to Galadriel
something that in fact she did not say in LotR. The movies are on
topic here, but most of us are careful to distinguish between Peter
Jackson's version of /The Lord of the Rings/ and Tolkien's.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227209 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 03:56
Flame of the West  
Stan Brown wrote:

>> "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
>> - Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
>
> Your signature is your own prerogative, but you may not be aware that
> you're waving a red flag for many of us by ascribing to Galadriel
> something that in fact she did not say in LotR.

What?! Next you'll be telling us that Gimli never said
"Nobody tosses a Dwarf!" or that Gollum's fall into the
Crack of Doom wasn't a result of struggling with Frodo.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227211 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 10:16
gp.skinner  
> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
> books!

I find it difficult to get into DVDs as the plastic wrappers are so fiddly
;-)

Graeme
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227219 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 18:17
Robinsons  
tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net wrote:

> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
> books!

Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227222 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 20:42
urban  
In article <4405D759.EB25CA97 [at] erols.com>, Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> wrote:
>tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
>> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
>> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
>> books!
>
>Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?

No worse, I think, than when people read the book for the first
time. A new reader might, with considerable effort, be able to
sort out all the references to Valinor, Elvenhome, Numenor, and
the rest, but not easily, and especially not without the appendices.
Without the appendices, it is easy enough to confuse Numenor and the
Undying Lands (Aragorn is a Dunadan, a 'Man of the West'. 'The
West' is where the Elves are sailing to, right?)

It is worth noting that, before The Silmarillion, many fans of the
book had wrongly inferred that the Undying Lands were, in effect,
heaven and the afterlife (some even supposed that Eru dwelt there).
Lord of the Rings, all by itself, is open to a variety of
interpretations of these aspects of the story. Even Jackson's
'botch job' of Gandalf describing the afterlife with the words
describing Frodo's first glimpse of Tol Eressea is no worse than
this, though of course Jackson and Walsh should have known better!
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227224 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 21:12
Derek Broughton  
Robinsons wrote:

> tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
>> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
>> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
>> books!
>
> Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?

This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
barely described in the book.
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #227227 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 23:50
Morgil  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Robinsons wrote:

>>Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
>
>
> This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
> barely described in the book.

What does the book have got to do with it?

In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
anticlimax fadeouts at the end, so it makes no difference
if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.

Morgil
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231880 ] Do, 02 März 2006 08:18
morgothscurse2002  
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:12:15 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Robinsons wrote:
>
>> tan2002 [at] bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
>>> Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
>>> Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
>>> books!
>>
>> Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
>
>This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
>barely described in the book.

You forgot Louis Epstein again. ;-)


Morgoth's Curse
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231881 ] Do, 02 März 2006 15:02
Derek Broughton  
Morgil wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Robinsons wrote:
>
>>>Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
>>
>>
>> This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens
>> are barely described in the book.
>
> What does the book have got to do with it?

I don't see how you can "botch" the representation of the Grey Havens, if
they were never really described in the first place.
>
> In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
> anticlimax fadeouts at the end,

as opposed to the book where it was one of a series of anticlimactic
fadeouts at the end... I never did like the ending of LOTR.

> so it makes no difference
> if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.

As expected...
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231882 ] Do, 02 März 2006 16:16
Morgil  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>Robinsons wrote:
>>
>>>>Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
>>>
>>>
>>>This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens
>>>are barely described in the book.
>>
>>What does the book have got to do with it?
>
>
> I don't see how you can "botch" the representation of the Grey Havens, if
> they were never really described in the first place.

It can be botched on its own merits as well. There was nothing
in the book about Frodo and Sam in Osgiliath either, and yet
that segment was completely botched.

>>In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
>>anticlimax fadeouts at the end,
>
>
> as opposed to the book where it was one of a series of anticlimactic
> fadeouts at the end... I never did like the ending of LOTR.

Did you forget already that books and movies are different
media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
the excuse "it was like that in the book" is never valid.

>>so it makes no difference
>>if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.
>
>
> As expected...

As expected what? I have not said anything about my opinion
of Grey Havens being botch job or not. Stop putting words
in my mouth. It's not good conduct on debate.

Morgil
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231883 ] Do, 02 März 2006 16:45
Kreme  
> Did you forget already that books and movies are different
> media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
> movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
> no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
> the excuse "it was like that in the book" is never valid.

OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
that PJ "felt absolutely no obligation" is horribly unfair.

In my estimation, PJ was far more faithful to the book than
anyone had a right to expect. DId he transcribe the book,
word for word, onto the screen? Of course not, that would
have been horrible. Did he leave out things I would have
liked to see? Of course. Did he have reasons for doing
so? Yes, I think he did. He had to be worried about pacing,
visuals, and overwhelming the audience.

Sure, he did some things that a lot of fans didn't especially
like, but I at least can see why he did them, and though I
would have done things differently, I think the films stand up
rather well on their own. That is to say, I still read the books,
but I still watch the DVDs too.

And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
long enough to have gotten everything in.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231885 ] Do, 02 März 2006 17:04
Tamim  
In alt.fan.tolkien Kreme <gkreme [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you forget already that books and movies are different
>> media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
>> movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
>> no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
>> the excuse "it was like that in the book" is never valid.

> OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
> have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
> that PJ "felt absolutely no obligation" is horribly unfair.

> In my estimation, PJ was far more faithful to the book than
> anyone had a right to expect. DId he transcribe the book,
> word for word, onto the screen? Of course not, that would
> have been horrible. Did he leave out things I would have
> liked to see? Of course. Did he have reasons for doing
> so? Yes, I think he did. He had to be worried about pacing,
> visuals, and overwhelming the audience.

> Sure, he did some things that a lot of fans didn't especially
> like, but I at least can see why he did them, and though I
> would have done things differently, I think the films stand up
> rather well on their own. That is to say, I still read the books,
> but I still watch the DVDs too.

I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
the movies better. I wasn't even
disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
understandable. Young Frodo likewise. But he did portray some characters and
events in a way that to me was almost unbearable to watch.

The greatest mistake IMO was the way in which he portrayed Gondor's
defence ie. as almost absent. The battle of pelennor fields was in the
movies fought almost excusively by the riders of Rohan and the
superninjaghosts. That is not only at odds with the books, but is
internally inconsistent. How could Gondor defend againts the might of
Mordor and Morgul for centuries if it only had a few hunred soldiers?

The other thing that specially pissed me off was Denethor as a senile
glutton not interested in the defence of Gondor, when in the books the man was the epitome of old Gondorian
discipline still sleeping in his armour so as to not grow soft. He
despaired when Faramir appaered but before that he was in control of his
faculties and of the nation.

Of course the appearance of elven warriors from Rivendell led by some
hippi from lorien was also a bit strange.


> And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
> long enough to have gotten everything in.


--
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231886 ] Do, 02 März 2006 17:19
stephen  
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
> the movies better. I wasn't even
> disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
> understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

Frodo was supposed to look young.
"As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
of his tweens."

Stephen
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231887 ] Do, 02 März 2006 17:39
Morgil  
Kreme wrote:
>>Did you forget already that books and movies are different
>>media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
>>movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
>>no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
>>the excuse "it was like that in the book" is never valid.
>
>
> OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
> have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
> that PJ "felt absolutely no obligation" is horribly unfair.

Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas,
and did it for no acceptable or even credible reasons.

Morgil
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231890 ] Do, 02 März 2006 19:31
Tamim  
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
>> the movies better. I wasn't even
>> disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
>> understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

> Frodo was supposed to look young.
> "As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
> showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
> the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
> of his tweens."


He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
bachelor.

> Stephen

--
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231891 ] Do, 02 März 2006 19:35
Stan Brown  
Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:39:59 +0200 from Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>:
> Kreme wrote:
> >>Did you forget already that books and movies are different
> >>media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
> >>movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
> >>no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
> >>the excuse "it was like that in the book" is never valid.
> >
> > OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
> > have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
> > that PJ "felt absolutely no obligation" is horribly unfair.
>
> Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
> fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
> went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
> altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas,
> and did it for no acceptable or even credible reasons.

I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.

The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.

But what he actually did was to change a tale of deep moral ambiguity
into yet another sword-and-sorcery action flick, albeit one with a
huge budget and really professional-looking scenery and costumes and
makeup.

I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
Saruman's duel. Then read about it in "The Shadow of the Past". (I'm
not even counting the "rescue moth".) Then try to reconcile that with
Jackson's talk of being faithful to the book.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231892 ] Do, 02 März 2006 19:54
stephen  
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
>>> the movies better. I wasn't even
>>> disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
>>> understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

>> Frodo was supposed to look young.
>> "As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
>> showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
>> the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
>> of his tweens."


> He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
> bachelor.

How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
on table tops?

Stephen
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231893 ] Do, 02 März 2006 20:42
Tamim  
In alt.fan.tolkien stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:


> How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
> on table tops?

You got me there ;)

Well I can't help it, the Movies do give me a different image of Frodo
than the books.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231896 ] Do, 02 März 2006 22:08
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a [at] news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:39:59 +0200 from Morgil
> <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>:
>>
>> Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
>> fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
>> went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
>> altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas, and did it
>> for no acceptable or even credible reasons.
>
> I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
> going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.

True words.

I can appreciate what Jackson did for the films -- I think they are
very good films, even if I have to consciously calm myself in a few
places due to the rape of Tolkien's themes and characters.

> The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
> what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
> faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.

Extended 'The Fellowship of the Ring' DVD set.
DVD #3 - From Book to Idea, 'J. R. R. Tolkien - Creator of
Middle-earth'
Starting 10' 30" Peter Jackson says:
"The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's /so/
much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
is obivously critically important to translate that from
book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
were in his heart."


Starting 22' 4" Peter Jackson says:
" As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
into the film.
This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it
shouldn't be ours."

One has to admit that he was good at saying the right things . . .

<snip>

> I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
> Saruman's duel. Then read about it in "The Shadow of the Past".

That might be a bit difficult, but 'The Council of Elrond' might help
;-)

My one example would be when Frodo rejects Sam and sends Sam away
from him during the climb of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. That is one
scene where I can understand why Jackson did as he did, but I can't
watch it without feeling a flicker of outrage.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time
of payment draws near.
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231897 ] Do, 02 März 2006 22:19
mhaines  
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> My one example would be when Frodo rejects Sam and sends Sam away
> from him during the climb of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. That is one
> scene where I can understand why Jackson did as he did, but I can't
> watch it without feeling a flicker of outrage.

Denethor is the change I can't get past.

I understand why they went that direction with Frodo and Sam, because
they set it up with this "Saving a drug addict from himself" feel. I
don't know that it's the best executed maneuver, but I get why they
did it.

Michelle
Flutist
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231898 ] Do, 02 März 2006 22:29
Robinsons  
Stan Brown wrote:

> I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
> going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.
>
> The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
> what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
> faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.
>
> But what he actually did was to change a tale of deep moral ambiguity
> into yet another sword-and-sorcery action flick, albeit one with a
> huge budget and really professional-looking scenery and costumes and
> makeup.
>
> I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
> Saruman's duel. Then read about it in "The Shadow of the Past". (I'm
> not even counting the "rescue moth".) Then try to reconcile that with
> Jackson's talk of being faithful to the book.

I would not go that far. Thematically, the movies began to go downhill
in the middle of TTT with the increasing emphasis on battle and disturbing
non-Tolkien themes. But in terms of plot, pacing and characterization
they remain superior throughout. Until you get to the Grey Havens
"Happy Ending" with the sun shining, birds singing and pan-flute music
playing. UGH!!!

Thematically, the achilles heel of the TTT and ROTK is the

(in TTT especially) Manichean (or perhaps Republican) emphasis
on physical battle between absolute good and evil; and
(in ROTK)

the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a "physical antagonist".

Totally against Tolkien's themes, IMO.

This leaves FOTR as the all-around best movie, with TTT the best in terms of
plot and pacing, and ROTK the best in terms of visuals and characterization
(but NOT OF ARAGORN, Viggo phones in the entire third movie, why???)

--Brian
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231899 ] Do, 02 März 2006 22:49
Stan Brown  
2 Mar 2006 21:08:42 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> > Peter Jackson says:
> "The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
> book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's /so/
> much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
> recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
> with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
> is obivously critically important to translate that from
> book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
> the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
> were in his heart."
>
> One has to admit that he was good at saying the right things . . .

Yes, he says the right things. But (and I know you know this) his
statement that there's not time for all the details from the book,
while true, makes it even crazier that he made up and added so many
things.

> In message <news:MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a [at] news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> > I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
> > Saruman's duel. Then read about it in "The Shadow of the Past".
>
> That might be a bit difficult, but 'The Council of Elrond' might help
> ;-)

Oops -- thank you for the correction!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231900 ] Do, 02 März 2006 23:09
Robinsons  
Stan Brown wrote:

> Yes, he says the right things. But (and I know you know this) his
> statement that there's not time for all the details from the book,
> while true, makes it even crazier that he made up and added so many
> things.

See my reply (4:29 PM EST) to your previous message on the subject of
the Grey Havens and "accuracy". Ber
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231901 ] Do, 02 März 2006 23:04
stephen  
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.fan.tolkien stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:


>> How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
>> on table tops?

> You got me there ;)

> Well I can't help it, the Movies do give me a different image of Frodo
> than the books.

I am sure the books give different people different images of
Frodo as well. Is Frodo actually written as a middle aged
bachelor in the books? Yes, I know that the book says that,
but does the book show that?

Stephen
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231903 ] Do, 02 März 2006 23:47
Derek Broughton  
Tamim wrote:

> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim <hallaril [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
>>> the movies better. I wasn't even
>>> disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
>>> understandable. Young Frodo likewise.
>
>> Frodo was supposed to look young.
>> "As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
>> showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
>> the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
>> of his tweens."
>
>
> He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
> bachelor.

He's never a middle-aged bachelor (well, actually, I don't know what
happened to him in Valinor). He was 33 at at Bilbo's Birthday Party, which
means he had just come of age. He was 50 when he left for Rivendell - like
early 30's in modern European society (perhaps less if you want to consider
"coming of age" to be the fairly common 18 of today - but it was 21 in
Tolkien's day). He is age is fine in the films. I've known more mature
looking 35 year olds - but I've known some who still get asked for ID in
bars (I'm pleased to say it happened to me - once - at 35).
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231904 ] Do, 02 März 2006 23:51
Derek Broughton  
Robinsons wrote:

> the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a "physical antagonist".

Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was always
there.

The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem with
it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231912 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 03:07
Dave Stallard  
Tamim wrote:

> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
> the movies better. I wasn't even
> disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
> understandable. Young Frodo likewise. But he did portray some characters and
> events in a way that to me was almost unbearable to watch.
>
> The greatest mistake IMO was the way in which he portrayed Gondor's
> defence ie. as almost absent. The battle of pelennor fields was in the
> movies fought almost excusively by the riders of Rohan and the
> superninjaghosts. That is not only at odds with the books, but is
> internally inconsistent. How could Gondor defend againts the might of
> Mordor and Morgul for centuries if it only had a few hunred soldiers?

I hated this scene as well; it looked just like a bloody Star Wars movie.

> The other thing that specially pissed me off was Denethor as a senile
> glutton not interested in the defence of Gondor, when in the books the man was the epitome of old Gondorian
> discipline still sleeping in his armour so as to not grow soft. He
> despaired when Faramir appaered but before that he was in control of his
> faculties and of the nation.

Yes, this was actively offensive. A boor with pathologically bad table
manners. What was the point of that?
>
> Of course the appearance of elven warriors from Rivendell led by some
> hippi from lorien was also a bit strange.

As was Frodo sending Sam away in Mordor, as was Elrond bringing Anduril
to Aragorn at Minas Tirith. As was Arwen on the brink of dying because
of ... whatever. T

I think the whole Aragorn/Arwen thing could have been better handled by
depicting a scene from the Appendices where Elrond tells Aragorn
(paraphrasing) "My daughter will not give up her eternal life for anyone
less than the king of Gondor and Arnor". Plus some other similar scenes
from the tale or Aragorn and Arwen, portrayed contemporaneously or in
flashbacks.

I liked the FotR movie OK, loved the TT one, and the HATED the RotK movie.

Dave
>
>
>> And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
>> long enough to have gotten everything in.
>
>
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231919 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 04:18
Brego  
Tamin Wrote
I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and
made

Hi Tamin, I agree with you... Dont bother with our friend Morgil - He
is bitter and Twisted re PJ and the whole Magnificent mess that he
thinks the LOR's film are. You will never win this discussion with
him. After all he is a "Star Wars Fanatic"! who cant seem to realise
the embaressment in that he can quote George Lucus amazingly deep
scripts and put it next to the deep and meaningful scripts of PJ and
friends. I too believe that PJ kept as close to Tolkien as humanly
possible.
By the way I like Star Wars, but absolutly no conparison should ever be
made with LOR.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231920 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 09:36
notv  
"Brego" <shooper [at] auspinners.com.au> wrote in news:1141355888.518995.199390
[at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

> Tamin Wrote
> I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and
> made
>
> Hi Tamin, I agree with you... Dont bother with our friend Morgil - He
> is bitter and Twisted re PJ and the whole Magnificent mess that he
> thinks the LOR's film are. You will never win this discussion with
> him. After all he is a "Star Wars Fanatic"! who cant seem to realise
> the embaressment in that he can quote George Lucus amazingly deep
> scripts and put it next to the deep and meaningful scripts of PJ and
> friends. I too believe that PJ kept as close to Tolkien as humanly
> possible.

You're being sarcastic, right?
The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of stupid
cliches that are not in the books.


C
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231922 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 10:23
Robinsons  
Derek Broughton wrote:

> Robinsons wrote:
>
> > the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a "physical antagonist".
>
> Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
> Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was always
> there.

Yes, and Frodo _did_ almost deliver them all to Sauron. The difference is,
they played up Gollum's Villainy (actual chapter title on the DVD!) to give
the audience someone to "root against" which goes against the entire thrust
of the story. In fact, the entire thrust of PJ's story was going to be
Frodo "redeems himself by pushing Gollum inmto the fire". A grave misinterpretation
that was fortunately corrected by some fast talking quick thinker (Fran, I think.)

They deliberately cut out references that would humanize Gollum in
the third movie (saying rather fatuously "been there, one that") such as
Frodo's admission that they should forgive Gollum (!) and his actual near
repentance, which comes in Movie III chronologically. Similar to how they
demonized Sauron's human allies "who are these guys? and PJ told us the book
said they were 'wicked men' so we portrayed them as such." and omitting any
remotely anti-war statements from the mouth of Faramir lest they be seen as
Soft on Swarthy Infidels. As for Gollum, all that's missing in ROTK is a
wispy moustache for him to twirl.

> The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem with
> it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.

Yawn... Denethor was fleshed out differently in the movies, but not
inconsistently with the portrayal of his sons in the movie versions.
The changes flowed from the humanization of Boromir in film 1.

Altho we don't get any hints of the proud Denethor except in the EE,
he DOES wear a suit of mail, Morgil's protestations to the contrary
(John Noble jokes about it -- it was an actual suit of mail.)

--Ber
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231925 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 11:00
Yuk Tang  
"Seymour C. Moore" <notv [at] al.id> wrote in
news:Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7 [at] 140.99.99.130:
>
> You're being sarcastic, right?
> The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of
> stupid cliches that are not in the books.

Still better than the Star Wars prequels though. Admittedly, that's
like saying a punch in the face is preferable to a kick in the nuts.


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231928 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 11:21
notv  
Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns977B65DEDDC0Ejimlaker2yahoocom [at] 130.133.1.4:

> "Seymour C. Moore" <notv [at] al.id> wrote in
> news:Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7 [at] 140.99.99.130:
>>
>> You're being sarcastic, right?
>> The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of
>> stupid cliches that are not in the books.
>
> Still better than the Star Wars prequels though.

Much better. Especially Phantom Menace is a painful experience...


C
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231934 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 15:59
Derek Broughton  
Robinsons wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Robinsons wrote:
>>
>> > the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a "physical antagonist".
>>
>> Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
>> Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was
>> always there.
>
> Yes, and Frodo _did_ almost deliver them all to Sauron. The difference
> is, they played up Gollum's Villainy (actual chapter title on the DVD!) to
> give the audience someone to "root against" which goes against the entire
> thrust
> of the story. In fact, the entire thrust of PJ's story was going to be
> Frodo "redeems himself by pushing Gollum inmto the fire". A grave
> misinterpretation that was fortunately corrected by some fast talking
> quick thinker (Fran, I think.)
>
> They deliberately cut out references that would humanize Gollum in
> the third movie (saying rather fatuously "been there, one that") such as
> Frodo's admission that they should forgive Gollum (!) and his actual near
> repentance, which comes in Movie III chronologically.

The scene in which Smeagol tells Gollum to go away, and is overjoyed to find
that it works, sounds like "near repentance" to me. I guess you're telling
me that's in TTT (they all run into one another :-) ), but I just see that
as a matter of pacing. In the books (which all run into one another...) he
has a near-repentance, but it goes steadily downhill the closer he gets to
Mordor.

> Similar to how they
> demonized Sauron's human allies "who are these guys? and PJ told us the
> book said they were 'wicked men' so we portrayed them as such." and
> omitting any remotely anti-war statements from the mouth of Faramir

Not so at all. Faramir's character was botched only slightly less than
Denethor's, and yet after the battle at the crossroads, when he looks down
at the young soldier who died right next to them, he comments about how he
probably wasn't evil, just doing what he thought was right. That covers
both anti-war sentiments and is far from demonizing the human allies.

> lest they be seen as Soft on Swarthy Infidels.

I don't think that's fair at all. Jackson is stuck between a rock and a
hard place, here. You can't portray them as any demonstrable 20th-century
Earth race, or everyone will scream "Bigotry!", so he kept them well
armoured, of essentially neutral skin tone.

>> The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem
>> with it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.
>
> Yawn... Denethor was fleshed out differently in the movies, but not
> inconsistently with the portrayal of his sons in the movie versions.
> The changes flowed from the humanization of Boromir in film 1.

It's the gluttony part that annoys me. It's just not in keeping - or
necessary. I presume it's supposed to be like Nero fiddling while Rome
burns, but that was never the sort of madness Denethor suffered. Nero (at
least in popular history) just viewed the destruction as a great
entertainment, Denethor had surrendered to despair. If anything, he should
have stopped eating altogether - depression ruins the appetite.
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231935 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 16:26
notv  
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:572md3-kq2.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca:
> depression ruins the appetite.

That's highly individual and depends on degree and form of depression.

C
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231937 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 17:16
Morgil  
Robinsons wrote:

> Altho we don't get any hints of the proud Denethor except in the EE,
> he DOES wear a suit of mail, Morgil's protestations to the contrary
> (John Noble jokes about it -- it was an actual suit of mail.)

Not my protestations.

Morgil
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #231938 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 18:24
Taemon  
Derek Broughton wrote:

> The problem character in ROTK was Denethor.

It didn't bother me one bit. I disliked him anyway and I don't think
you're necessarily a glutton if you eat something.

No, the dwarf. Gimli ruined it all for me. What happened to the
Council of Elrond, one of my favourite chapters, hurt. Luckily, it had
Sean Bean in it :-)

T.
Vorheriges Thema:AFter the Smell Has Gone
Nächstes Thema:Re: divers of middle earth
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Di Mai 22 07:49:41 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,19583 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered