J.R.R. Tolkien discussion

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but I was particularly disturbed when I searched for quotes this morning to find that on the first page of J.R.R. Tolkien quotes ( I didn't even get past that), there are several quotes that are not from the books at all. Shoot me for being a purist, I guess, but I am 100% sure that Tolkien never wrote the line "Certainty of death, small chance of success... well, what're we waiting for?" and I have to say that it's almost a little offensive to see the writing attributed to him.
Judging by the number of people who've actually added this quote thinking that it's something real, I am sad about the damage those movies seem to have done; instead of real literature the trilogy has been reduced to the modern fantasy stereotype (replete with comic dwarves and spaced-out elves).

(I posted this in the Lord of the Rings group as well...but figured I'd bring the injustice to light here too.)

Just my two cents, I suppose--anyone else?
Or will the flames now begin? :)

In many ways, I am also a purist. I cannot personally collide the book and the movie together. I try to keep them as separate entities and personally I get aghast when people mix one up for the other. It took me two years to come to terms with the fact that Peter Jackson DARED mess with the plot but I eventually realized it was necessary for him to do so as a cinematic work. And the movie is amazing. Beautifully done in every way. And very adept in the use of targum -- the terminology my professors for my class on Film and Religion deemed the ways a film will "translate" and interpret a text into film, which can make additions to the original in the nature and style of the original so seamlessly that the audience will think the simply forgot something in the orignal. That being said...LOTR - THE FILMS, do this. For people who haven't read it obsessively for years and years (like you and I) this jump is easy for those who have only read through the novel once.

The movies were good. The books are amazing. However, there cannot be (IMHO) any true comparison between the two. I have to disagree with Rose in that I was able to see the gap after only reading the novels once, and imcompletely at that. I enjoyed the movies, as long as I was able to seperate them from the books, but the "spacey" elves (excellent description, btw Senda)infuriated me.

The characters were transformed hugely! Legolas and Gimli were the comic relief, not to mention the absurd superhero taking down of the Mumak. Don't even get me started on Arwen! The list goes on and on.

I am increasingly fascinated and impressed by the level of intellect and knowledge Tolkien put into his work. The man was a genius! He didn't just say, "once upon a time, there was a fairy". He said, "This many years ago, (and I have a timeline proving that)there was a specific fairy (whose lineage I have right here) and he lived in this world." He then goes on to write a complete language for said "fairy", etc, etc. So I suppose my point is, shame to anyone who thinks they can make it better by "modernizing" and "adding humor". I wish more people spent the time to actually read his works. I'm sorry I haven't read more, and I'm working on fixing that.

I, too, think the books (the entire Tolkien corpus, actually) are "amazing" and the movies are "good." But the more I watch the film version, the less satisfied I become with some of Jackson's choices.

Some things on the good side are Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, Bernard Hill (Theoden), and David Wenham (Faramir). I actually liked giving Arwen a bigger role, though I wish Jackson could have found a better actress than Liv Tyler.

I love the Riders of Rohan theme.

And I still get choked up when the entire city of Minas Tirith bows to the hobbits at the end (particularly Aragorn's line: "My friends, you bow to no one"; I can't remember if that's in the books but it should be).

But...I'm in complete agreement about the dumbing down of the Legolas and Gimli characters, and I thought the hobbits were a bit insipid, particularly Frodo.

The motivations of some of the characters seemed all wrong too. Denethor didn't neglect the defenses of Gondor because he thought he couldn't win. True, in the books, he had despaired of winning but he would go down fighting and it's unrealistic to think that scions of Numenor would just give in to the Shadow. And Aragorn never doubted that he was the rightful King of Arnor and Gondor. Nor was there doubt that Arwen and Aragorn would wed, he just had to leap over some pretty high hurdles first. Nor was there any doubt that Aragorn had the right to command the spirits on the Path of the Dead regardless of what they wanted (while I'm on the subject, it's annoying that the dead were the decisive factor in defeating Sauron's armies - in the book, all they did was help Aragorn seize the Umbar ships; it was the men that that action freed up [along w/ the Rohirrim] who won the day in Minas Tirith). All these contrived conflicts bother me.

And, finally, the most distressing changes made to the movie are what I call "acting like an orc." Two examples: Gandalf beating up Denethor with his staff and Aragorn slicing off the Mouth of Sauron's head. Neither were in character.

Forgive me...I get exercised about Tolkien at times :-)

Every bard gets to edit the tale as it is told & re-told. Perhaps one day Troy shall not burn & the widow Penelope shall wed, Smaug will dine on Hobbit & dwarves, Grendal will tear Beowolf to shreds, Frodo will wear the ring & rule in Mordor & Darth Vadar will welcome his son to the Dark Side.

Don't get me wrong.

I live for the day when Dracula tears Van Helsing's heart out and vanishes into the night with Mina.

I just don't think this particular bard's edits are particularly good (in an otherwise worthy effort).

OPooH! How did I miss that one? I agree. Change is not always good.

Aragorn's decapitation of the Mouth of Sauron was totally out of character, although I actually think that Gandalf smacking Denethor was not innapropriate. (Denethor, at least as the movie portrayed him, thoroughly deserved a good drubbing.) However, the movie ruined the 'reforging of Narsil.' In the books, Aragorn went through at least half of the Fellowship of The Ring bearing no weapon but the Shards of Narsil, and that adds tension to the plot, tension that the movie missed out on. Another thing that drives me bananas is the absence of the Elf-Lord Glorfindel, who is the coolest auxiliary character in all of the trilogy.

I loved the Two Towers movie interpretation, especially the battle at Helm's Deep.

The Return of the King is the one book that was really mis-represented by Jackson. I mean, he totally cut out the arrival of the party of Dunedain, who came to Aragorn's aid and rode the paths of the dead with him. He also cut out Prince Imladris and the Knights of Dol Amroth, Ghan-buri-Ghan and the Wild Men, without whose help, theoden would never have reached Minas Tirith in the first place.
All of these characters would have made the film much richer, and although they were probably just cut to save time, the movie still suffers from their absence.

I don't think Gandalf was out of character when he smacked Denethor. Even in the book, Denethor wasn't really in the best mental state... and I believe Gandalf has a history of spouting off at particularly thick people. The decapitation of the Mouth of Sauron was ridiculous, though. Totally not Aragorn.

The Two Towers is actually my favorite movie, with the HUGE exception of Helms Deep. Elves at Helms Deep? Where did THAT come from? They just killed them off, too. All it did was use more stunt people. More silly dialogue on Legolas and Gimli's part too.

Elves in general really got the short end of the stick: Arwen was a freak, Legolas had his brain sucked out by a vacuum, Glorfindel didn't exist, and neither did Elrohir and Elladan, Celeborn got one line, Elrond... well, he was just too Matrix, and Haldir gets killed after being somewhere he never was supposed to be. The only elf I really liked was Galadriel, but even she really didn't seem like the book described her.

Now that the elf-rant is over, I'm also in agreement with Johnathan as to the Return of the King. I think that the best plan for moviemakers would have been to just leave the book be. Even though they worked pretty hard on the movies, I don't think Tolkien would have been pleased.

I fear you will not sway me on this.

Denethor was made into a buffoon in the movie, unfortunately. He is a tragic figure: A strong-willed man who SHOULD have been king who gives into despair and hopelessness. Not comic relief.

And far from the neglectful steward of the movie, our book's Denethor (despite his despair) made sure that Gondor was as ready as it could be for the Dark Lord's onslaught.

With all that, I did like the interplay between Denethor, Boromir & Faramir (mostly in flashbacks).

I was looking through some of the Tolkien quotes too earlier this evening and kept thinking to myself that some of those were from the movies and not the books.

At first I felt a certain degree of animosity toward the movies and the changes that were made to Tolkien's tale, but lately I seem to have mellowed somewhat on that point.

It seems that quotes from both the book and the films have been merged together, and i would prefer it if they were seperate otherwize it can become a little confusing!

If you're a librarian and there aren't too many people liking the film-origin quotes, you can delete them. If there are too many likes, you can post a request for a Super-Librarian to delete them in this topic: Please edit or correct or delete this quote. (part 2)

Please do make sure that the quote is not from a book before deleting it. I guess that there might be some "film books" which hold the queried quote and, in that case, you should not delete it, but rather should edit the quote to attribute it to the author of that book, rather than JRRT.

If you have any doubts, post a link to the quote in this thread and we can discuss its proper attribution as a Group and then take informed action.