Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[Umbran]

Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.

I'd like to clarify more, but I think you get my gist. That's all. No big deal.

a) I acknowledge that, in the light of hindsight, there may have been better courses of action than the ones taken in the text. My explication of the course of events was merely to show that, without the light of hindsight, the actions could have seemed reasonable to the characters at the time. Odd, isn't it, that Tolkien chose to create characters that aren't omniscient, so that they sometimes take sub-optimal paths?

b) No big deal? Funny, it seems from where I sit that you're calling me a liar or deciever. In order to call me less than forthright, you'd have to have some information indicating that I intentionally left information out, with specific intent to decieve. You don't have any such information, so stop with the (admittedly eriudite) name-calling. Attack the information and logic I present, and leave your ill-founded guesses on my motives out of it, please.

Galactically stupid decision there, and everyone can see it. It can't be explained away, and it lessens the stature of the heroes (a bad thing to do in an epic hero novel, by definition.

Everyone sees it, but only after the fact. Gandalf is not Merlin, who lives backwards so that he can see what will result.

As I recall the text, before Saruman turns on him, Gandalf has every reason to think that the plan will work swimmingly. And we have no reason to think otherwise, either. If not for Saruman, Gandalf would have made the rendevous, and they would have tripped it off to Rivendell with the Ringwraiths nowhere in sight.

Rarely is failure to see the treachery of an ally considered to paint a character "in a bad light", or lessen a character's stature. Epic heroes frequently miss treachery - they wouldn't think of doing it themselves, so they tend not to see it in others.

And as for Frodo - at the time, he's not yet an epic hero. He's pretty darned ignorant, and feels pretty small and unimportant, so his hesitation is easily understood.

And, let's pile on top of this the simple fact that tripping it off to Rivendell simply and easily would have been monumentally boring.

 

[nikolai]

It's not essential to the plot what internal motivations Saruman had in joining Sauron. IIRC, it is ambiguous in the book, and presented similarly in the movie.
It is not essential the EXACT impulse that caused Sauron to start the attack on Gondor. It was well-known that he was ammassing an army to take out Gondor - how is it SO important that Aragorn looking thru the Palantir makes him pull the trigger to attack?

I may have gone off the deep end and be giving fanboys a bad name. After all no-one else seems to care much. I do think the plot and reasons why things happen are important. In the books it's critical, since it makes Sauron take his eye off Frodo and Sam. Without it I think, is this Lord of the Rings, or could he have filmed any of the many monster filled Tolkien clones, and have it turn out pretty much the same.

 

[Salthanas]

Hmmmm.... we're close to caught up on this, Umbran, but one thing:
KenM said this-then you said:Then I pointed out how you were omitted certain facts in your reply, instead solely concentrating on what you wanted to reply to. (In other words, you made an explanatory post that purposely covered only half the story, while ignoring the point: that there are problems with Tolkein's sequences.)

In your opinion theres a problem, I don't really think there is. Gandalf has at first only a few vague suspicions about the ring. Until that point as far as he knew the ruling ring had been lost. Saruman told him this, and at that point Saruman is not only considered a "good guy" but also the head of the White Council and also the top Istari in Middle Earth. It takes Gandalf years to finally verify that the Ring is in fact Sauron's ring. Can't really see many problems up to that point. Gandalf can't make himself learn about the ring any more quickly than he actually learns about it, thats just the way it panned out.

Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.

I'd like to clarify more, but I think you get my gist. That's all. No big deal.

edit: About you dodging point a) above- Every reader can see clearly that this is a mistake by the characters, and paints Gandalf in a VERY bad light.
The need for haste in the light of Sauron's expanding strength and vision is ignored by the lazy hobbit and wizard.
They created their own problem with procrastination, even AFTER realizing they had the most powerful and dangerous artifact ever known to Middle Earth in their possession.

Galactically stupid decision there, and everyone can see it. It can't be explained away, and it lessens the stature of the heroes (a bad thing to do in an epic hero novel, by definition.
Unless the heroes' fatal flaw is procrastination, which it isn't in LotR).

THAT'S just one example of the things me and KenM are referring to, Umbran.
If you'd like to respond, please address our point(s), or acknowledge them.

Again I don't have much of a problem with how its written in the book. Gandalf wants Frodo to pretty much disappear from the Shire without courting interest. That way the Ring can effectively be removed from Sauron's knowledge altogether. If Frodo had left with Gandalf immediatly then that would have almost certainly found its way back to Sauron and the whole point of trying to keep the Ring hidden would have been made moot.

The reason that Gandalf's decision is made to seem extremely poor is because he doesn't a) suspect Saruman's treachery and b) because he was not expecting the nine to be so quick on the trail of the Ring. Those are two rather large spanners to be thrown in the works at the best of times and Gandalf says that if he had realised that the danger was as great as it actually transpired that he would have left immediatly with Frodo. You also seem to be forgetting that Gandalf pretty much planned to stay with Frodo until he left. He leaves Frodo to check out some news on the borders regarding Gondor's war with Sauron and also because he's heard a rumour about the Nazgul, from there he is directed to Isengard by Radagast ( again note that Gandalf says that depending on the news they might have to leave immediatly before he sets out). So its not as if he intended the Ring to be out of his sight for all that long, his imprisonment by Saruman is what makes everything go pearshaped, up until that point he has things in hand quite nicely.

Gandalf's choices are not perfect but as he doesn't have flawless hindsight they wont be anyway. His simple plan of staying with Frodo for a few months to allow him to leave the Shire quietly goes wrong mainly because of Saruman's treachery which he doesn't foresee. To say that these actions are silly to the reader and are obvious mistakes is a little innane I think (If only because this a matter of subjection and not something you can speak in the declaritive about but I'm sure you knew that anyway ). They might seem silly because of what transpired but based on what Gandalf knew at the time they seem fine particularly as he never intended to be parted from Frodo for very long at all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Gentlemen - let's be certain we don't devolve into bickering here. Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing; attacking the character of the person who holds that opinion is another.

Make sure we don't cross the line

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Hypersmurf]

A rule of filmmaking is "never cover up the actors faces. It gets in the way of emoting, and the audience loses sympathy/understanding of the characters."

Meh. I'd have had more sympathy for those characters if they'd been kicking ass in space marine armour.

-Hyp.

 

[Nightfall]

HS,

I might agree..but even then the only way is if they all had Stephen Hawking's voice used for all of them.

 

[buzzard]

True, buzzard.
There are those people who so enjoy the book's themes, that they can't abide what Paul Verhoeven did with the film version.

Then there are those who don't think it's a good movie by any measure, and even worse because it is associated with a good book.

They don't like the changes made from a WW2 era book, to update it with modern-day sensibilities (and with hindsight).

The book was orginally published in 1959. That's 14 years after W.W. II. Try again. I am not going to debate your impression of 'modern day sensibilites' because we would get into politics. Verhoeven evidently didn't like the book or anything about it. That's why he trashed it in the movie.

They don't like seeing the bugs as anything but a all-Evil Boogeyman, that exists to be destroyed/taken over.

However in the book, the bugs were pretty much an all-evil boogeyman. In the movie, the government became that boogeyman instead. Not a hell of a difference in complexity if you ask me.

They are the minority, though.

This is an unsupported assertion. Minority of who? What did you use to come to this conclusion?

Most people who say the things that the other poster said are simply ignorant about the movie.
Nothing wrong with that, but saying the things he said about the movie sure doesn;t make him look like an intelligent reviewer of the subject.

People can dislike the movie because it was an unimpressive B-movie as well you know. You don't have to be a Heinlen fan to dislike it. Gussied up mini-14s shooting lots of blanks at fair-to-middling CGI combined with T&A does not a fine movie make. You might think Verhoeven is a genious for making an anti-fascist statement in a Sci-Fi flick, but it's hardly innovative or fresh. You like the movie, which is fine (this would have been a good one for Guilty Pleasures IMHO, just not one of mine). Just don't try to make that case that it has anything to do with the book, other than being a mockery.

buzzard

 

[reapersaurus]

a) The book was orginally published in 1959. That's 14 years after W.W. II. Try again.

b) This is an unsupported assertion. Minority of who? What did you use to come to this conclusion?

c) Just don't try to make that case that it has anything to do with the book, other than being a mockery.

a) Come on.
You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.

To retort that the book happened to be published in 1959 is completely argumentative and ignoring the point.
Do you disagree that Starship Troopers is a "WW2-type" book?

b) I totally guessed.

c) Never did.

Do you guys understand that many other people are able to read a book, then see an adaptation that is DIFFERENT from the book, and still enjoy the influences on the film from the book?
Many people don't require a wrote-recreation of a book (even if it WAS filmable) to make them happy with a movie.

Hell, I think I could make a pretty good objective case that people who read books and don't like a movie becuase it's not exactly like the book are (at best) ineffecient and unrealistic in their expectations.

Here's how:
The people who like the book (most likely) are fans of the material and genre.
The movie is almost always in the same genre and uses a lot of the same material/backdrop.
Therefore, any person who likes the book should like the genre and material that the movie presents. That (IMO) is the majority of the way towards liking a movie.
The majority of films made do NOT have material or a genre that appeals to the average person (total guess).
Therefore, using the fact that a movie doesn't follow exactly by the book as reason for not liking a movie that matches the genre and material that the viewer enjoys, is inefficient and unrealistic.

 

[Wormwood]

Since then, most people who see the film are aware of its dual levels, and give it a big thumbs up.

...And some of us choose to ignore the filmmaker's political opinions and still give it a big thumbs up.

 

[reapersaurus]

Gandalf's choices are not perfect but as he doesn't have flawless hindsight they wont be anyway. His simple plan of staying with Frodo for a few months to allow him to leave the Shire quietly goes wrong mainly because of Saruman's treachery which he doesn't foresee.

This is a total copout, and doesn't convince me at all.

Handwaving Gandalf's mistake(s) by saying he wasn't 'omniscient' or 'perfect' ignores that he himself related to the reader the dire danger the One Ring represented.
Who did the reader hear the background of the Ring from?

Are we supposed to forget the sense of dread and danger that he instilled in us the previous chapter?
No.
That's why it's a MISTAKE.
A HUGE mistake, in both character actions AND storywriting.

I don't believe for an instant that a millenia-old character who is known for his Wisdom, who just spent years researching to make SURE that the Ring WAS The One Ring, a person who knew (firsthand?) the terrible nature and strength of Sauron.... I don't believe that Gandalf would make so collosal of blunder as underestimating Sauron's influence and power.

Fanboys can handwave the writing mistakes in the Trilogy, and say that it doesn't bother them, but that doesn't make it any less obvious to me (and others).
While I think it's objectively proveable, I know 2 things:
1) People are capable of believing the sun is blue if that's their opinion, regardless of proof to the contrary.
2) We're dealing with subjective enough subject matter here, that I would have to write a thesis paper, and research and annotate my proof(s) to make it clear enough that it could be called "objective proof", and it's not worth it to me.

BTW: another example, similarly handwaved and "not a problem" by fans of the book is the orcs killing each other at Cirith Ungal conveniently allowing Sam to waltz thru the heart of the enemy unobstructed, even after a warning had been set off.
I'm sure there are many other examples, that just are "not problems" to fans of the books, that other people find are obstacles in heaping praise on the original story.