Are the Lord of the Rings Movies Good?

the effort that must have gone into constructing all that was formidable.

As Az said, "Talk about going round the moon to meet the sun!"

Gandalf was toast too, but they scraped off all the burnt until he was White again.- Forest

{{   }}

Heyo, I was just reading a bit about Aragorn when I came across a discussion about a nuance that I do not remember hearing about before. It is that film-Aragorn is described as Isildur's heir, while book-Aragorn is most often described as Elendil's heir. He is the heir to both, so why does this matter?
In the book, the finding of the ring isn't even noticed by anyone else of import; while in the movie we have the dramatic cutting off of the ring and Isildur's refusal to destroy it after Elrond leads him into the mountain. Isildur's weakness in this moment is stressed by Elrond when talking to Gandalf as a terrible shortcoming. Isildur is shown as a weak man who fell to the corruption of the ring, and everybody who matters knows it.
And so the significance then, of Aragorn being "Isildur's heir" and not Elendil's, is that he is burdened with a legacy of failure, rather than the legacy of Elendil's glory.

Elrond did mention trying to get Isildur to destroy the ring in the Council of Elrond. But the weakness in the blood thing was only played up in the film, because they felt book Aragorn had no personal struggles to go through and they wanted him to go on a personal journey (same thing with Faramir). Book Aragorn's got little in the way of self doubts. We only see it at the breaking of the fellowship, but that's a transitory thing, not a life transition.

I wish I had my book with me, I'd read that bit from the council.

The film appendices are pretty clear on how they morphed Aragorn's character and why. In the books Isildur's fault is described as pride rather than weakness, and it's never hinted at as a genetic flaw.

halfwise wrote:The film appendices are pretty clear on how they morphed Aragorn's character and why.  In the books Isildur's fault is described as pride rather than weakness, and it's never hinted at as a genetic flaw.

The Pride or the Weakness?

As far as I can tell, several things throughout Tolkien's work lend to the idea of being bound to your ancestor's qualities, for example: Celebrimbor being a descendant of Fëanor and foolishly making/helping make the Rings of Power just as Fëanor foolishly made the Silmarils and Palantiri (though this was not an example of Character flaws...)

I did feel that, from a film perspective, the changes made to Aragorn and Faramir's characters were likely good ones. As has already been said, they had few character flaws or character growth in the book. Aragorn knew what he needed to do from the beginning, was never really tempted to go another way with it, etc. Faramir was similar. Other changes may not have been good, and even these changes may not have been the best executed, but it was likely a good idea

Yeah, I largely forgave them for what they did to Faramir, partly because I thought book Faramir was all but unfilmable, but largely because they could at least provide a reason for what they did. I thought then that only Denzel Washington might have been able to pull off book Faramir.

Aragorn I gave a grudging pass to for much the same reasons. Plus for some reason chicks dig him, so it's not a complete loss.

But Denethor was unforgivable because they didn't even realize how much they had F*$ed him up. To have been oblivious to one of Tolkien's most intriguing characters is absolutely bewildering. Never to forget, never to forgive.

They did make Denethor too unlikeable. He didn't seem too conflicted as he did insane.

A crusty old coot with a keen and penetrating intellect. Gandalf respected him to the end, not that you'd know it from the films.

Un-filmable my ass. They didn't give a toss about his character, and threw him under the bus so they could have a nonsensical climax for Frodo and Sam's movie-arc. Sure, they also had concerns about how resistant he was to the Ring's influence, but you can sure as fuck introduce some nuance there without having him go full wanker-mode. The character becomes unlikable with his on-again-off-again attitude towards taking the Ring to his father, his mopey daddy-issues, and the moronic suicide-charge he is forced to take by evil-film-Denethor.

One of Jackson and Coven's pervasive and frustrating changes to the story is the denigration of every single named-character in Gondor to a corrupted-shadow of their former selves. Faramir is lamed, Denethor is twisted, the Prince of Dol Amroth is deleted, Ioreth is expunged, and Beregond and Bergil are Sirs Not-Appearing. Sure, they used bigiatures for Minas Tirith, but Gondor is SO SMALL.

I actually very much like both portrayals of Faramir, and he is my favorite film character, and still one of, if not my favorite, book characters. They are different, but I still believe he is a strong character in both versions.

While I am disappointed with the lack of development of his relationship with Eowyn as it is reduced to a single scene in the extended edition, or his nearly nonexistent interactions with Aragorn, I still very much like his portrayal in the films. I think the greater emphasis on his strained relationship with Denethor is well done and appropriate. I also agree with the decision to allow him to be tempted by the Ring.

I do agree, Forest, with the minimization of Gondor and its leaders in the films. In the books, you get so many great leaders, as well as several additional locations besides Osgiliath, Minas Tirith, and Ithilien. The distance between Minas Tirith and Osgiliath is so small in the films, and you miss out on the several external walls of Minas Tirith. I also think that the lack of the other leaders as well diminishes the strength of Gondor, or its unity as no one from Gondor comes to the aid of Minas Tirith when it is besieged

It's a wonder that Gondor as presented in the films would still be around.

The thing is as well, is that we still got Boromir's speech in FOTR talking about the strength of Gondor and how it has protected the rest of Middle-earth all these years, and yet when we actually are shown Gondor, there is no evidence that would suggest Boromir was telling the truth.

I do love the aesthetic design of everything Gondorian however, the Tree and Stars logo, Minas Tirith and Osgiliath themselves, the armor design of the soldiers, etc.

I did just realize though... Minas Tirith is supposed to be The White City, and yet Osgiliath is all white too....

But it's Plate-mail!
-Petty, probably

The armour is well-made. It just bothers me how it seems to afford the soldiers zero actual protection. Arrows pierce right through it, blades seemingly slice the flesh beneath, and it seems to do nothing against blunt objects either. The same can be said for the orcs' armour as well, of course, especially that quite-bad fight on the battlements where Gandalf and Pippin fight some orcs (and Gandalf's blade is somehow bloody after whacking at armour), or when Sam stabs right through the chest of the armoured Shagrat in the tower. Or all those times when someone cuts with a sword across the chain-mailed torso of their foe as said foe doubles over and falls to the ground. Not how armour works there, buckoes.

correct about the swords, but arrows do tend to pierce armor, which is why the upper class knights always had disdain for the lower class archers.  Not fair play, that.  I don't quite understand why guns ended the age of armor when arrows did not.  Quick draw revolvers did not come out for some time.

Edit: on further research I have to walk much of that back.  Turns out full breastplate armor was effective against arrows, but limb armor and of course much of the horses were not.  Foot soldiers didn't wear full plate armor because it was too heavy, so only knights had good protecton against arrows.  So it makes sense that the age of knights didn't end until guns.

halfwise wrote:correct about the swords, but arrows do tend to pierce armor, which is why the upper class knights always had disdain for the lower class archers.  Not fair play, that.  I don't quite understand why guns ended the age of armor when arrows did not.

Just to nitpick, the age of armor actually never really ended, it just continued to evolve. When armor became too heavy to wear individually by men and horses in response to better guns, the armor moved to vehicles and eventually became tanks. Many armored divisions traced their lineage directly back to cavalry divisions.

I like where all this is going.

Ha, at the top of this thread I just noticed what DJH's avatar is. Nice to know the Dude abides even if you're 14.

I found this oddly entertaining.