Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Quick question for LotR movie fans - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
Quick question for LotR movie fans
I'm just wondering, because I stopped watching after the first one--was the RotK line from... Sam, I think? Oh, no; it could have been Merry or Pippin! (Yikes, time for a re-read, stat.) Anyway, the line was that "We must first love what we are suited to love"--the idea being that the person who doesn't love his home won't be able to love the greater world outside of it, but the person who does love his home will be able to see the larger forces in the world and appreciate them. Was it there?
12 comments or Leave a comment
buongiornodaisy From: buongiornodaisy Date: October 30th, 2004 08:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
melyanna From: melyanna Date: October 30th, 2004 08:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
I don't think it was in there, though there was certainly a definite feeling in the end, before the Eagles arrived, that Sam and Frodo's love of the Shire was their main motivation in completing the Quest. Love of one's homeland, no matter how far it had sunk into ruin, was actually one of the big things that (I think) PJ managed to portray in the movies.

But I'll leave off the LotR debate, because I know you and I differ on the idea of a movie being good even if it's a terrible adaptation. ;)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: October 30th, 2004 09:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, this actually was a pragmatic question, not one of my periodic "I must kvetch about Jackson" posts. Well, not really pragmatic, as I'm not going to do anything about it, but I was having a fantasy conversation with someone who outranks me at work--you know the sort--and I was thinking about trying to explain the concept of devotion to one's neighborhood being a pre-requisite for devotion to the whole city, and in my fantasy conversation, I quoted that line. Then I realized that the person I was imagining talking to probably would have only seen the movies, so in order to get my fantasy conversation right, I wanted to see if the line had made it in.

Oh, my G-d. I just admitted that.
michelle_ravel From: michelle_ravel Date: October 30th, 2004 09:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
Wait, so you didn't like the movies at all? Really?

Wow, Fernwithy, you are like my new best friend!
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: October 30th, 2004 09:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
I thought they slaughtered Frodo's character, particularly. Or maybe that's just what stuck, because I'd heard of a lot of other problems and was prepared to deal with them, but no one warned me that Frodo was hiding behind rocks in Moria and was fainting in Arwen's lap instead of facing down the Black Riders at the Ford. I also disliked the Arwen bit, didn't like the Council having been summoned, etc. I will, however, say that I loved the cast. They were terrific. I have no problems in that department. But when I heard Liv Tyler was learning elvish although real Arwen only has a few lines, all written in English if I recall, I knew we were pretty much facing the apocalypse on the Tolkien front.

I think my dislike--which is true for any unfaithful adaptation--was fanned to outright, unmitigated hatred the first time I heard a Jackson fanboy say that not only were the changes necessary for the transition from book to film (a position I disagree with, but at least understand to some extent) but that Jackson fixed all the problems in Tolkien. Yes, folks, Peter Jackson knows more about Middle Earth and its inhabitants than J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien got his own characters wrong, and danged if Jackson didn't ride in on a white horse to save them.

Dude. Outta my fandom. NOW. Before I go Nazgûl on your sorry ass. Icon-Anakin speaks for my LotR fandom, though he doesn't use the word "mess," preferring an alliterative construction in this single instance.

melyanna From: melyanna Date: October 30th, 2004 10:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
I went into it prepared for an unfaithful adaptation. The changes bugged me, but it wasn't really until Faramir/Éowyn got cut from RotK that I was pissed off. I had to go home and reread "The Steward and the King" several times after that.

Liv Tyler did say something in an interview that really made me have a lot of respect for her in this role. The original plan was to have Arwen show up at Helm's Deep (*shudders uncontrollably*), and she eventually went to the powers that be and said, "She doesn't have to have a sword in her hand to be strong." In an age where "strong woman" means beating up bad guys most of the time, I wanted to applaud her for that.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: October 30th, 2004 10:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'd heard the rumor that she was supposed to show up at Helm's Deep and thought it just turned out to be false. If Liv Tyler exlicitly went in and made them fix it, good on her! I've definitely got no beef with Liv Tyler, who wasn't, after all, the screenwriter.
melyanna From: melyanna Date: October 30th, 2004 11:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, no, there's video footage of her on the Helm's Deep set. It was in the TTT extras, I think. But she said she was really uncomfortable with the departure from canon, not to mention the way it was playing among fans when the rumors were leaked. So she pled her case before the writers and got them to fix it. Thank goodness.

I understood why they had her show up in FotR as she did — it's hard enough to keep up with everyone in the books when you've got all the names in print in front of you, and you can flip back if you've forgotten who someone is. It's a little more difficult to do that in the middle of a movie theatre. :-p I did take issue with the wimpifying of Frodo, though.

But at least Frodo was okay in other respects. That wasn't nearly as frustrating as MorallyAmbiguous!Faramir. Or UpsetBecauseDaddy'sMean!Faramir. As if it weren't bad enough in fan fic (like that horrible A Game of Chess), we had to get hints of Denethor-doesn't-love-Faramir in the movie too.
michelle_ravel From: michelle_ravel Date: October 30th, 2004 11:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, they really fucked up Faramir's character the most, which pissed me off. But they fucked up a lot of people's characters--and for no reason at all. It's not like it takes less screen time to fuck up a character, you know?

There was I-am-so-tempted-by-the-Ring-that-my-face-and-voice-must-be-digitally-altered!Galadriel; I'm-not-even-in-the-movie!Tom Bombadil; comic-relief-token-short-guy!Gimli; randomly-shifting-accent-for-no-reason!Aragorn; distressed women and children-- who for some reason were all taken to Minas Tirith, instead of being sensibly dispatched to the mountains--who were very useful because they could be cut to in touching montages with tin flute solos, looking extremely distresed and/or holding onto each other tearfully; and I'm way too tired to complain about it much more. But I did not enjoy the films much. I thought they were dumb and slow. They had an awful script. Yes, the cinematography was great, but who cares, since the movies made no sense?
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: October 31st, 2004 08:15 am (UTC) (Link)
I understood why they had her show up in FotR as she did — it's hard enough to keep up with everyone in the books when you've got all the names in print in front of you

I think the problem I had with it was that it was emblematic of the major problem with the movies--really skewed priorities. Arwen/Aragorn is important as backstory, but the front story is about Frodo et al. If it was necessary to introduce Arwen early on to make sure that people knew who she was, then chances are, she was given too much weight. That she stole one of Frodo's best scenes was a piece of canon rape that drove me crazy, but wasn't my technical problem with the increase of her role. My problem with that increase was that it was symptomatic of their greater focus on Aragorn and Minas Tirith in general, and really lost sight of the point-of-view of the books. Which seems to be something a lot of screenwriters have a problem with, to be fair--they seem to think that, because they don't get inside character's minds, they can do whatever they want with the point of view choices, because the real point of view is theirs the director's. One of the reasons Shawshank adapted out as well as it did, despite the obvious need to "scene out" things that were just narrated, is that they preserved it as Red's point of view about Andy rather than Andy's point of view about prison. Andy remained largely a mystery, as he was in the books, except for what Red imagined about him.

The choice to focus so on Arwen/Aragorn means explicitly that they're looking at Arwen straight on, instead of in the sideways manner in which the hobbits actually see her--as a beautiful, vaguely benevolent figure who obviously entrances Aragorn, but who doesn't have much direct impact on them.
scionofgrace From: scionofgrace Date: November 1st, 2004 01:07 pm (UTC) (Link)

Merry in RotK

Ten replies and NOBODY answered the question? The line's from "The Houses of Healing" in RotK, when Merry and Pippin are talking right after Aragorn healed Merry. Merry gets all poetic for a moment, and talks about how his perspective has changed.
scionofgrace From: scionofgrace Date: November 1st, 2004 01:09 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Merry in RotK

Or were you asking about where it ended up in the movie? I don't think it did, actually.
12 comments or Leave a comment