'Why I hate 'Lord of the Rings' '

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.

I think this is the biggest point. You DON'T think it would change things...but pretty much everyone else here agrees that it most definatly WOULD, and has given a lot more reasons that follow the themes of the books(which are also the themes of the movies).

Please please please...don't let this be the next long running disagreement. We got over the Eagles, now lets not start a new one so soon!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think this is the biggest point. You DON'T think it would change things...but pretty much everyone else here agrees that it most definatly WOULD, and has given a lot more reasons that follow the themes of the books(which are also the themes of the movies).

frankly, some people here have been scrambling for a No Prize to avoid accepting that there could have been a plot hole in the movie... not even the book, but the way the movie adapted it. (I mean aside from the part where they say the ring has fallen out of all living memory and gandalf has to research it in dusty manuscripts when his elf buddy has the whole thing still on the tip of his tongue... ) the fact that they are in the majority is not a relevant to whether thay are in the right.

One of the themes of the movies, and the books is that they are FICTION. What fiction means is that someone wrote it all down, made it up, thought of it. That person may or may not have had a lot of outside editing, but they certainly didn't submit it for peer review over the course of a few decades, or wait to publish until a lot of people with too much free brain power for their own good picked it apart and compared and contrasted every line. The makers of the movie similarly wanted to create something that looked good, sounded good and played well in peroria.

What does it mean? It means that plot holes will be there. Mistakes will be there. Inconsistancies and logical gaps will occur over the course of three (and a half and a prequel) books and more will creep in when those books are adapted to look good on screen. Its no big deal. Obsessively finding and pointing them out tends to make you look like you have too much time on your hands and maybe take fiction a little too seriously, and contorting your logic into a 'fix' and attacking people who do notice them makes you look defensive of your tastes and like you take your fiction way too seriously.

While I'm not really enthusiastic about RotK (I'll wait for the DVD when PJ's signature swoops don't make me airsick) this little rant isn't about tolkien or this work in particular, its about the kind of fan obsession that almost ruined my apprication of Babylon 5 (church of joe gets on my nerves) and is rapidly souring the casual enjoyment I take from these films. If you like to nitpick, enjoy the little incogruities. If you don't like to nitpick, just say "Cause then there's be no story" and go back to enjoying the work. If you're a backseat director, discuss ways in which the scene could have been shot that eliminate the issue entirely. But I've had more reasonable discussion of contridictions in real life religious texts than I'm seeing over a minor adaptation flaw in an otherwise well received movie....

hmmm... I'm glad I never posted my casual musings on the idiocy of the horn codes in Fire and Ice...

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.

nah, easy, peasy. elrond stands at the edge imploring the king to throw the ring in. King never steps right to the edge, refuses and turns to walk away. Elrond starts to move after him to try to convince or force him, the ring flashes and Elrond gasps, stumbles and looks after the king with dispair as he continues out. Elrond shows more dedicaton to his cause, the ring's power and sense of self preservation is made clear, nitpickers have nothing to talk about, fanboys obsess over the layers of meaning and intent within the scene... everyone's happy.

It only would have changed the story if the director wanted it too, which he clearly wouldn't.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Storm Raven]

That is fine too, my problem is the lack of action that IMO Elrond should have taken.

But the action you think Elrond "should have taken" would have necessarily led to a worse result than Isildur holding the ring peacefully for a time. And Elrond knew this, which is why he stayed his hand.

Basically, you are saying "Elrond should have done something the character knew was immensely stupid, becauser that's what KenM would have done".

 

[Storm Raven]

(I mean aside from the part where they say the ring has fallen out of all living memory and gandalf has to research it in dusty manuscripts when his elf buddy has the whole thing still on the tip of his tongue... )

Gandalf was reaearching things Elrond didn't know about the ring, like the fact that the text written on it becomes clear when heated. If you had paid attention to the movie, you would have known this.

What does it mean? It means that plot holes will be there. Mistakes will be there. Inconsistancies and logical gaps will occur over the course of three (and a half and a prequel) books and more will creep in when those books are adapted to look good on screen.

There may be plot holes, but Elrond failing to try to kill Isildur to take or destroy the One Ring isn't one of them.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.

Which means you didn't understand the story, or the nature of the One Ring.

The fact that he basically lets evil survive, when they were inside the crack of doom and then he blames men for failing is my problem.

He blames the will of men for failing, because Isildur didn't have the will to destroy the Ring. The "one chance" Elrond speaks of is the chance to have the Ring destroyed voluntarily, anything else would subject those fighting over the fate of the Ring to the corrupting influence of the Ring.

He knew what the ring was, he saw it already corrupting Isilidur, PJ should have had Elround try something and get knocked out or something.

Which would have been entirely out of character for Elrond, and made Elrond subject to the lust for the Ring displayed by (for example) Smeagol and Deagol when they start fighting over it. Elrond knows the consequences of trying to take the Ring by violence, and thus knows that it is a foolish thing to try. Unlike you.

Like someone else said, that fact that in the books, that scene takes place away from Mt. Doom makes it work in the books.

The fact that others understand the nature of the Ring is why it works. The fact that you don't, and persist in coming up with D&D inspired notions of what to do in that situation only illustrates how little you understand of the Ring.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Another comment related to the subject of morality in Lord of the Rings: regarding Orcs as purely evil beings . . . Faramir (in the book) tells Frodo, "I would not ensnare even an orc with a falsehood." Orcs may be irredeemably evil, but good does not disregard justice in dealing with evil; if it did, good would fall and become evil. Gandalf says in the book, "Nothing is evil in the beginning, not even Sauron was so" (paraphrase).


It has been rightly commented on that Frodo does not destroy the Ring. In the book, he stands upon the brink of the Crack of Doom and says, " I do not choose now to do the thing I came to do." The key wording is "I do not choose" rather than "I choose not to do" indicating that Frodo's will has no control over the matter and his will has been subdued to that of the Ring. Frodo claims the Ring as his own, and it is only the attack by Gollum that enables the Ring to accidentally be destroyed . . . "The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."

 

[Numion]

If Elrond were to shove Isildur into the fires of Mount Doom, then he wouldn't be committing murder; that would be an act in the defense of the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth because he would've acted to destroy the One Ring. The One Ring is an aspect of Sauron, and therefore is a part of him, so destroying the One Ring (even at the cost of Isildur's life, and likely Elrond's as well) is a good act. Issues of property don't matter when the freedom of the entire host of the Free Peoples is on the line: freedom is more important than property.

I think that the ring wouldn't have seen anything more eagerly than have two of the greatest lords of middle earth in a combat over it five minutes after it was acquired. That's what the ring would want - to get noble people fight over it, lose their temper, act rashly (just like it did pretty quickly in the counsil of elrond).

That is how the ring works. Elrond showed considerable power of will not to start a ruckus over it at mt. Doom.

 

[Piratecat]

So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.

Actually, I was wondering that too...but it looks like they all died.