# Constructing Film-version Middle-Earth



## ZehnWaters (Aug 28, 2021)

What setting differences can you think of in the film version of Middle-Earth (for both The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings)? It seems, for instance, that Arnor doesn't get reformed at the end of Return of the King. We know that the Scouring of the Shire didn't happen, or the healing as performed by Sam. There's no mention of Legolas and Gimli creating their colonies. Celeborn leaves with Galadriel (so no East Lorien). Mount Gundabad is apparently quickly traveled to from the Long Lake.

Are there any other setting differences you guys can think of? What sort of consequences would these have on the setting at large?


----------



## Halasían (Nov 11, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> What setting differences can you think of in the film version of Middle-Earth (for both The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings)? It seems, for instance, that Arnor doesn't get reformed at the end of Return of the King.


It's kind of hard to 'reform' something that didn't exist in the first place according to PJ Boyens & Co. I'd start by adding Arnor to the beginning preamble and give Aragorn an actual reason to be in the north other than chasing some Elven poon instead of being King of Gondor..


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 12, 2021)

Off topic here (sorry, Zehn) but l'll repeat what I've said before: I'd eliminate the "preamble" altogether, and put the backstories in their proper places in the narrative, allowing the audience to follow Frodo in the incremental revelations of the series of mysteries he encounters.

Of course, that would mean relying on the intelligence of the audience, something that -- ahem -- _some _writer/directors seem loath to do. 😐


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 12, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Off topic here (sorry, Zehn) but l'll repeat what I've said before: I'd eliminate the "preamble" altogether, and put the backstories in their proper places in the narrative, allowing the audience to follow Frodo in the incremental revelations of the series of mysteries he encounters.
> 
> Of course, that would mean relying on the intelligence of the audience, something that -- ahem -- _some _writer/directors seem loath to do. 😐


"The audience wouldn't get it!" is the stupidest excuse. To be fair, many critics seem easily confused.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 12, 2021)

Halasían said:


> It's kind of hard to 'reform' something that didn't exist in the first place according to PJ Boyens & Co. I'd start by adding Arnor to the beginning preamble and give Aragorn an actual reason to be in the north other than chasing some Elven poon instead of being King of Gondor..


That's fair. We never even hear of Arnor, and Anarion seems to not even exist. There was no king of Gondor after Isildur (who's referred to as "the last King of Gondor") meaning the Stewards have been around for 3019 years (no wonder Denethor was so grumpy about rulership). Aragorn mentions Amon Sûl but I don't remember what he said about it beyond there having been a battle there.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 12, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> There was no king of Gondor after Isildur


I assume you're referring to the movie version here. Makes me want to watch them again even more.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 12, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I assume you're referring to the movie version here. Makes me want to them again even more.
> 
> 
> View attachment 10698


lol Yes. That's the purpose of this thread: reconstructing the film version of Middle-Earth. They make certain statements that radically change history.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 12, 2021)

First, the films then would have to be of a different sort (not that I have a clear idea what different sort) than the blockbuster genre for which they were created, as seems clear to me. Now perhaps some of our members more knowledgeable about film-making can provide details; I'm just guessing that the blockbuster genre has certain conventions, and that our wishes for more of this or that back-story, or for the Scouring of the Shire, or ... does not fit into these conventions.

But as to that back story, spread out over thousands of pages - maybe we all need to remind ourselves how many decades of reading it took us to arrive at the ability to discuss the legendarium in the detail we do - very likely numbing detail even to the millions of readers who have read LoTR, but never bothered with HoMe, perhaps not even UT or (gasp) The Sil. And never mind all the stuff that has been published in the 25 years since vol. 12 PoMe was published - NoMe only this year.

So while *we* might recognize an obscure character from the back story - oh yeah, there ol' what's-his-name (I've always had a shaky memory for names), crowding a film with such trivia (nerd trivia, even)? And especially blockbusters, as which the films were conceived, whose conventions may well frown on such fiddly stuff holding up the thrills-and-spills action.

The entirely different matter is where Boyens / Jackson / Walsh falsified the story as most would read it in JRRT's works, often, it seems, because they failed to understand, and perhaps sometimes in the utterly laughable opinion that they were better storytellers than JRRT. There's no excuse for that drivel.


----------



## Elthir (Nov 13, 2021)

I say if you can't write your name in the Mode of Beleriand
you're not allowed in the movie theater . . . for _any_ film!


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 13, 2021)

Elthir said:


> I say if you can't write your name in the Mode of Beleriand
> you're not allowed in the movie theater . . . for _any_ film!


Well, has the advantage of being able to make derogatory comments about the film shown with the other person in the film theater without disturbing anyone else - 'cause there are unlikely to be more than two of you in any film theater in the world; except of course for the one theater around the corner from where the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (Hostetter et. al.) hold their regular meetings. 😜


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 13, 2021)

I might consider attending Hostetter University. 😀


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 13, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I might consider attending Hostetter University. 😀


Hey, I can imagine Carl F. would be thrilled to have a second student attending his classes - probably the person you met in the film theater ... 😁


----------



## Halasían (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> First, the films then would have to be of a different sort (not that I have a clear idea what different sort) than the blockbuster genre for which they were created, as seems clear to me.


Contrary to what the Gandolorian says above, my tweaks mentioned above could be easily edited within the confines of the PJ Boyens & Co screenplay. What I agree with the Gandolorian on is what he says below:


Olorgando said:


> The entirely different matter is where Boyens / Jackson / Walsh falsified the story as most would read it in JRRT's works, often, it seems, because they failed to understand, and perhaps sometimes in the utterly laughable opinion that they were better storytellers than JRRT. There's no excuse for that drivel.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 15, 2021)

Halasían said:


> Contrary to what the Gandolorian says above, my tweaks mentioned above could be easily edited within the confines of the PJ Boyens & Co screenplay.


We've fantasized about what I'll call (or have called?) "book-nerd" versions of the films in several threads. My point is that the film-only set (the huge majority in the film theaters) would probably simply be puzzled, if not confused about our beloved trivia tweaks. That's not a risk any real-life filmmaker would take, I would guess.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> We've fantasized about what I'll call (or have called?) "book-nerd" versions of the films in several threads. My point is that the film-only set (the huge majority in the film theaters) would probably simply be puzzled, if not confused about our beloved trivia tweaks. That's not a risk any real-life filmmaker would take, I would guess.


To be fair, I'm not trying to tweak anything, I'm simply trying to piece together the changes made to the film version of the history and setting. They'll make changes without even realizing the implications (calling Isildur the last king of Gondor) and I'm just trying to log all of those changes and think of how the setting is now different and make a list.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 15, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> ... and I'm just trying to log all of those changes and think of how the setting is now different and make a list.


Egads! You must have one of two things in plentiful supply: miles of paper or a huge hard drive!


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Egads! You must have one of two things in plentiful supply: miles of paper or a huge hard drive!


lol a very large external hard drive, though it's technically for my YouTube videos.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 15, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> lol a very large external hard drive, though it's technically for my YouTube videos.


Hmmm. Just checked the online-catalog of my favorite computer store. The largest SSD they list holds 2 tera, the largest classical hard drive 10 tera ...


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Hmmm. Just checked the online-catalog of my favorite computer store. The largest SSD they list holds 2 tera, the largest classical hard drive 10 tera ...


As I said, it's to hold all of my videos. Should be enough.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 15, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> We never even hear of Arnor,..Aragorn mentions Amon Sûl but I don't remember what he said about it beyond there having been a battle there.


I just remembered that The Hobbit entombs the Nazgûl in "the high fells of Rhudaur". Galadriel, however, simply calls Angmar's enemies "the Men of the North". Apparently they're also powerful sorcerers since they were able to lock all of the Nazgûl into a tomb even they couldn't escape until Sauron called them. This leaves the leadership of Minas Morgul in question since ALL of the Nazgûl were entombed.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 15, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> I just remembered that The Hobbit entombs the Nazgûl in "the high fells of Rhudaur".


That "entombed Nazgûl" tripe is right up there with Frodo's "go home, Sam" on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol and PJ & Co.'s assassination of Faramir in LoTR as prime candidates for a bonfire! Burn, baby, burn! 😈 😈 😈


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> That "entombed Nazgûl" tripe is right up there with Frodo's "go home, Sam" on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol and PJ & Co.'s assassination of Faramir in LoTR as prime candidates for a bonfire! Burn, baby, burn! 😈 😈 😈


Yeah....none of those made any gosh darn sense. The Ents deciding against attacking Saruman because they apparently didn't know their flocks were being slaughtered and then just teleporting to Treebeard when he calls. I think those are the biggest issues I had. I GET sending Arwen out to get Frodo (you can't just keep introducing new characters who aren't going to be there later) but then having her return to domesticity is...jarring. I will defend removing Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire until my death, though.

As far as The Hobbit...I just have to believe it's an entirely different reality. Legolas, Tauriel, Radagast, and Gandalf seemingly teleport around Middle-Earth (or can run at hundreds of miles an hour).


----------



## Halasían (Nov 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> We've fantasized about what I'll call (or have called?) "book-nerd" versions of the films in several threads. My point is that the film-only set (the huge majority in the film theaters) would probably simply be puzzled, if not confused about our beloved trivia tweaks. That's not a risk any real-life filmmaker would take, I would guess.


I got that, and I disagree.



ZehnWaters said:


> To be fair, I'm not trying to tweak anything, I'm simply trying to piece together the changes made to the film version of the history and setting. They'll make changes without even realizing the implications (calling Isildur the last king of Gondor) and I'm just trying to log all of those changes and think of how the setting is now different and make a list.


It will make an impressive list.



ZehnWaters said:


> I will defend removing Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire until my death, though.


The Shire would make a good short on its own.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 16, 2021)

What I've got so far (note: I don't count something as not existing unless it's expressly stated or HEAVILY implied)

Pre-The Hobbit World State
No Arnor
No Dúnedain Rangers
Seemingly other rangers?
“Men of the North” seemingly powerful sorcerers (sealed Nazgûl in tombs).
Isildur last king of Gondor
Arwen an only child.
No War of the Dwarves and Orcs
No Nazgûl to occupy Minas Morgul
Gandalf doesn’t know about Necromancer prior to mission to Erebor
Aragorn turns from the path of becoming King of Gondor



Post-LotR World State
Haldir dead
Rivendell emptied
Celeborn departs
Lothlorien emptied?
No Legolas in Ithilien
No Gimli in Aglarond
No Reunited Kingdom
No Scouring of the Shire
Bag End not sold to Sackville-Bagginses


----------

