Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[barsoomcore]

Somehow managing to stay clear of the endlessly entertaining efforts of everyone to pretend they're not insulting each other, I thought I'd re-address nikolai's points on the topic of the thread.

But please don't let me stop the "you're brainwashed!" debate.

Sauron wants to enslave Middle Earth, and needs (the Ring) to be safe, and Gandalf wants it destroyed. Saruman, in awe of Sauron's power, "allies" with Mordor, but seeks to capture the Ring for himself and use it against Sauron. So when Pippin looks into the Palantir, Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. And when Aragorn looks into it, Sauron fears that he has the Ring and will use it to overthrow him, so lauches his attack on Gondor as a pre-emptive strike. Denethor then goes mad when he sees Frodo has been captured in Cirith Ungol: and Sauron has the ring and is unstoppable.[/i] The books is set around a drama over the possession of the Ring; and Frodo's journey and what's happening elsewhere are closely connected.

One by one...

Sauron wants to enslave Middle-Earth and needs the Ring to be safe

Perhaps you missed pretty much all of Cate Blanchett's opening monologue in Fellowship, or most of Ian McKellen's lines from the first half of that movie. It is made abundantly clear that Sauron seeks dominion over Middle-Earth and if he gets the Ring his victory is assured.

Gandalf wants it destroyed.

I don't have to touch on this, do I? I can't believe anybody could watch these films and NOT get the impression that Gandalf wants the Ring destroyed.

Saruman, in awe of Sauron's power, "allies" with Mordor, but seeks to capture the Ring for himself and use it against Sauron.

Again, if you were watching the same movie I was watching, this is exactly what's happening.

So when Pippin looks into the Palantir, Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. And when Aragorn looks into it, Sauron fears that he has the Ring and will use it to overthrow him, so lauches his attack on Gondor as a pre-emptive strike.

Now indeed we do here encounter a change. The narrative is changed. But first, in the book, we don't in fact know what Sauron's reaction to seeing Pippin was. Gandalf theorises, but we are never told what the truth may be. Therefore, your attempt to build a case for necessary causality is lacking -- because you're pretending that it's crucial that Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. It's not, nor is it crucial that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the ring.

That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story. The plot of the Lord of the Rings is the effort to destroy the One Ring. In the book, what's important to the plot is that Pippin looks into the palantir, as does Aragorn, and after that, Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith.

So what do we have in the movie? We have Pippin looking into the palantir, and subsequent to this (because of it, Gandalf theorises) Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith. The missing component to the narrative is Aragorn looking into the palantir. However the plot is maintained, and even causality is provided as Gandalf suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin is in fact the Ringbearer, and will therefore begin his attack speedily.

Denethor then goes mad when he sees Frodo has been captured in Cirith Ungol: and Sauron has the ring and is unstoppable.

Denethor's madness has nothing to do with the plot of Lord of the Rings. It is an interesting part of the story, and has a great deal to do with Pippin's character arc (to say nothing of Faramir's), but it has nothing to do with the plot.

From a plot standpoint, Denethor can be dispensed with because he is no longer needed: the King is about to arrive and with Denethor gone there is no barrier to Aragorn assuming command. The mechanics of how he goes are immaterial to the plot.

You are in some cases indeed pointing out changes between the movie and the book. And you have every right to dislike those changes, or even to feel that you couldn't enjoy the story because of them. I have no argument with that.

I'm just pointing out that the plot from novel to movie is not DRAMATICALLY changed.

 

[barsoomcore]

Yeah, but in the film, Frodo pushes Gollum in and nearly falls in himself.

I did not in any way get this impression from the film. The two times I've seen it, what I see is: Frodo claims the Ring and puts it on. Gollum attacks and they fight, which fight ends when Gollum bites off Frodo's finger. Frodo lunges for Gollum, they struggle on the edge of the precipice and both fall. Frodo catches a lip of rock to avoid death while Gollum plunges to his doom.

I most certainly did not see Frodo push Gollum into the Cracks of Doom. He wanted the Ring back -- he would never have deliberately sent it to its destruction.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So what do we have in the movie? We have Pippin looking into the palantir, and subsequent to this (because of it, Gandalf theorises) Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith. The missing component to the narrative is Aragorn looking into the palantir. However the plot is maintained, and even causality is provided as Gandalf suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin is in fact the Ringbearer, and will therefore begin his attack speedily.

From memory, isn't Merry the only one in the movie who actually suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin has the Ring?

-Hyp.

 

[Chain Lightning]

Really? That's one scene I've seen referred to by numerous people as fantastic (although they were speaking from an audience point of view, rather than directorial or critical)... what did you dislike?

From a directorial point of view... we're talking about the craft of movie making...the scene with the "lighting of the beacons" starts out awesome but starts to get sloppy as it goes on. Jackson on several occasions says he wants these films to be realistic [and I assume 'realistic' means that all things that happen are within the realm of possibility upon the setting: Middle-Earth]. Well, its not established that the beacons are magical at all. In fact, as an audience member, you come to believe that the beacons are lit by guards or 'caretakers'. These could be villagers or whomever that lives next to a beacon and sworn an oath to light it when the time comes.

Heh heh....here comes the sloppy part [ mind you....this is so nit picky...but we're talking about the craft of movie making. And that sometimes involves taking everything apart...even the small stuff]: The last couple of beacons before the one Aragorn sees are so ridiculously out of reach from any sane human sentinel, guard, militia, villager, volunteer, fisherman, farmer, etc, etc.

We made jokes about this afterwards. About Joe-Bob the villager, decades ago he promised to light the beacon at the summit of the snowy mountain should he see the other beacon on the other mountain lit. He said yes to that duty because the Steward gave him a tax break if he would. After so many years, he thought the day would never come. But it did.

"Damn them! Now I gotta climb all the way up that friggin mountain with a torch in my hand! Helga, where are my climbing pitons and rope?!? I gotta go climb that peak! Its gonna take me at least a two days to get up there so I gotta start now!"

I mean, did you see some of those peaks?!?! I wanna meet that guy who climbed up there to light it! Because he should've been in the Fellowship. Anyone that good at climbing up there that fast should've guided our heroes over Caradhras. Or did he just simply live up there like a weird hermit all his life? What a crappy job!

Anyways, the first 3 or 4 beacons were totally within reason and believability. But man, those last two before the one Aragorn saw were just plain silly!

Music was awesome during this sequence though. And I must say, despite the nit pick I have with it, the scene is still dramatic. Does it ruin the film? Nah, not at all.....but its one of those things I wish Peter would've made sure that it was done better.

Ooh... I'm up for that!

Hey, I love "Conan The Barbarian" too....but man can't live on bread alone. I got to have variety.

I don't know about you guys, but when I sit down to draw fantasy genre art or sit down to write out my group's next adventure....I get into the mood by watching fantasy movies. I let 'em play on the tv in the background by my desk.

Well, not much to choose from there eh? Before LotR The only good fantasy films post 1980 were Conan The Barbarian, Excalibur (does that count?), and Dragonslayer (although it was only half fantasy).

Weird things about movies like Dragonslayer and Princess Bride for instance....is that, are they considered totally fantasy? Because some parts of their setting are on Earth. I kinda call them "Historical Fantasy".

After those movies, I'd watch the crappier ones. Because I have no choice really. Like Willow, Dragonheart, Kull, and even the stupid Hallmark made-for-tv movies like Merlin .

Then you go to just Historical movies or movies that are fictional but take place in a real time period on Earth. Because...even though they aren't fantasy, they do have swords and stuff. So you watch Braveheart, Gladiator, 13th Warrior, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves , etc, etc.

Then you're at the end of your list fast. So you settle for animation. May not be live action...but it extends the list. So you watch Berserk , Heroic Legend of Arislan, Record of Lodoss War.....and.....and....well, just those three really.

So you can see why I was sooooooo happy when the LotR trilogy came out!

 

[Camarath]

That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story.

I disagree. I think that plot is more than just the line of the action taken in a story. I believe that what characters think and feel is very important for character development. Which in my opinion can be down right central to a book or movie's plot.

 

[Salthanas]

Because I was answering your question.
If you'd prefer me to dodge your questions, like most people are exhibiting today, than I think I'll do that next time and save myself the time and insult of being deliberately misrepresented.

To wit:
You asked "if it's so obvious, than what explains other people not agreeing that it's a problem?"

I gave you multiple possibilities.
The fact that humans tend not to like pointing out bad things (appearing disagreeable), the tendency for people to start adopting the approach of things they have great familiarity with (the brainwashing comparison), and the tendency of people to fawn over things they have spent a lot of time/effort on.
I also pointed out how it's more likely that people who are reading this thread are fans of Tolkein, and not "haters".

So that was 4 applicable answers to your question.

I guess I should just dodge the questions, generate straw man arguments, or attack the person I'm talking to personally like other people have been doing today.

You are dodging the question totally. All your arguments centre around the basis that everyone who thinks different from you is wrong. Your reasons are

a) people are essentially brainwashed by the material
b) that people fawn over things they've put effort into

If those are your only thoughts then fine, more power to you I'd direct you to the word irony however when you start talking about straw man arguments however if that really is your only explanation as to why anybody disagrees with you about LotR

 

[Bob Aberton]

I'd just like to make a point about Aragorn challenging Sauron...

I think it actually did happen in the film, just not via the palantir. Did anyone notice how, when the Armies of the West are getting ready to storm the Black Gates, the Eye falls on the Aragorn?

You see Aragorn looking into the Eye, and hear in the background "Aragorn....Elessar...." Aragorn takes a few steps forward, like he's going to walk into the Black Gates, perhaps Sauron is trying to break his will? The men in the Armies look afraid, probably thinking Aragorn is going to betray them. Then he stops, turns around, says his thing, and the armies charge.

Perhaps that was Aragorn successfully resisting the will of Sauron right there? If so, it's almost more dramatic than the palantir because he's looking directly into the Eye with no barrier between them...

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

...That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story. The plot of the Lord of the Rings is the effort to destroy the One Ring...I'm just pointing out that the plot from novel to movie is not DRAMATICALLY changed.

You know, this comment finally cleared up for me why we seem to disagree on the importance of the changes. To me, the attraction of the novels is not the plot: it's the history, the grand sweep, and most of all, the characters. That's the true magic of the novels.

You're absolutely right. Boiled down to its most basic elements, PJ changed virtually nothing important in the plot. The Ring is in the hands of a hobbit. Said hobbit takes the Ring into Morder, which results in the destruction of the Ring and the fall of Sauron. Exactly the same in both versions of the story.

But for those (for example, me) who are more focused on the characters and the grand story of Middle-Earth (not just the Ring), the changes in the movies are sometimes jarring. Many of the changes I find completely incomprehensible because (IMO) they detract from so many of those very characters I fell in love with while reading the novels.

Worse yet, many of the changes actually took up more time in the movies than the novels (for instance, in the novels, Aragorn never seems to die before the battle of Helm's Deep, only to miraculously appear just before the battle). I can more easily understand and excuse that changes were made because the movies could only be so long, but making changes which add time to the movies, leaving less time for Tolkien's version? These are some of the changes I most disagree with.

To summarize, I agree that PJ only changed the narrative, if by narrative we mean characters, specific scenes and motivations, and certain visual elements. But for me those very changes touch on some of the most compelling aspects of the novels, hence my vague disatisfaction with the movies, even while I enjoyed the many parts PJ did so well.

-----------------------------

PS - I won't bother using specific quotes, but to all posters who feel the need to use such terms as "fanboy", "purist", "extreme", etc., please desist. Such name-calling, besides being inaccurate, can be rude and inappropriate. I've gained some insight from reading the views of others in this thread who fundamentally disagree with me, and I hope a few have gained some from my own meanderings. But whether or no, showing respect for others' opinions - most especially those we disagree with - should not be optional.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.

I can understand powered armor not being included due to budget constraints, etc, but to say that Starship Troopers the movie was true to the themes of Heinlein's original book...? You clearly did not read the book at all. One of the main themes in Heinlein's novel was that people were important, that the Mobile Infantry simply *could not* afford to lose troopers. The Mobile Infantry lived by the 'never leave anyone behind' rule, and yet, in the movie the troopers do not hesitate to kill their own, and even *expect* other troopers to kill them! Michael Ironsides' character practically demands that he be killed when his legs are bitten off at the end of the film, despite the fact that they are being airlifted out that very moment and that he *already* has cybernetic replacements for missing limbs! The movie's theme that in the Mobile Infantry life is cheap runs diectly counter to Heinlein's novel. This was my main problem with the film. Buzzard was correct when he stated that the filmmakers were clearly not fans of the original novel.

Other elements I felt were poorly done in Starship Troopers the movie:

1.) Why is there an argument over whether the bugs are intelligent or not? They are capable of calculating interstellar trajectories and launching asteroids at planets as weapons--OF COURSE they are intelligent!

2.) Bad tactics. The military in the movie makes bad tactical decisions at every single level. Their primary attack is infantry, they don't support the infantry with artillery ever, and the infantry advance on an enemy in a circle while firing automatic weapons--the troopers would cut each other to ribbons in a heartbeat!

That said, I did purchase the DVD and I do occasionally pop it in simply for Phil Tippett's extraordinary creature work. The movie has some of the best giant bugs ever commited to screen (which are also *extremely* different from the book's bugs--in the books they used their own weird alien tech and had their own spacecraft.)

 

[KenM]

One of the main themes of ST was the way the human goverment was sturctured, how only people that served in the miliatary were allowed to vote, ect. That is what I meant. I have to pick up the DVD to watch the scene where ironsides character gets shot by his own men. I do agree with what you said about them debating the bugs' intellegence.