Did anybody else notice that in the book it's Frodo's ring finger that gets bitten off, but in the movie it's his index finger?

I'm guessing that PJ figured it would be to difficult for Gollum to bite off a middle finger without damaging the neighboring ones too. Then again, earlier in the film on several occasions we see Frodo put the ring on his index finger rather than his ring finger. Was there any special significance to this? Maybe little hobbit fingerses are too small for big ol' Sauron's bling-bling?

Ahh, but aside from making the Ring look weak (it would have -- no matter the strength of character, the Ring was built up as being irrestible. Having someone pass it over like that would either have to be explained as the Ring rejecting Faramir as its host or the Ring not being as strong as advertised), it also makes all of the primary characters look weak. Gandalf refuses the Ring out of fear, as do the others. They all know the Ring would easily corrupt them. Making a tertiary character immune to the Rings charms would have undermined them all.

Also, it throws in a nice touch of irony into RotK, wherein Faramir managed to prove himself stronger than his brother. A fact that his father would have refused to believe.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

What bugged me about the destruction of the Ring in the movies as opposed to the book is that the element of chance was taken out of Gollum's fall. When Gollum fell in by chance, it indicated two things:

1.) That we finally know why it was important to spare Gollum--the Ring could not have been destroyed without him. In one pessimistic sense, Gollum was little more than a living tool to take the Ring to its destruction.

2.) That only chance--not an act of will--could have destroyed the Ring.

When PJ removed that element of chance, it made Frodo look more "heroic", at the cost of the tragedy of Gollum's death and the sudden realization of the string of coincidences that had to happen for the Ring to be destroyed.

Faramir's lack of interest in the Ring does seem a bit jarring in the novels, but as the Ring seems to act on one's will-to-power, thus making the humblest characters (the hobbits, natch) the most resistant to its charms, I don't see it as being inconsistent. Unlike Boromir, Faramir doesn't want to rule. If he were around it long enough, he'd probably have problem, but he also isn't burdened by a desire to save everyone, like Galadriel or Gandalf are. With Shelob moved to the third movie, I can see a need for more dramatic confrontation, thus having Faramir be tempted and dangerous in the movie.

Of course, given that Faramir's men initially think Gollum is a squirrel, one wonders: how big are the squirrels in Ithilien, anyway? And could they pose a danger in the Fourth Age?

Cheers, Jon

Finally, a topic I know a little bit about!

Why did Sauron not guard Mt. Doom itself? Earlier posts have put forth good reasons for this - all the entrances to Mordor are rather heavily guarded already, Barad-dur is right next door, etc. The strongest explanation, I think is the one that Sauron knew no one would have the strength of will to actually throw the ring into the fire - and he was right. In the end Frodo is not able to bring himself to throw the ring into the fire.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Harry Potter is one of the only movies done based on a book that was painstakingly made chapter and verse true to the print. This was done as an accomodation to children. Please keep this fact in mind as you debate Peter Jackson's variations from the books and so heatedly debate them.

I've read the books, I've seen the movies. Yes, he changes things. Woopty-frickin-do. One of the early articles at CNN.com was an interview with an 80+ year old man who studied under Tolkieen himself who thought he would have loved the movies. I'll take that expert opinion and accept the movies as they are without all the nattering nonsense. Its a work of fiction, a cornerstone work of fiction for nearly the entire body of current fantasy genre literature and cinema, but its not a frickin' holy text. The movies as they are serve as a great treatment of the originals, certainly enough to reinvigorate interest in them and hopefully introduce a wider audience to them. Yeah, I was hoping for the Scouring of the Shire to be included, but I'm mature enough to accept the rationale for its exclusion, and was pretty sure going into the theater that it would not be there. So be it. Life goes on. I can watch the DVD, put it away, pick up the book, and finish it for myself.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Agreed. In their own right, the movies are fantastic. The question we should ask is whether we would want someone to try to do a remake of the movies? PJ's version is different than the books, but it would be very hard to do better.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

No, because then you get into Lucasian Revisionism and the "Greedo Shoots First" style of controversy.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

I've been called "King of the Tolkien Geeks" for my love of the book, but I love the movies too. They are different mediums, and require different approaches. True, the movies have their occasional weak points, but so does the book, frankly.

There are actually some things I think the movies do better than the book. Boromir is my prime example. I thought he was a fairly uninteresting character in comparison to the rest of the fellowship in the book, but Sean Bean does such a great job with him in the movie that to me he becomes much more interesting and tragic.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

When does the copyright run out on LOTR -- the 2040s or something like that? Lots of time for at least one remake and possibly two.

Are the Hobbit rights still in limbo, btw?

Cheers, Jon

I like Romanus's point. I think the idea that Ring could not be destroyed by any act of will sits well with the established power of the Ring. While that is aptly carried out in the book version where Gollum accidentally falls into the Fire, it is also carried out in the movies where, while wrestling for the Ring, both Frodo and Gollum fall off, but Frodo, in typical Hollywood fashion, manages to cling onto the edge. That is assuming we interpret the wrestling as Frodo trying to get back his Precious. In that regard, I guess the movie version does do it a bit better because it defeats an old cliche whereby the hero and villain have a climactic punch up at the end on a narrow walkway suspended over hazardous chemicals while maintaining their balance and not falling in, while the book version does seem a bit Carry On. "The Precious! The Precious! The Precious! The Precious! Oh bugger!"

Was it chance? I think not. In the book, on the final leg of the ascent of Mount Doom, Gollum catches up with the hobbits and attacks Frodo, finally realizing that he intends to destroy the Ring. Frodo throws him off, and then as Gollum cowers, Frodo grasps the Ring (Sam sees it here as a wheel of fire) and speaks in a commanding voice, "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." The Ring's was created to dominate and control others, and here where it was created that power is surely at its greatest, just as it has become harder and harder for Frodo to carry as he approached. When Gollum attacked Frodo again, he was doomed to fall by the command of the Ring. In some sense, the Ring's destruction came from its own power, turned upon itself.

That does still leave Gollum as an unwitting tool in destroying the Ring, and we'd been given premonition of that. Several characters, including I think both Gandalf and Frodo, have said that he may yet have some role to play. Interesting that had pity not stayed Bilbo's hand all those years ago, Gollum wouldn't have been around to fill that role. And after the encounter above, Frodo goes on while Sam blocks Gollum's path. But then even Sam, who has never liked or trusted Gollum, is unable to bring himself to kill him. Another typical hobbit trait, simple compassion for a pitiable creature, ends up being necessary for the Ring's destruction, just as is the humility that allows Frodo to carry it so far when others would have been corrupted long before.

I want to point out something I'm pretty sure I spotted when I watched the extended version the other day:

When you see Frodo fall to the ground after his hand is bitten, I remember seeing Gollum leaping about for a moment. The shot is maybe a second and a half long, and the focus draws your eyes to Frodo.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

A bit of backhistory on why Sauron could be so invincible at this time and not during the Alliance.

All nineteen of the rings were made by elves for elves. Sauron made the one ring to control all of the others and bring the whole of the elvish community in Middle-Earth under his dominion. But when he put on his One ring and extended his control, the elves caught on immediately and removed their rings. Sauron made war with the elves and captured sixteen of the rings. The last three he did not know about at the time. He gave seven rings to dwarves but they proved uncontrollable. They merely became greedier. The nine he gave to men gave him better results.

The Numenoreans lived on an island far to the west and were only beginning to colonize Middle-Earth at this time. Some of the men enthralled by Sauron were Numenoreans--including, probably, the Witch-king. The Numenoreans were men who had aided elves earlier and had been rewarded with long lives and much of the knowledge/power of the elves. They were mighty enough at the time to face off Sauron and force him to surrender. They took him back with them to Numenor (much debate on whether he had the One with him) where Sauron corrupted them and sent them on a self-destructive battle against the gods.

Sauron goes back to Middle-Earth and begins to form his empire (explicitly with the One). The surviving Numenoreans who did not become corrupted or were not on the island at the time join with the elvish and dwarvish hosts and lay seige to Mordor. Sauron's forces were simply too small and weak in comparison and he attempted to break the seige personally. After killing a few of the Alliance leaders, his physical body was killed and the One removed before Sauron could gather his spirit together.

Unfortunately, by the time of the events of LOTR, most of the elves had left for the home of the gods and the Numenoreans had lost most of their knowledge/power (though both forces were still powerful enough to hold off Sauron for a long time if he doesn't have the One).

__________________
Keeper of the Jabberwock

Oh Sauron knew about the last three elvish rings all right... it's printed in the Silmarillion. He wanted them specifically because of their unique properties. And there's no maximum set for how many elvish rings were made in total. All Tolkien says is "many". Others may have been destroyed or lost, remember the One Ring can't locate them unless someone is wearing them. A pile of the things could be in a creek someplace, just like the One Ring was. Dragonfire could have destroyed many others, just like it was theorized to have destroyed some of the 7 given out to the dwarves.

Back to Peter Jackson's movies, I believe the "fatal flaw" was his sticking to a three-movie release, with each movie generally following one book. Try as he might with extended versions, there's still no way to fit all of Tolkien's vision into just three movies. A lot of stuff simply had to be axed, or "re-imagined". An extra 3-4 hours would've probably covered everything rather well, but alas that didn't come to pass. Too bad.

Be glad that he went to New Line and they accepted (well after everyone else had already said no.) Originally it was a Miramax project and was to be only two movies. Miramax then decided that they were only willing to fund one movie. Peter got them to agree to his attempting to fun another distributer on the agreement that if he couldn't find one within a month he would walk away and they would keep the project to do what they wanted with. New Line Cinema was the last place on the list and luckily they agreed not only to fund it, but they wanted three movies as well.

This was never a case of PJ being given vast amounts of money to do the project, in fact he had to fight and battle the entire way through the project to get it done, and get it done the way that he wanted too. It was done on what was pretty much a shoe-string budget for a Blockbuster Movie. If not for a lot of good old Kiwi hard work and ingenuity then these movies would never have been the success they were. When you see the finished product it's easy to forget that it took him seven years of pure hard work to get from conception to the release of Fellowship.

I guess that these are some of the reasons that Kiwi's are pretty parochial about it and see people that put down the guys that did it as a put down of more than just that but to all of us.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Well, Phantom Wolf, as a non-New Zealander in all seriousness, don't take any criticisms from me as a critique of New Zealand or Jackson's work ethic (or the work ethic of anyone involved). Of course, I also still can't figure out why The Frighteners wasn't a big hit because it's so darned enjoyable.

Cheers, Jon

I still like Bad Taste, especially when they blow up the sheep.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I think that would have killed the movies. I know too many that thought the movies were too long and there were too many of them already ... My one complaint is that a three hour movie NEEDS an intermission. Period.

Anyway, I loved the books and loved the movies. I was astonished they did as well as they did, given the track record porting books to movies. When I first heard about the movies, I wouldn't have been surprised to find the elves carrying phasors, or that Sauron would be a really great gal, just "misunderstood."

Yes, I think thesse movies were the best we could hope for, and the amount of labour and love put into it is astonishing. But that doesn't make them flawless (of course), and while I could understand and accept the removal of Tom Bombadil, or even the Mt. Doom scenes, I still have a hard time with the finale. Replacing the Scouring of the Shire with a Hollywood ending (that music makes me cringe) is a disgrace to the tone of the movie and the book, and really betrays the philosophy of LOTR. The Scouring was the ultimate moment to show the changes that the Ring and the quest had done to all four hobbits, especially Frodo, and also shows better that not all problems are over when the big one is done.
My girlfriend had not read the books and enjoyed the movies a lot, but she thought that the ending was way too long and sentimental.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

We simply classify the last 20 minutes or so as "hobbo-erotica" and ignore them. Wading through the DVDs just now so don't know how the extended version ends.

Long, and sentimental like. I don't think they changed the end in any way. And thank goodness for that! That's one scene that didn't really need to be extended...

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

But do they destroy the Ring?

I thought there was talk of including the Scouring of the Shire.

Oh goodness, the Ring gets destroyed what feels like hours before the end of the movie.

The Scouring of the Shire only takes place in the first movie, when Frodo sees it in the pool. The last hour of RotK is nothing but crying as it is. To add an additional 20 minutes of kicking, balling, and screaming probably would have driven a number of us non-literary folks to stab our eyes out stuff them into our ears.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Thanks Ut, only one and a half DVDs to go then. I'll bail well before the end.

We've got the extended edition DVD of RotK. I haven't watched it all yet, but I remember looking at the scene listing and noting that there were no asterisks on any of the later scenes to indicate a new or extended one. And, I agree, just as well.

I also can't see making more than three movies out of the series. Each one has to tell a story in itself - breaking it down too much would lead either to boring movies or to making significant plot alterations just to keep up the pacing.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

In the book, I believe the destruction of the Ring is followed by about six more chapters. If I remember right, "The Scouring of The Shire" is still only the second to last chapter. In a way, the meandering ending in the movie is consistant with the book.

Maybe PJ will follow Lucas' lead and create new editions in another decade or so. By then, we'll have perfect digital actors, so he won't have to reshoot any scenes with the original cast.

Hmmm, let's see, can't call them Extended Editions since that's been used. How about...

The Lord of the Rings: Verbatim Edition

:wink:

After they perfect digital eyelash rendering, they'll have to go back and remove all of their "mistakes" and cover up the "technical limitations" inherent in the original three, first. That'll eat up at least 5 extra years inbetween now and the next set.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Nope, there's definite talk of a Hobbit movie in a few years, which leads me to believe that there's at least a handshake's permission given to proceed, if not dry ink.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.