# Accceptable Changes?



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

I know many of us have issues with the changes made by Peter Jackson (perfectly valid) but films ARE a different medium and simply HAVE to experience changes. For instance, Glorfindel shows up for one or two scenes and then is gone for the entire rest of the story. You can't do that in a film. Tom Bombadil slows the story town to a crawl. You can't do that in a film either. So what changes WOULD you have made?

Who replaces Glorfindel? Legolas, Arwen, and Elrond are the only elves in Rivendell who appear later in the story. The animated film chose Legolas. PJ chose Arwen. But I think out of the three Elrond makes the most sense. Legolas wouldn't have the inner light. Arwen's safety would simply not be risked at this point by her father. Elrond going out seems...odd but is really the only choice left. I suppose Gandalf could simply have just have found them and the story could just be rewritten slightly.

Tom Bombadil's removal was a good choice but it leaves us with the question of how we work back in the Barrow-Blades. In the film Aragorn just passes out swords but there's nothing made of it. Could a few short lines by him have rectified this?

The choice to have Faramir try to take the Ring to Minas Tirith was horrible but it's removal leaves us with much less content for Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. We could shift the Shelob scene to TTT (where it happens in the book). For the films PJ seems to have wanted to move it to align with when events happen with the others (according to the timeline) but this isn't as necessary as he seems to think.

So what do you think? What changes would you have made? What cuts? Let's discuss and see what superior story we could have told!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 28, 2022)

No time at the moment for extended comments, but I'll say that Glorfindel _could _have appeared in the film, and his inclusion could have explained why powerful Elves couldn't be part of the Fellowship-- though many readers miss that too. A shot through Frodo's eyes of the "shining figure of white light", and the "small shadowy forms waving flames" would have taken up less time than needed to read those phrases. But PJ apparently wasn't interested in a "hobbit-o-centric" point of view.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> No time at the moment for extended comments, but I'll say that Glorfindel _could _have appeared in the film, and his inclusion could have explained why powerful Elves couldn't be part of the Fellowship-- though many readers miss that too. A shot through Frodo's eyes of the "shining figure of white light", and the "small shadowy forms waving flames" would have taken up less time than needed to read those phrases. But PJ apparently wasn't interested in a "hobbit-o-centric" point of view.


The problem is less the point of why Glorfindel couldn't go. The problem is movies have to have an "economy of characters". You simply can't have a cast of thousands, all thrown at the audience in a matter of even 3 hours, especially if those characters never show up again.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

That's a very good question. 

The Arwen itself, replacing Glorfindel is not that much issue with me. What they did later with Arwen (and Aragorn) IS an issue with me. 
The way story arc going around her and Aragorn in later scenes is making Aragorn so weak, and making Arwen not so interesting to watch.. it all become big mess to me. 
Yeah, IMHO Tom Bombandil shouldn't have been even in the LOTR books (but who am I to oppose Tolkien), and he always seems to me way more suitable for Hobbit book, then for LOTR, that is much darker in it's tone. 
What they did with Faramir is a disgrace. I think you're wrong if you think it's because they wanted to move Shelob scenes. They already lost plenty of precious minutes on pathetic Aragorn vissions Arwen, Horse, Water, Elrond pathetic scenes (that they could have use for better, much more meaningful meeting of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Eomer and his riders (not the speedy way they did), and much better Gandalf re-appearing (that was so cool in the book, and I think it would have work amazingly on film). 

All in all, imho, the biggest flaws in movies are not skipping this and that, it's changing characters. Gandalf and Aragorn are very weak. The way some drama scenes are directed are looking very pathetic, with tons of slow motion. 
On a good side... Ian Holmes did incredible job depicting Bilbo - that something I'd called just plain PERFECT. 
Boromir was great too, and so it was Saruman. 
The rest.. Legolas? Meh... Gimli... too much fart jokes... etc


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> it's changing characters.


And this was the concern Tolkien was most disturbed by, and concerned with, with the editors taking their hand to his books as they approached publishing his work. He was quite blunt about it in fact! Yet..... well... 'nuff said.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> The Arwen itself, replacing Glorfindel is not that much issue with me. What they did later with Arwen (and Aragorn) IS an issue with me.
> The way story arc going around her and Aragorn in later scenes is making Aragorn so weak, and making Arwen not so interesting to watch.. it all become big mess to me.


I agree. The handling of Aragorn was...odd. Apparently some people think you have to shrink from duty to be viewed as "righteous" so they made Aragorn a "reluctant hero", which he wasn't in the books. Instead, I think flashbacks to Aragorn and Arwen's ACTUAL past (as written by Tolkien) would make a good set of filler, while also exposing the audience to Arwen.


d4rk3lf said:


> Yeah, IMHO Tom Bombandil shouldn't have been even in the LOTR books (but who am I to oppose Tolkien), and he always seems to me way more suitable for Hobbit book, then for LOTR, that is much darker in it's tone.


lol Well, LotR did START as more lighthearted so he might be a holdover from that.


d4rk3lf said:


> What they did with Faramir is a disgrace. I think you're wrong if you think it's because they wanted to move Shelob scenes. They already lost plenty of precious minutes on pathetic Aragorn vissions Arwen, Horse, Water, Elrond pathetic scenes (that they could have use for better, much more meaningful meeting of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Eomer and his riders (not the speedy way they did), and much better Gandalf re-appearing (that was so cool in the book, and I think it would have work amazingly on film).


Yeah...Elrond got dragged into that whole mess with Aragorn and Arwen in the films. Really made Elrond look petty and vindictive. Elrond helped to raise Aragorn; he had no issue with him. All he wanted was for his daughter to marry an Aragorn that had lived up to his duty.


d4rk3lf said:


> All in all, imho, the biggest flaws in movies are not skipping this and that, it's changing characters. Gandalf and Aragorn are very weak. The way some drama scenes are directed are looking very pathetic, with tons of slow motion.


Oh jeez, when Gandalf lost to the Witch-King during the Battle of Pelennor Fields was so cringy. WHY? PJ has such a in-born desire to create conflict where it isn't needed.


d4rk3lf said:


> On a good side... Ian Holmes did incredible job depicting Bilbo - that something I'd called just plain PERFECT.
> Boromir was great too, and so it was Saruman.
> The rest.. Legolas? Meh... Gimli... too much fart jokes... etc


Yeah...they sucked the dignity out of Gimli.
As far as Saruman, it's hard to make Christopher Lee bad.



The Enting said:


> And this was the concern Tolkien was most disturbed by, and concerned with, with the editors taking their hand to his books as they approached publishing his work. He was quite blunt about it in fact! Yet..... well... 'nuff said.


I can only imagine how he'd feel about the absolute butchering of Galadriel in RoP. She's completely unrecognizable.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

Yes, it becomes ever more intriguing as time goes on, doesn't it sir @ZehnWaters. With many of the characters.
As each new 'unfolding of departures from the writing' blossoms through the years, we more and more have to ask questions.

"Boy, isn't that Galadriel great?" says a budding new 'tolkien fan'. 
"Well...which Galadriel?" the one who has known Tolkien for some time must ask. We now have at least 3.

"Wow, wasn't that broken Anduril neat in LoTR" says a 'tolkien fan'.
"Well...which Anduril, the one broken in two pieces like Tolkien's book, or the one broken into a bunch of pieces like PJs" the Tolkien fan must ask.

"Wow, what about that Radaghast in The Hobbit? I'd like to have seen more of him" says a 'tolkien fan'.
"Well... hang on a minute, I'll be back. I need to throw up" says the Tolkien fan.

I could go on... we could compare all the characters from all the prroductions if wish, but... it's likely not necessary.
Unfortunately as RoP progresses, I fear we will be increasing the list of "characters needing to be identified before they can be discussed" by a fair amount yet.

That's why I continue to enjoy it for what it is, rather than be disgruntled by what it is not.
But it's also why I will continue to watch it. 
As 'tolkien fans' talk about 'tolkien' I really want to be prepared so I can instead talk to them about Tolkien, aware of where their misunderstandings are coming from..


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> I agree. The handling of Aragorn was...odd.


Aragorn from the books: Anyone denying me my right to rule Gondor can taste my sword. Sure, I can wait until the time is right, but at the end, I will come and claim it!
Aragorn from the movie: Kmeeeee (crying) I am not worthy to be king.. I am not worthy of you either Arwen.. I am not worthy to be your friend Gandalf.. I am not worthy to live....



ZehnWaters said:


> lol Well, LotR did START as more lighthearted so he might be a holdover from that.


Hehe.. well.. remember that Gandalf told Frodo that news he brings are better to be told in the morning.
That was already pretty dark (but amazing) atmosphere to me, right from the start. Then we had some interaction with Black Riders, before they stumble into Tom. But Ok.. I am not bored with Tom. He is funny somehow.  



ZehnWaters said:


> Yeah...Elrond got dragged into that whole mess with Aragorn and Arwen in the films.


Even before that, remember when Elrond start lecturing, and arguing (and yelling) to Gandalf that they can not fight both Isengard and Mordor?
This is when the movie lost much of middle earth Tolkien magic for me.
Tolkien characters don't act like that.
Elrond is not some selfish arogant fool, that just want ring out of Rivendell (like PJ wants us to believe it), but a smart ruler that.
Even more then that, Gandalf would not allow anyone to yell at him in that stupid way, and he would rhetorically burr it into the ground. 



ZehnWaters said:


> Oh jeez, when Gandalf lost to the Witch-King during the Battle of Pelennor Fields was so cringy.


Well, even at the very beggining of the movie when Gandalf twice hit his head on hobbit ceilings.
Was that really necessary? Was it supposed to be funny?
It wasn't funny to me. 



ZehnWaters said:


> As far as Saruman, it's hard to make Christopher Lee bad.


I often ask myself, how the movies would look like if Ian and Christopher switched the roles. 
Christopher is so good actor, and so strong charisma, that even PJ decisions couldn't make him look too much weaker.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Aragorn from the books: Anyone denying me my right to rule Gondor can taste my sword. Sure, I can wait until the time is right, but at the end, I will come and claim it!



Indeed.
Aragorn is aware of his strength and right regarding the palantir and its danger as well, to support your point..
"Dangerous indeed, but not to all,’ said Aragorn. ‘There is one who may claim it by right." (talking to Gandalf about the Orthanxc stone, after Pippin's failure.) This is certainly not the Aragorn of PJ..!

Later even Gandalf intimates he might be hard put to it with the stone, as he's talking to Pippin:
"How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dûr that, if any save a will of adamant now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither? And how it draws one to itself! Have I not felt it? Even now my heart desires to test my will upon it, to see if I could not wrench it from him and turn it where I would."

Aragorn is _certain_ of his right, where Gandalf himself has none, and is not certain of his own power with regard to it...! 

After all, Saruman had certainly failed. (But then...Saruman was already somewhat corrupted, too, and all Sauron needed to offer him was power and position.)

Anyway, a comparison of the Tolkien of Tolkien with the 'tolkien' of others is just no comparison at all. 

It's kind of like comparing Godzilla with a gecko.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> Yes, it becomes ever more intriguing as time goes on, doesn't it sir @ZehnWaters. With many of the characters.
> As each new 'unfolding of departures from the writing' blossoms through the years, we more and more have to ask questions.


Oh, true. I don't like "gatekeeping" in general but I also get frustrated when a lack of it leads to a weakening of the IP. :/ it's a tough spot to be in.


The Enting said:


> "Wow, wasn't that broken Anduril neat in LoTR" says a 'tolkien fan'.
> "Well...which Anduril, the one broken in two pieces like Tolkien's book, or the one broken into a bunch of pieces like PJs" the Tolkien fan must ask.


Or when it was reforged.


The Enting said:


> "Wow, what about that Radaghast in The Hobbit? I'd like to have seen more of him" says a 'tolkien fan'.
> "Well... hang on a minute, I'll be back. I need to throw up" says the Tolkien fan.


lol I think I'm most upset by the fact that it's led to a decrease in fan depictions. This isn't as big of a problem for mainstream characters as for obscure ones. The only depictions of Radagast I like are attached below. Tolkien does describe him (in NoME) as having "[a] short, curling, light brown" beard.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Sep 28, 2022)

I agree that there could be some changes considered 'good', yet all the more I appreciate all the things about Tolkien's works, including the things that I would never have written myself.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> Later even Gandalf intimates he might be hard put to it with the stone, as he's talking to Pippin:
> "How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dûr that, if any save a will of adamant now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither? And how it draws one to itself! Have I not felt it? Even now my heart desires to test my will upon it, to see if I could not wrench it from him and turn it where I would."


One of my most favorite part in the books, when Gandalf explain that to Pipin while riding on Shadowfax.  
I agree with your point about having "right" to use the Palantir, but I just had a thought, there's actually huge difference in the way Aragorn and Gandalf could use the Palantir. 
Aragorn could use it (and he eventually did) to intimidate Sauron, so Sauron act hasty. 
Gandalf ambition, and intention (and passion for all living beings (even Sauron)) are far more higher... he wanted to remind Sauron of earlier days, glory and light, he might even wanted to remind him of the Ainulindalë events. He wanted to show Sauron (through all these images from the past) that if he repent, even now, it's not too late. Of course, Gandalf admits to Pipin that's actually good he didn't tried that, because he would lack the strength to do it. Yet, with this Gandalf monologue we see how this crazy strong and smart character have so much compassion in himself, that he hopes to turn around the most evil being in middle earth. 
That's at least how I understand the whole thing.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> That's at least how I understand the whole thing.



And you could be right. 
I didn't take it that way though personally, only because as I read it it seemed to me Gandalf was referring to himself when he talked about wresting it from Sauron's control and turning it here and there to "see..." all those things again. 

Didn't strike me as him wanting to kind of 'take Sauron's vision along with him.'

I've always felt that Gandalf never had or demonstrated any hope that Sauron could be returned to grace... only eliminated from the playing field.

I'll re-read the section again. Maybe I've missed a good subtle point in it.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

Could Aragorn drive Sauron through previous events? 
No way. 
He could just oppose him in military way. 
So, Gandalf way with Palantirs are not to be mixed with Aragorns... it's just... two worlds... two dimensions...


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Could Aragorn drive Sauron through previous events?


No. But he could wrench the palantir from Sauron's control and use it for his own purposes.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> So, Gandalf way with Palantirs are not to be mixed with Aragorns


True. But the palantir regardless is a 'seeing stone', the user being able to 'see things at a distance'.
What things are seen is entirely up to the 'user' - unless someone is dominating it, as Sauron could with Denethor II and Saruman.

I just need to check on what exactly Gandalf was meaning when he talked about what he'd like to be able to do with it if he could wrest it to his will. 
I hadn't seen your angle on Gandalf's motivations, especially with regard to Sauron.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> Didn't strike me as him wanting to kind of 'take Sauron's vision along with him.'
> I've always felt that Gandalf never had or demonstrated any hope that Sauron could be returned to grace... only eliminated from the playing field.


So, here's the full quote:
"Even now my heart desires to test my will upon it, to see if I could not wrench it from him and turn it where I would-to look across the wide seas of water and of time to Tirion the Fair, and perceive the unimaginable hand and mind of Fëanor at their work, while both the White Tree and the Golden were in flower!"...

So... why he would try to turn Sauron attention to the past, unless he wanted to show him he is redeemable? 
If he just wanted to turn around Sauron will out of Frodo.. Gandalf already did it, and without any Palantir, some time before that. 
This is why I think this was a honest Gandalf intention, and his wisdom afterwards, where he realized, thata even if he tried that, it wouldn't be successifull. 

But it was itching Gandalf.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> wrench it from him


this does not imply Gandalf is going to 'take Sauron's gaze along with him' to me.



d4rk3lf said:


> turn it where I would-to look across the wide seas of water and of time to Tirion the Fair,


this suggests to me Gandalf is wanting to turn it where HE wants to look... into the past. No reference to Sauron 'being with him' as he looks. 




d4rk3lf said:


> so... why he would try to turn Sauron attention to the past,


I don't see an implication there that he IS trying to turn Sauron's attention to the past. He is talking about he himself looking to the past.

I think that's where we differ on this.... I don't feel Gandalf is making any reference to 'bringing Sauron's gaze along with him.'


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> I think that's where we differ on this.... I don't feel Gandalf is making any reference to 'bringing Sauron's gaze along with him.'


Oh wow. 
So your explanation to this is: 
Gandalf takes the Palantir: 
Sauron: I am here.... 
Gandalf: Begone! I don't care of you, and just wanted to remind myself how cool was in Valinor. 
Sauron: Can I peak at least a little? 
Gandalf. Are you stupid or what? Be patient, Soon, some person will contact you, his name is Aragorn. 
Sauron: Araborn? 
Gandalf: Sight... now you ruined everything. 
Sauron; Sorry bro... how can I recognize this Aradurn? Black haired, Blonde? Red? Who is he anyway? 
Gandalf left the channel.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> Aragorn is _certain_ of his right, where Gandalf himself has none, and is not certain of his own power with regard to it...!


"Ownership" and "the right" to something seem to play a role. Even Tolkien has said so when explaining how Aragorn COULDN'T take the Ring. He brought up how the Palantír was a different story. The Palantír BELONGED to Aragorn. He was also aided by his physical distance from Sauron..


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> True. But the palantir regardless is a 'seeing stone', the user being able to 'see things at a distance'.


lol It literally translates to Television. Or Fernseher, in German.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> seem to play a role


exactly.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Oh wow.
> So your explanation to this is:
> Gandalf takes the Palantir:
> Sauron: I am here....
> ...


Yes. Gandalf wishes to take control of that Palantír FROM Sauron. Gandalf makes no mention about controlling where Sauron looks with Sauron's Palantír.


----------



## Ent (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Gandalf: Begone! I don't care of you



Yes, it is just a little hard for me to respond to yours, because I'm not sure what I'm trying to say is coming across somehow.....

But principally, what you say that I've copied just above, is exactly it.

When Gandalf wrests the Orthanc Stone from Sauron's control, indeed he intends to say "begone, foul Sauron. You no longer control this stone. I will use it for purposes of my own and you will no longer have control over it - or the person who is using it." 

The whole point is, Sauron, through his stone, had captured control of both the Orthanc stone, and Denethor's stone in Gondor, and would not allow them to be used for anything other than what Sauron wanted the people he'd entrapped by them to see.

This is in no way Gandalf's purpose. Gandalf wants to use it for better purposes - among those, is some reminder of the 'better days" of old... knowing that even greater days were still ahead, yet to come.

Same as Aragorn's purpose. He had the right to wrest control of the stone from Sauron, and put it to whatever purposes he wished. 
Yes, he would make himself known to Sauron in the process, which would help unsettle Sauron... but once he'd grabbed control, he could turn it to whatever purposes he wanted.

I just don't think Gandalf had any plans or thoughts about trying to help Sauron see anything and try a reformation project with him at all. Gandalf was just musing on the great things the Stone could do, once it was freed from Sauron's control.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

The Enting said:


> The whole point is, Sauron, through his stone, had captured control of both the Orthanc stone, and Denethor's stone in Gondor, and would not allow them to be used for anything other than what Sauron wanted the people he'd entrapped by them to see.


Sauron using the Minas Ithil stone.


The Enting said:


> This is in no way Gandalf's purpose. Gandalf wants to use it for better purposes - among those, is some reminder of the 'better days" of old... knowing that even greater days were still ahead, yet to come.


Yes. Sauron was using his stone (the Minas Ithil stone, which he'd captured) to direct where people using OTHER stones were looking. Apparently the Palantíri were connected to a kind of network and could communicate with one another. Those accessing that network could control where others in the network looked if they had sufficient strength of will. Sauron had that strength of will. Unfortunately for him, Aragorn also had a strong will AND the right to stones (all of them) so he was able to take back control of the Orthanc stone and use it to look where he wanted. Gandalf would have tried to seize control of the Orthanc stone to look where he (Gandalf) wanted, but he had no intention of seizing control of the Minas Ithil stone to make Sauron look where he (Gandalf) wanted.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Yes. Gandalf wishes to take control of that Palantír FROM Sauron. Gandalf makes no mention about controlling where Sauron looks with Sauron's Palantír.





The Enting said:


> When Gandalf wrests the Orthanc Stone from Sauron's control, indeed he intends to say "begone, foul Sauron. You no longer control this stone. I will use it for purposes of my own and you will no longer have control over it - or the person who is using it."
> The whole point is, Sauron, through his stone, had captured control of both the Orthanc stone, and Denethor's stone in Gondor, and would not allow them to be used for anything other than what Sauron wanted the people he'd entrapped by them to see.


Oh Wow! 
Very interesting! 

First of all I apologize because of my poor English, and because I am a little bit drunk (that won't make my English better  ) 

Believe me my friends, I never even thought of these theories, and it's very refreshing (yet, I must admit not very convenient (yet) for me). 
And I'll tell you why not, right away. 
Where do you ever heard that Sauron by influencing Saruman and Denethor had control over the Palantirs themselves?
It's not the Palantir who is posseted, it's the minds who use it, Palantir is a tool, Powerful tool, but just a tool. 
Where do you ever heard that anyone could have control over Palantir in a way that no one else could use it? 
Or in a sense: "this Palantir, must be free of Sauron control before it can be used again". 
I don't remember I read a single sentence about something like that in all Tolkien writing I read so far (please, prove me wrong). 
-----------
My friends, even much greater things like the great rings, or the silymarins didn't had that "permanent master" in it's core. 
Whoever got them, it got them and could use them. 
Beren didn't need to crush Morgoth power under Silmaril before he took it and run away. 
It's just not the way it works in Tolkien world, imho. 

Ok sure, Aragorn have certain ownership rights over the Palantir, and that gave him very high push (yet just about barely enough to challenge Sauron for a short term), but I still don't see any connection with literal ownership of the Palantir's.


----------



## Deimos (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> The problem is less the point of why Glorfindel couldn't go. The problem is movies have to have an "economy of characters". You simply can't have a cast of thousands, all thrown at the audience in a matter of even 3 hours, especially if those characters never show up again.


Oh my..... I think Cecil B. DeMille would have had a quibble or two about that... 😁


----------



## Halasían (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Who replaces Glorfindel? Legolas, Arwen, and Elrond are the only elves in Rivendell who appear later in the story.


Have you read the books? Namely, the chapter 'Passing of the Grey Company'? There are a couple of guys... twins... whose sister is Arwen... who make a detailed appearance in the chapter and have an in-depth discussion with Aragorn.

I have made a post about what I would have done with the lotR screenplay as far as changes, both adds and cuts. I'll have to go hunt it down and repost it. Quite enjoying reading this thread. Thanks Zehn for this discussion!



The Enting said:


> Indeed.
> Aragorn is aware of his strength and right regarding the palantir and its danger as well, to support your point..
> "Dangerous indeed, but not to all,’ said Aragorn. ‘There is one who may claim it by right." (talking to Gandalf about the Orthanxc stone, after Pippin's failure.) This is certainly not the Aragorn of PJ..!


With the emasculation of Aragorn's backstory in the PJ adaptation, he totally blew the Aragorn/Palantir scene.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Oh Wow!
> Very interesting!
> 
> First of all I apologize because of my poor English, and because I am a little bit drunk (that won't make my English better  )


No worries. Language barriers are a pain. 😅


d4rk3lf said:


> Believe me my friends, I never even thought of these theories, and it's very refreshing (yet, I must admit not very convenient (yet) for me).
> And I'll tell you why not, right away.
> Where do you ever heard that Sauron by influencing Saruman and Denethor had control over the Palantirs themselves?
> It's not the Palantir who is posseted, it's the minds who use it, Palantir is a tool, Powerful tool, but just a tool.
> ...


To be honest I don't remember. But it's talked about somewhere. I think the Unfinished Tales.


d4rk3lf said:


> -----------
> My friends, even much greater things like the great rings, or the silymarins didn't had that "permanent master" in it's core.
> Whoever got them, it got them and could use them.
> Beren didn't need to crush Morgoth power under Silmaril before he took it and run away.
> ...


I think the Great Rings (save the One) were supposed to used by anyone. The Silmarils have no use.



Deimos said:


> Oh my..... I think Cecil B. DeMille would have had a quibble or two about that... 😁


Okay, not all of them had NAMES though.


Halasían said:


> Have you read the books? Namely, the chapter 'Passing of the Grey Company'? There are a couple of guys... twins... whose sister is Arwen... who make a detailed appearance in the chapter and have an in-depth discussion with Aragorn.
> 
> I have made a post about what I would have done with the lotR screenplay as far as changes, both adds and cuts. I'll have to go hunt it down and repost it. Quite enjoying reading this thread. Thanks Zehn for this discussion!


Oh, the Twins. Thank you. Their relation to Elrond AND Arwen would make them much easier to integrate. Thank you. I'll need to look up that old post.


Halasían said:


> With the emasculation of Aragorn's backstory in the PJ adaptation, he totally blew the Aragorn/Palantir scene.


Yeah. He basically fails that test. It STARTED alright. He was trying to psych out Sauron.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Sep 28, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Yeah. He basically fails that test. It STARTED alright. He was trying to psych out Sauron.


The non-extended edition, though. That - when Aragorn touched the Palantir - it burned him and he collapsed to the floor, until Gandalf took it from him. That was embarrassing.


d4rk3lf said:


> Well, even at the very beggining of the movie when Gandalf twice hit his head on hobbit ceilings.
> Was that really necessary? Was it supposed to be funny?
> It wasn't funny to me.


I think that was an accident by Ian McKellen, but he acted through it so well, they decided to keep it.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 28, 2022)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> The non-extended edition, though. That - when Aragorn touched the Palantir - it burned him and he collapsed to the floor, until Gandalf took it from him. That was embarrassing.


Oh, I just assumed that was because he was unprepared and Sauron was already exerting control over the stone.


Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> I think that was an accident by Ian McKellen, but he acted through it so well, they decided to keep it.


I thought it worked. Emphasized the size difference.


----------



## Ent (Sep 29, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> Where do you ever heard that Sauron by influencing Saruman and Denethor had control over the Palantirs themselves?
> It's not the Palantir who is posseted, it's the minds who use it, Palantir is a tool, Powerful tool, but just a tool.



You are absolutely right on track here considering the role and action of the Palantir itself. I do think it's explained in LoTR actually. Let's put a few pieces together.
In talking to Pippin, these things are said:

Pippin: ‘Then it was not made, not made’ – Pippin hesitated – ‘by the Enemy?’
Gandalf: ‘No,’ said Gandalf. ‘Nor by Saruman. It is beyond his art, and beyond Sauron’s too. The palantíri came from beyond Westernesse, from Eldamar. The Noldor made them. Fëanor himself, maybe, wrought them, in days so long ago that the time cannot be measured in years. *But there is nothing that Sauron cannot turn to evil uses.*

This statement alone indicates Sauron and his black arts could control the Stones to some degree.

Then we have:
Pippin: "‘What did the Men of old use them for?’
Gandalf: "‘To see far off, and to converse in thought with one another,’ said Gandalf. ‘In that way they long guarded and united the realm of Gondor. They set up Stones at Minas Anor, and at Minas Ithil, and at Orthanc in the ring of Isengard.
. "Each palantír replied to each, but all those in Gondor were ever open to the view of Osgiliath. Now it appears that, as the rock of Orthanc has withstood the storms of time, so there *the palantír of that tower* has remained. But *alone* it could do nothing but see *small images of things far off and days remote*. Very useful, no doubt, that was to Saruman; yet it seems that he was not content. Further and further abroad he gazed, until he cast his gaze upon Barad-dûr. Then he was caught!"

What was he caught by? By Sauron. Did the Stone catch him? No. But once he had gazed at Barad-Dur and encountered Sauron and his power and deceit, he was trapped.

Gandalf: "‘Easy it is now to guess *how quickly the roving eye of Saruman was trapped and held;* and how ever since he has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve. The biter bit, the hawk under the eagle’s foot, the spider in a steel web! How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dûr that, *if any save a will of adamant now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither?*"

Sauron's ability to "turn anything to his own evil uses" meant in this case that he had been able to insure somehow, anyone looking into the Orthanc Stone was revealed to him. And only a "will of adamant" could turn it anywhere else at this point.

This was the challenge Gandalf wasn't sure he was up to, and even if he was, it was "not yet the time" for him to reveal himself to Sauron, even if he could wrest the stone away from its immediate looking toward Barad-dûr and Sauron.

Did "the stone" itself do the entrapping etc.? No, but Sauron's power was able to direct its gase.

And when Gandalf told Pippin he wanted to use it to see the things he talked of... it was just turning it back to what the Orthanc Stone's original purposes which were: "to see *small images of things far off and days remote.*"

And we have much the same with Denethor II."

Gandalf says, talking about Denethor's palantir: ‘Though the Stewards deemed that it was a secret kept only by themselves, long ago I guessed that here in the White Tower, one at least of the Seven Seeing Stones was preserved. In the days of his wisdom Denethor would not presume to use it to challenge Sauron, knowing the limits of his own strength. But his wisdom failed; and I fear that as the peril of his realm grew he looked in the Stone and was deceived: far too often, I guess, since Boromir departed. He was too great to be subdued to the will of the Dark Power, he saw nonetheless *only those things which that Power permitted him to see*. The knowledge which he obtained was, doubtless, often of service to him; yet the vision of the great might of Mordor that was shown to him fed the despair of his heart until it overthrew his mind.’


So the control Sauron exerted over the stones is very similar. He controlled what they could show - what could be seen.

Sauron, through his own stone, had mastered WHERE the Orthanc Stone could look - only directly to Barad-dur - in other words "what it would allow to be seen" - and thus he could entrap/corrupt/deceive the user.

And Sauron through his own stone, had mastered control of what Denethor's stone would show, And though Denethor was 'too powerful' to be subdued, he was still limited in what he could see, and was thus deceived and overthrown.

Note: Saruman was also "too powerful to be subdued" - he still had designs of his own for rule and such. But he was, like Denethor, trapped and deceived, and overthrown, and could only be directed through the stone to Sauron and his further wiles.

I don't know if this helps anything, but it's clear that Sauron DID have control over the palantirs and what they would show to the users.

Yes, the Palantirs are "just a tool" - but a corrupted one under the arts of Sauron that only a "will of adamant" could wrench out of his control again and turn back to their original purposes.


----------



## Halasían (Oct 9, 2022)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> The non-extended edition, though. That - when Aragorn touched the Palantir - it burned him and he collapsed to the floor, until Gandalf took it from him. That was embarrassing.
> 
> I think that was an accident by Ian McKellen, but he acted through it so well, they decided to keep it.


I forget the original theatre edit as ever since I got the EE DVDs, I haven't watched the original since my last viewing in 2003. It was quite embarrassing. Much like a lot of the Peter Jackson 'adaptation', it totally spat in the face of the original book story. Read the whole passage of Aragorn taking the Palantir and taking on Sauron through it at Helms Deep, then watch either edit of the film. Aragorn is totally someone else.


----------



## Radaghast (Oct 9, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> I know many of us have issues with the changes made by Peter Jackson (perfectly valid) but films ARE a different medium and simply HAVE to experience changes. For instance, Glorfindel shows up for one or two scenes and then is gone for the entire rest of the story. You can't do that in a film. Tom Bombadil slows the story town to a crawl. You can't do that in a film either. So what changes WOULD you have made?


I'm sure it's been done in film plenty. Not saying I don't disagree with Arwen replacing Glorfindel, but there's no reason Glorfindel couldn't have worked. Anyway, my main beef here is that Frodo is given absolutely nothing to do in the scene. Which goes _directly_ against the source and the whole point of Frodo being the Ring-bearer.


ZehnWaters said:


> Tom Bombadil's removal was a good choice but it leaves us with the question of how we work back in the Barrow-Blades. In the film Aragorn just passes out swords but there's nothing made of it. Could a few short lines by him have rectified this?


Tom would've been tricky but I think some arrangement should have been made for the Barrow-downs as it contains another important Frodo scene. Then again, since the movies downplay or utterly eliminate Frodo's bravery, I guess the scene's omission is just par for the course.



ZehnWaters said:


> The choice to have Faramir try to take the Ring to Minas Tirith was horrible but it's removal leaves us with much less content for Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. We could shift the Shelob scene to TTT (where it happens in the book). For the films PJ seems to have wanted to move it to align with when events happen with the others (according to the timeline) but this isn't as necessary as he seems to think.


I'm not sure why removing content is a bad thing here. Shifting the Shelob scene would be hard, though, because of the timeline. I think the films should probably have followed the structure of the book, i.e. break up _The Two Towers_ and _The Return of the King_ into narrative halves.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 9, 2022)

Radaghast said:


> I think the films should probably have followed the structure of the book, i.e. break up _The Two Towers_ and _The Return of the King_ into narrative halves.


This is one point where I disagree. For people not having read the book, basically viewing two 80-plus minute long films (probably with an intermission) would have been very confusing. Switching back and forth between events very far apart geographically, but taking place at approximately the same time, is much easier for a film audience to follow. While Tom Shippey considers the technique of "interlace" as used by JRRT to be a strong point for the book, I'm fairly certain this would probably never work in any film - unless PJ had decided to make six shorter films corresponding to the six *books* into which JRRT divided LoTR, the three *volumes* having been necessitated by limitations his publishers had to take into account in the England of the mid-1950s.


----------



## Radaghast (Oct 9, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> This is one point where I disagree. For people not having read the book, basically viewing two 80-plus minute long films (probably with an intermission) would have been very confusing. Switching back and forth between events very far apart geographically, but taking place at approximately the same time, is much easier for a film audience to follow. While Tom Shippey considers the technique of "interlace" as used by JRRT to be a strong point for the book, I'm fairly certain this would probably never work in any film - unless PJ had decided to make six shorter films corresponding to the six *books* into which JRRT divided LoTR, the three *volumes* having been necessitated by limitations his publishers had to take into account in the England of the mid-1950s.


Generally, I agree, and I would agree here if the films' approach didn't relegate the Mouth of Sauron scene, which is a very important one (at least from a dramatic viewpoint), to extended editions. Also, I think focusing on each 'splinter' of the Fellowship for a good portion of a film would perhaps also enhance tension.

Someone on a site called forumshire.com made their own edit which I'm unable to find but I think it follows the book structure.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 9, 2022)

Radaghast said:


> Also, I think focusing on each 'splinter' of the Fellowship for a good portion of a film would perhaps also enhance tension.


Well, yes - if PJ had made six shorter films corresponding (roughly) to JRRT's personal division into six "books".
You'd have the cliff-hanger of Sam outside the Tower of Cirith Ungol, with Frodo captured ...
I'm also thinking of the fact that so many people have mentioned watching the films multiple times in the cinema. That's kind of like so many people have read the book multiple times. Gets what's happened more firmly lodged in memory. Then it's OK to switch to a different "book" = shorter film (say 1 hour 45 minutes each - gives more running time in total). It's doing it in a single 2 hours 45 minutes film before / after intermission is what I'd consider asking too much of an audience unfamiliar with the book - probably the majority of viewers.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Oct 9, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> This is one point where I disagree. For people not having read the book, basically viewing two 80-plus minute long films (probably with an intermission) would have been very confusing. Switching back and forth between events very far apart geographically, but taking place at approximately the same time, is much easier for a film audience to follow. While Tom Shippey considers the technique of "interlace" as used by JRRT to be a strong point for the book, I'm fairly certain this would probably never work in any film - unless PJ had decided to make six shorter films corresponding to the six *books* into which JRRT divided LoTR, the three *volumes* having been necessitated by limitations his publishers had to take into account in the England of the mid-1950s.


It might have worked as a miniseries on a streaming service. They tend to be able to get away with more than movies.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 9, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> It might have worked as a miniseries on a streaming service. They tend to be able to get away with more than movies.


*Streaming???* 

Don't forget, we're talking about films that premiered in late 2001, 2002 and 2003.
In the thread below you mention you were a Junior in high school back then:









What do you remember about your first reading of the LOTR?


Back in 2002, I was 5 years old and I already became a LOTR fan (yet, I weren't aware of Tolkien at all); despite my age, I began to read the 70's Spanish edition of the Return of the King, they were my mother's book, she had read the books in her teenages. Whatever, I remember that I didn't...




www.thetolkienforum.com





How much internet of any kind were you doing then? 😁 If you trawl through early threads here, you'll find talk of such "stone age" technology like modems - the kind you hat to put the telephone receiver on - and the right way around too!

Game of Thrones, probably a major reason for Amazon - or their boss Bozos - wanting to do RoP, premiered on HBO, regular TV, in 2011.
While YouTube was founded in 2005, the technology it used would probably be woefully inadequate for today's film streaming needs.
And hefty competition, apparently sometimes referred to as the "streaming wars" only commenced in 2019 ...


----------



## ZehnWaters (Oct 9, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> *Streaming???*
> 
> Don't forget, we're talking about films that premiered in late 2001, 2002 and 2003.
> In the thread below you mention you were a Junior in high school back then:
> ...


lol I didn't mean Peter Jackson could have done it that way back then, only that such a change could be implemented in an adaptation now. Though I suppose I'd framed this post as discussing the former.


----------



## Eljorahir (Oct 9, 2022)

Instead of praising the Hobbits with the "you bow to no one" scene in Minas Tirith, I'd have liked to have seen this depicted in the film (from the chapter, "The Field of Cormallen"):

After Sam recovers, he and Frodo are led out toward the Field of Cormallen...

_*"As they came to the opening in the wood, they were surprised to see knights in bright mail and tall guards in silver and black standing there, who greeted them with honour and bowed before them. And then one blew a long trumpet, and they went on through the aisle of trees beside the singing stream. So they came to a wide green land, and beyond it was a broad river in a silver haze, out of which rose a long wooded isle, and many ships lay by its shores. But on the field where they now stood a great host was drawn up, in ranks and companies glittering in the sun. And as the Hobbits approached swords were unsheathed, and spears were shaken, and horns and trumpets sang, and men cried with many voices and in many tongues. 'Long live the Halflings! Praise them with great praise! ...'"*_

In the movies, it was certainly nice that all four hobbits were honored with the crowd bowing to them after Aragorn's coronation. However, I feel like Frodo and Sam deserved the special honor, as written. Also, the visuals would have made it an awesome scene.


----------



## Child of Varda (Monday at 5:47 PM)

I do wish Tom Bombadil had been kept, but I see why he would be difficult to adapt with that time frame. I actually had a few problems with Galadriel as well—she felt a bit _too_ ethereal, not to say she isn't in the book, but that is just one side of her, and I found it made her creepy. I have the feeling that with Bombadil, we would only end up seeing one side of him as well and that is… that LOTR is a musical now. So, if it were adapted into a tv show or something, I would be in favor of Tom Bombadil. Here, however, it might be a mistake to include him with Jackson's time frame.
Another one that felt reasonable was the changing of Éomer's role in the place of Erkenbrand, in order to simplify things for the screen. The first time I read it, I was slightly confused, so in such a short movie (relatively to the book), I imagine I would be doubly so.
Omitting the Scouring of the Shire was unfortunate, but I see why it was useful for time.
The worst ones, in my opinion, were changes to Frodo and Faramir, which significantly weakened both of them. Aragorn also felt too at odds with his book counterpart, more so than I think an adaptation can fairly do. I think they would be better off trying to keep the characters the same. I also wished they had kept the Conspiracy in some fashion, as it establishes much better first impressions for Merry and Pippin. If the 1978 version, working with a much smaller time frame, could do it, so could Peter Jackson's.


----------



## Findekano_Astaldo (Yesterday at 11:13 PM)

As much as I do love the books, cinematically (and I’m not expert by far) I think removing Old Man Willow was probably one of those acceptable changes. It’s almost a prelude to Fangorn, and if they had kept that in there-it may have seemed repeated to have more, well, animated trees. (As much as we love that).

Tom Bombadil-wise, I really enjoyed his and Goldberry’s characters, however, adding their characters would have again already lengthened a decently lengthened film. And while that may be cause for some to say “these films shouldn’t have been created” or that they’re simply bad, with the inclusion of Tom Bombadil, we most likely have the barrow-wights and by extension-definitely Old Man Willow-which would add a solid chunk of time and he most likely wouldn’t have made another appearance, so as saddening as it might seem, I feel that the choices made were to overall make it into a more digestible film (which does indeed stray from Tolkien but made it accessible as a different form of fantasy entertainment).


— I just looked at the question again and it included what changes we would have made so to add to my already lengthy post 😬

I think I would have (although this makes it sooooooo much longer) loved to see the scouring of the shire. It’s a sad-but very important- ending to the book I think. That really, returning home, things aren’t going to be as they were left; especially not in a shifting of the ages like that. It also gave the four hobbits the time to use the skills they had gained to rally behind their homeland. But for that we would have needed an 
-Alive Saruman
-Probably that scene where the Company (+ Galadriel and Elrond I believe) come across him 
-and at least another solid hour and half (?) 
But I do feel that was an important moment in the story for them.


----------

