Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: PJ's Merry and Pippin

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Lord of the Rings > PJ's Merry and Pippin   << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>
[quote="Eldorion":13gjvfda] That's what I meant. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> She didn't realize that childbearing would be involved in her marriage to a King until she had her vision. [/quote:13gjvfda] I think you misunderstood my view on the matter, it's explained in my next paragraph. Actually, I should only have quoted this part: "she saw the child through some sort of foresight " and not the rest of the sentence. Here's what I wrote, in case you missed it <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> "I'm of the opinion that she always knew that a marriage with Aragorn would include a child, but that Elrond (this is why I kind of dislike move-Elrond) decieved her into believing that that future was lost forever, even though as it turned out, it wasn't." You're of course free to disagree though, I just wanted to clear it up a bit <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Fair enough. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I think both interpretations are possibly correct, so I can agree to disagree. :ugeek:
I think the problem with Arwen in PJ's version is in fact a perfect of example of what went wrong. They had an idea; lets make the love story more prominent. To this end they took Elrond and Aragorn's agreement over Arwen (that he could not marry her unless he were King) and moved it forward in time to the Council of Elrond period (I can understand that) but they also coupled this with their reluctant King idea and Arwen becomes in part his wise council. Then, as is Jackson's way, Elrond's agreement is not dramatic enough and Elrond now forbids Aragorn from marrying Arwen. So a troubled Aragorn breaks it off with Arwen by trying to give her the elfstone back, token of her love for him. She refuses to accept she's been dumped (but she has been) and Aragorn goes sadly on his way with the Fellowship. However the scene where Aragorn dumps her they shot for Two Towers. When they shot the Rivendell scenes for FotR they hadn't bothered finishing the script for TT so none of the actors knew about this dumping scene. Liv Tyler therefore plays it as it is from the book as does Viggo. Meaning the two scenes don't fit. Arwen also made it into Helm's Deep and Liv spent some time learning to fight and shooting her scenes only for them to (fortunately) realize what a terrible idea it was and bin it. The point is her character is inconsistent because they hadn't written it. And were in fact rewriting it, tampering with it right up to shooting the scenes. They seem to have done this with a lot of stuff, made it up on the fly to suit what they felt the 'moment' needed. And in doing so they got carried away and got further and further from the source.
On a related point I was thinking about the Paths of the Dead section and how making Aragorn reluctant and the changes to Arwen mean that in PJ's version his main motivation and strength for believing he will succeed in entering the Paths is that he is the rightful King. Jackson emphasis this by having Aragorn receive Anduril before hand and the fight with the King of the Dead. In the book it is a banner woven by Arwen that he receives and words. The fact he is the rightful king is not the main factor in Aragorn's belief, nor his reason for daring the Paths, although its something in his favour. But its love that sees him through it and love is why he walks as if untroubled on the Paths. Tolkien emphasis this by the arrival of Arwen's gift just prior to the entry. He does it not because he is King but because he wishes to be King and he wishes to be King because that's where Elrond set the bar for marrying Arwen. The idea to make Aragorn reluctant to be King to make his character more sympathetic is tempting, I can understand why they succumbed to it, but like all of Tolkien's work when you make one fundamental change it has lots of little repercussions I don't think they took seriously enough in their scripting.
Your points regarding Arwen are well reasoned Petty (did I just say that? :o ). But I think you are over-thinking and overstating the situation. Placing the Arwen/Aragorn love story in the body of the Central Story (instead of an appendix) was one of the best things about Jackson's films. That some of the scenes were filmed before Arwen's whole arc was fully developed really doesn't show as much as you insist it does. Aragorn's discomfort with coming between Arwen and Elrond still plays out well on-screen. Everything works very well in the context of the film, even though you think it doesn't. I don't see the discontinuity that you do. We come to understand through flashbacks that the events at Rivendell follow a timeline not overtly expressed. Aragorn and Arwen's romantic interludes are thus automatically relegated to a point in time before Aragorn takes Elrond's objections to heart. Not the same as the book I agree, but I think that is the only real objection that sticks. As far as the film is concerned, it all makes sense. [b:2gfxz2ax]GB[/b:2gfxz2ax]
"Placing the Arwen/Aragorn love story in the body of the Central Story (instead of an appendix) was one of the best things about Jackson's films." I wholly agree. It needs a bit of romance and Tolkien was a romantic fellow, he just couldn't get it to work, oddly I think the medium of film actually makes this task easier. The tale is fundamental to understanding Aragorn. But by making Aragorn reluctant I think they mess up why she is fundamental. "That some of the scenes were filmed before Arwen's whole arc was fully developed really doesn't show as much as you insist it does." Part of the problem here is that when I watch the films I watch my own edited versions. And for a while in it I had the Aragorn/Arwen scene from TT moved to its chronological place which is at Rivendell in FotR. When you see the scenes in place, next to each other the difference in Liv Tylers portrayal of Arwen is startling, so much so that I had to cut her reaction shot when the Fellowship leave Rivendell so incongruous was it with her scene immediately preceding it (the one from TT). "We come to understand through flashbacks that the events at Rivendell follow a timeline not overtly expressed. Aragorn and Arwen's romantic interludes are thus automatically relegated to a point in time before Aragorn takes Elrond's objections to heart." I'm not sure I follow this GB. The timeline for the telling of Aragorn/Arwen is largely defined in the film. It first comes up when she arrives in Glorfindel's place. Its followed up by a scene on the bridge just before the Council where she pledges her love to Aragorn and gives him the elfstone. After the Council Aragorn goes to his mothers grave, the first half of this scene (shot and in FotR) is about his reluctance to be King, the second half (shot later and in TT) is about Elrond forbidding him from having anything more to do with Arwen and insisting she takes a ship. The next installment of their tale is also in TT but is set on the morning the Fellowship leave Rivendell (they are in the background) and is where Aragorn tries to return the elfstone and tells Arwen their love was just a dream. The only scene that has no defined time clearly set is the one in Arwen's chambers (not sure if Elrond knew about that!) but from Aragorn's appearance and what is said it seems likely to have also been during the Fellowship's time at Rivendell.
It sounds like your only real objection then, is the "reaction shot" as you put it (the timeline you describe seems accurate to me, though it's not spelled out as some of the scenes are in flashback). Regardless, it still works for the most part. Even if the other scenes had been filmed prior, it is realistic, and in keeping with the rest of the films, that Arwen (knowing Aragorn's True Heart) wouldn't have let Aragorn's parting be an end to their love. Their's was a love that wouldn't be denied, and that's how it comes across on-screen. So I think Jackson handled that quite well, despite the uncertainty of how he was going to get there. [b:h839u1ik]GB[/b:h839u1ik]
I don't object to the tale being in the main film, I approve. What I object to is how it is handled. The decisions they took regarding the motivation of these characters and how they act change the nature of their love. In the book what motivates Aragorn is love. In the film PJ sets Aragorn the challenge of 'rising above all his ancestors', which he does but the only reason PJ gives for his success is basically that Aragorn's just a good bloke. But he's not just a good bloke. It's because he did not become King to take power, he became King for love. That's a fundamental message of LotR. Power corrupts, only love is a pure basis on which to seek Leadership. Elrond sets Aragorn a Herculean task as his price for Arwen's hand, so much so that Aragron compares it to Beren's task for Luthien. But PJ thinks a Herculean task is not enough and has Elrond forbid Aragorn from having anything further to do with Arwen (in my view actually less dramatic than a near impossible task). This weakens Arwen's character. In PJ's version her father more or less lies to her about the futures possibilities and she meekly leaves to go and take her ship after weeping like a teenager. PJ changes her in order to tell a story about fading hope being rekindled, and I think it is clumsily done for similar reasons to those Eldo points out in his essay.
The [i:37pbte35]initial[/i:37pbte35] character motivations in the films may be different from the books, but that is because they now have arcs, which--quite frankly--Tolkien didn't do. But Jackson's character arcs lead to the same place as Tolkien's "finished" characters (which they essentially are throughout the books). In the films, Aragorn's "reluctant King", and his love for Arwen, lead to the same place: A King-ship founded on Love and Honour, not on Personal Glory. I think you and Eldo are off the mark, though your reasoning is well-considered. Jackson handled the alterations (for character development purposes) quite smoothly and elegantly, all things considered. I think the inconsistencies you and Eldo see aren't all that apparent, even in contrast to the book, as it all leads inexorably to the same place. [b:37pbte35]GB[/b:37pbte35]
They may end up at the same place but I don't agree on your assessment of how they get there. In the films Aragorn's motivation for becoming King is a fear of failure not love. It's the fear he will succumb as Isildur did that haunts PJ's Aragorn, he fears that its the same 'blood that runs in my veins'. By removing Elrond's high demands for the marriage circumstances and instead forbidding Aragorn from seeing Arwen PJ leaves his Aragorn with only the motivation of proving himself better than his ancestor as a reason for wanting to become King. From the moment he leaves Rivendell PJ's version has no hope or expectation of ever seeing Arwen again, as far as he knows she is going to set sail and never return, so love plays no motivating role in his ascent to Kingship. Wanting to prove your better than your ancestor is not a pure reason to want to lead, it could even be said to be a form of vanity. It is open to corruption and runs against the core message Tolkien presents about power and love (paralleled in Frodo and Sam's story with their love overcoming even the power of Mordor). Given his personal connections with Aragorn/Arwen, Beren/Luthien I think this is actually one of those things that would have really annoyed Tolkien about PJ's version.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":22q22i1y]Aragorn and Arwen's romantic interludes are thus automatically relegated to a point in time before Aragorn takes Elrond's objections to heart.[/quote:22q22i1y] I agree with you, but I think that it was very unclear in the actual films. I didn't realize until listening to the writers' commentary that both scenes with Aragorn and Arwen ("this is a dream" and the break-up) were flashbacks. I had assumed that "this is a dream" was, well, a dream :P and it wasn't at all clear to me that it happened at the same time the Hobbits were in Rivendell during FOTR. I think this could have been made clearer. However, I agree with you that Aragorn and Arwen's parting shot (in FOTR) works perfectly fine. Arwen looks a little hurt and aloof, which would make sense since she was just dumped, and Aragorn looks almost regretful. It actually makes more sense in light of the TTT flashbacks.
[quote="pettytyrant101":1d48kteq]The only scene that has no defined time clearly set is the one in Arwen's chambers (not sure if Elrond knew about that!) but from Aragorn's appearance and what is said it seems likely to have also been during the Fellowship's time at Rivendell.[/quote:1d48kteq] The EE commentaries make it clear that this was while the Fellowship was at Rivendell. Arwen says at one point that Aragorn must go with Frodo, a reference to the impending departure from Rivendell.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":a0k0fzde]I think the inconsistencies you and Eldo see aren't all that apparent, even in contrast to the book, as it all leads inexorably to the same place.[/quote:a0k0fzde] Just curious about something here - are you referring to my earlier point about Arwen and her possible realization of having a child? I ask because I didn't find much of what petty's been talking about to be inconsistent while watching the films (though his posts are very thought out). I'm not sure if you're just lumping me in as a purist or if you were thinking of something specific I had said. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
"I agree with you that Aragorn and Arwen's parting shot (in FOTR) works perfectly fine. Arwen looks a little hurt and aloof, which would make sense since she was just dumped, and Aragorn looks almost regretful."-Eldo I think you are wrong on this one guys (of course!). Arwen at the parting shot is a sad little girl, the Arwen who moments earlier just got dumped isn't. Liv Tyler says somewhere on the commentaries or extras that if she had known how the character was going to be later developed she would have played Arwen entirely different in the the FotR scenes. Aragorn works in the scene only because Viggo, God bless him, has chosen to ignore PJ and the Coven and is instead trying to convey Aragorn's mood in light of what Tolkien wrote, "Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him." The fact Viggo trying to convey this sentiment happens to also work ok as Aragorn upset he dumped Arwen is pure chance. It certainly wasn't in the minds of anyone when they shot it as they hadn't made the dumping scene bit up yet. Thanks for clearing up where the scene in Arwen's chambers is time wise Eldo- I was fairly sure it was during the same Rivendell period as all the rest of the flashback stuff but as its not in my edited version I haven't seen it in a long time.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":2uqutnvl]Sorry about the "lumping" Eldo :oops: . It was based more on a comment made by Petty that suggested to me that you and he were largely in agreement on these issues. Not sure what you mean in your second sentence :? . It seems to be a little muddled to me.[/quote:2uqutnvl] I just meant that I don't think that a number of the inconsistencies petty observed were inconsistencies - or at least I didn't notice them when watching the film. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Perhaps more a comment on your observational skills then Eldo! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :lol:
No, Petty, you're still missing the point. In Jackson's version Aragorn ISN'T motivated to seek the King-ship. It is THRUST upon him, and he is forced to "Man-up" and take it. In the films he deserves it because he does what is necessary for King-Ship without desiring it. In the films he IS motivated, not by power or glory, but out of Love: Love of Freedom, Love of Middle Earth, Love of his Friends, and Love of Arwen. He didn't "dump" Arwen, he still loves her, and Arwen knows it, and he and Arwen rediscover their love magically from a distance in TTT. [b:3ifutccz]GB[/b:3ifutccz]
[quote="Eldorion":k4cemnn1][quote="Gandalfs Beard":k4cemnn1]Sorry about the "lumping" Eldo :oops: . It was based more on a comment made by Petty that suggested to me that you and he were largely in agreement on these issues. Not sure what you mean in your second sentence :? . It seems to be a little muddled to me.[/quote:k4cemnn1] I just meant that I don't think that a number of the inconsistencies petty observed were inconsistencies - or at least I didn't notice them when watching the film. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />[/quote:k4cemnn1] I agree with you then. The "inconsistencies" that Petty sees are overblown, if they even exist at all. [b:k4cemnn1]GB[/b:k4cemnn1]
What then GB would you say is Aragorn's motivation for wanting to be King in PJ's version? It can't be love because PJ's Aragorn dumps Arwen and leaves her, from his perspective never to see her again once he walks away from Rivendell. And her only other appearance from Aragorn's point of view is a couple of times he remembers the past and a dream. In fact I don't see why Aragorn in the films would not have just gone off with Eowyn. Good solid political marriage in the absence of Arwen. I get the impression Aragorn is trying to prove himself from the amount of times PJ brings the idea up, particularly in Fellowship where the theme is present throughout the Rivendell section (in almost every scene associated with Aragorn- in conversation with Arwen twice (4 times including the TT scenes from Rivendell) in the subtext of the Boromir/shards of Narsil scene, in his demeanor at the Council and when Elrond talks with Gandalf 'Men are weak' bit). I think PJ lays on quite thick the idea that Aragorn has to prove himself greater than his ancestors. As I said way back at the start of this I have sympathy for PJ on this one, Aragorn of the book is certain, determined and any of the soul searching PJ has him do, if Aragorn ever did that, it was in his youth. He's a hard hero to portray without him seeming very arrogant. So PJ tried to give him a bit more humanity, more frailty than Tolkien's original. I fully understand his reasoning on this one. But I think it could have been done as Tolkien wrote him. I personally would have favoured a telling that was more in flashback. There are places for it, Lothlorien being one, where in the book Frodo sees a vision of Aragorn as he was on the day he betroths his love for Arwen (a scene sort of reworked by PJ and put in on the bridge at Rivendell). Bilbo could also have been used (as he is in the book) to fill in more details on the Aragorn/Arwen romance. There are other ways is my point. And other ways which rather than emphasis the 'blood in his veins' would have emphasized the 'love in his heart' as his chief motivator. I don't get from the films the sense that everything Aragorn does is done out of his love and his desire to be one with Arwen by achieving the Kingship. The way in which PJ makes Aragorn 'more human' only actually muddies the waters, make Aragorn's motivation less pure and singular and this undermines the message about love that Tolien tells in the Aragorn/Arwen tale.
[quote="Eldorion":98qzxkb9][quote="Gandalfs Beard":98qzxkb9]I think the inconsistencies you and Eldo see aren't all that apparent, even in contrast to the book, as it all leads inexorably to the same place.[/quote:98qzxkb9] Just curious about something here - are you referring to my earlier point about Arwen and her possible realization of having a child? I ask because I didn't find much of what petty's been talking about to be inconsistent while watching the films (though his posts are very thought out). I'm not sure if you're just lumping me in as a purist or if you were thinking of something specific I had said. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />[/quote:98qzxkb9] Sorry about the "lumping" Eldo :oops: . It was based more on a comment made by Petty that suggested to me that you and he were largely in agreement on these issues. Not sure what you mean in your second sentence :? . It seems to be a little muddled to me. [quote="pettytyrant101":98qzxkb9]They may end up at the same place but I don't agree on your assessment of how they get there. In the films Aragorn's motivation for becoming King is a fear of failure not love. It's the fear he will succumb as Isildur did that haunts PJ's Aragorn, he fears that its the same 'blood that runs in my veins'. By removing Elrond's high demands for the marriage circumstances and instead forbidding Aragorn from seeing Arwen PJ leaves his Aragorn with only the motivation of proving himself better than his ancestor as a reason for wanting to become King. From the moment he leaves Rivendell PJ's version has no hope or expectation of ever seeing Arwen again, as far as he knows she is going to set sail and never return, so love plays no motivating role in his ascent to Kingship. Wanting to prove your better than your ancestor is not a pure reason to want to lead, it could even be said to be a form of vanity. It is open to corruption and runs against the core message Tolkien presents about power and love (paralleled in Frodo and Sam's story with their love overcoming even the power of Mordor). Given his personal connections with Aragorn/Arwen, Beren/Luthien I think this is actually one of those things that would have really annoyed Tolkien about PJ's version.[/quote:98qzxkb9] I disagree that Aragorn was trying to prove himself "better than his ancestor." And I don't really see where you get that from. Yes, he was concerned that he might prove a weak leader because, "Isildur's blood runs in his veins." But there is no sense that he is [i:98qzxkb9]trying[/i:98qzxkb9] to "prove anything" to himself or to others. Rather, Jackson's films give us the sense that Aragorn's reluctance to become King is overcome through discovering his Natural Leadership Abilities in Rohan and rediscovering his Love for Arwen, which renews his Sense of Purpose and bolsters his confidence; ergo, his character arc is a journey to becoming the "completed" character of Tolkien's story. If anything, [b:98qzxkb9]it is Tolkien's version[/b:98qzxkb9] which presents the Mythic Archetype of the Hero having to Prove Himself Worthy to win the Kingdom and the Maiden, of which the Hero's Certitude is without (or with little) doubt. Jackson's version gives us a more Human Aragorn, but a Noble Aragorn nonetheless, who proves himself without "proving himself" being the goal. Thus, he is all the more deserving of the Kingdom and the Maiden for his willingness to possibly sacrifice himself for the Greater Good. Aragorn's only goals in the films are the Destruction of the Ring, and the saving of Middle Earth and Arwen, MUCH nobler than "seeking to prove himself by accomplishing a Hurculean task." [b:98qzxkb9]GB[/b:98qzxkb9]
Just to be clear, I think there are inconsistencies in the films, I'm just not entirely clear on the one's petty mentioned in this thread. I realized upon re-reading that that was left a bit vague in an earlier post. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Way to be clear Eldo! :roll: [b:26gx08bm]GB[/b:26gx08bm]
I was wondering, Eldo. I seem to recall you said way way back somewhere on this forum that you had not read LotR many times. Is then much of what you say based on your knowledge of the Movies? Or am I just remembering wrong?
I've read it in bits and pieces many, many times (with a few exceptions - I find Book IV hard to get through). What I said is that I've only read the whole thing, all six books, cover to cover once. It's my secret shame. :oops: :P In any event, when it comes to "Lore" I disregard the movies as they are very unreliable when learning about the books.
Ha! My memory is not as dodgy as I had thought! :lol: The reason I brought it up was because I was wondering if a couple of thorough readings might broaden your perspective a bit. Mr Tyrant (and I'm not suggesting he is more right than you or less) it seems to me makes his comments from an over-arching knowledge of the Whole Book as opposed to a definite study of "bits." Sometimes you remind me of those TV Evangelists I see in the early hours of the morning. Brilliant speakers. Sound reasoners. Spiritual Gurus. (God Botherers!) But I wonder how often they have read the Old Testament or New as they were intended to be read. Every 'book' in the Bible is its own 'short story' in a sense. The way they snip bits out from diverse texts, and turn them into a coherent jigsaw of their own (intellectual-spiritual) making is mind boggling - and actually impressive. Of course, this parrallel can't be drawn too closely, I know, because LotR is one book. Indeed, that is why a 'bit by bit' approach may seem a sure method to you - yet I don't think it is as regards my present argument. I'm not suggesting you're like them (TV Evangelists), I find their intellectual dishonesty appalling (but impressive nonetheless!) - what I am saying is: if you turn LotR into a book of quotable quotes or favorite bits, or bits for scrutiny, you might not be able to fully comprehend the views of someone like Mr Tyrant. If you were to sit down and read LotR again, cover to cover, at a leisurely pace, not as a text to be understood and dissected, but as story to be enjoyed, you might see more clearly what Mr Tyrant is getting at. You still may not agree, but the worse thing that can happen is you get to see the book in its brilliant wholeness once more. (I suspect, GB might benefit from the same process! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> ) I'm not trying to be a jiber here -and I apologise if I'm sounding Paternalistic. I just sometimes think that you confront these debates too purely as a Logician, while Mr Tyrant does so as a Lover-of-the-Book. Logic and Love of the book are on both sides - but sometimes I feel you lean too much one way. :ugeek: NB I find Book Four marvelous! It moves slowly but beautifully. A take-your-time and let-it-flow-over-you read. Probably the kind of thing Old Fogeys prefer! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
"Lover-of-the-Book"- I like that! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> I think I prefer that to Purist! You are right Odo it is the subversion of the overall tenure and themes regarding Aragorn and Arwen that bothers me more than individual changes to any given scene.
Uncle Odo is a jolly fellow but extremely wise - like Tom Bombadill in a way. He would be far [i:20d6h02t]far[/i:20d6h02t] too modest to say so himself! <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I'm sure he would puff and blow and deny it (for proprieties sake!) but we know it's true, don't we Petty? (Btw he's gone outside to plant some cabbages and buy a hen or two - times being what they are at the moment in Needlehole! :cry: )
[quote="Odo Banks":vl0rf0xz]Indeed, that is why a 'bit by bit' approach may seem a sure method to you[/quote:vl0rf0xz] It's not a matter of me preferring one approach to another, it's just that I tend to be distracted by other books, movies, tv shows, etc. and start following something else before being able to work my way through the entire book. It's easier during breaks, because when I have classes on top of things I have that many other distractions and it's harder to just lay back for hours the way I like to. NB I had to stop and take several deep breaths for you when reading through that paragraph-break-free post. :lol:
You're a witty lad, haven't I always said so. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I must admit, I feel sorry that you have taken such a continuous piecemeal approach to reading LotR. I think picking bits you like and reading them is a tragic way of reading such a great tale. I understand there is a lot to do, a lot to read, and that LotR can only ever be a small compartment of anyone's life, but the idea of sitting it by my bedside every once in awhile, and reading it (maybe as a short bedtime read) like it is a continous thread (so to speak) is the purest way to read it. Call me Old Fashioned. I'm not saying one should never go and research bits - but to ONLY research bits or read favorite bits - seems a kind of impoverishished way of doing it. For me, LotR is about SLOWING down and savouring, not about getting a quick hit, whether emotionally or intellectually. As I said, Call me Old Fashioned. (Btw The Mighty Boosh, to me, offers the opportunity to pop in and visit. It's a quicker kind of drug - LotR is a slower drug, but longer lasting! :ugeek:)
Yes, well I've read LotR Numerous times, cover to cover :P (The last time about 3 years ago). Frankly, I think Eldo's Lore is usually bang on target :ugeek: , even though we don't always agree on certain interpretations. Petty's Book Lore is usually on the money too 8-) , though I think his Passion for the books overly and unfairly colours his view of Jackson's films. Odo, you're still the best "channeler" I know. :mrgreen: [b:mb68avtz]GB[/b:mb68avtz]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":31v2igeo]Petty's Book Lore is usually on the money too , though I think his Passion for the books overly and unfairly colours his view of Jackson's films.[/quote:31v2igeo] Colours it! :shock: My goodness! :lol: [quote="Gandalfs Beard":31v2igeo]Odo, you're still the best "channeler" I know. [/quote:31v2igeo] You'd be thinking of Wisey, I think! (Don't approve all that much of channelling, actually - not very practical!) As you should know by now, with me it's all Down-Home-Commonsense! Not that the likes of you, Eldo, or Mr Tyrant, or Ally, of Tin, or Ringrotten - or any of our other Missing in Action Forum Friends - would know a lot about [i:31v2igeo]that[/i:31v2igeo]. :ugeek:
I agree with Odo that reading the book cover to cover is more enjoyable, but I don't think that studying bits makes one's knowledge of the story as a whole less complete than if you read the books cover to cover. That is, of course, granted that you read every bit about the same number of times, because then you'll know the story well enough to see each bit in the correct context
I have lost count (or be honest never started counting) how many times I've read the books cover to cover- 'many' kinda covers it! But I do also 'cherry-pick' reading favourite passages or sections (I actually do this more listening to the unabridged audio than with the physical book). I think rereading individual bits can give greater understanding. I remember for example after reading the Tale of Galadriel in UT (various as the threads for her are in it) I went back and read the Lothlorien section again with new eyes. This sort of thing can happen a lot with LotR once you start delving into the appendix and surrounding works. Its one of its great strengths to me. So cherry-pick all you like Eldo, I think you may find as the years advance that the later books are in fact a lot more interesting than you supposed, I too preferred FotR and the earlier stuff to RotK when I first read LotR, that seems quite common, but with age comes a greater appreciation of the later parts of the book.
I've only ever read LOTR once through (I am still young), but I occasionally re read my favourite chapters. I "cherry picked" The Silmarillon and Unfinished Tales though, after reading them once. I don't think I could read them straight through again, in a while. You've got to read them once over, but I often reread sections that I don't fully understand, or parts that confuse me- nothing wrong with that.
It seems you've turned against me! :x Well, the respectable have often had to stand alone! :ugeek: Actually, I wasn't necessarily meaning that Eldo was doing anything wrong. I do however believe that to have read the book just the once and thereafter just cherry pick (forever) would leave one with a different perspective than the active Total Re-reader. I have read the New Testament cover to cover many times and now read it taking a bits and pieces most of the time. It is hard to explain what the difference is, but I feel there is one. When I see TV evangelists, I strongly believe they are cherry pickers - and a perhaps indefinable something is missing - and new un-Testament meanings made-up! No I'm not suggesting that cherry picking LotR is a misuse of the texts. I know you guys are not TV evangelists (----or are you? :? ) Eldo's views and Mr Tyrant's views did not seem to me to be 'disagreements' as much as "different perspectives' born out of a different approach to reading the text. Clear as mud now? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> NB LotR is not a supermarket to me. Maybe my biases are showing! :shock:
Well UT (less so with the Silmarillion) I think its fair enough to cherry pick. UT in particular is closer to a reference book than its is to a novel. It comes in handy bite-sized chunks. But whilst I do reread favourite bits its only because I've read the thing as a whole so often I can fill in the surrounds as if Ive been reading it all-if you follow. But every so often the urge overcomes me and I set about the task of reading it in its entirety, there's never any rush in this, its the pleasing comfort of the familiar and the beloved, too be savoured and not rushed.
I guess it's all semantics in the end. My comments are about LotR (and I'll extend it to TH), but the Silmarillion and other stuff do lend themselves to cherry picking, they are diverse stories. I guess when it boils down to it, I still feel (its an emotional thing, not intellectual) that to have read LotR just once throughout seems an impoverished way of reading it. But to all their own! :mrgreen: Maybe I like the Quest idea, while others take a Tardis approach - popping here, popping there, leaving no space to be bored! Part of the enjoyment (and trial!) of the Tolkien Quest for me is the longhaul (mental) foot-slog with nothing to eat but cheese and biscuits - imagining it's lembas or cram, of course - both of which can become tiresome as you slog through Mirkwood or the Emyn Muil, I can tell ye - and yet it is an essential part of the experience for me! I am not there just popping in and catching a glimpse of the action, I'm [i:376fk7j7]there[/i:376fk7j7] with the characters, both through the long dull days and the exciting ones! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />.
I think you're right about the 'quest' thing Odo. It is an undertaking to decide to read it cover to cover. Its a big book, but its precisely the amount of time you spend with the book, the sense of the passage of real time that accompanies the passage of imaginary time, that lends a full reading that extra sense of power. When you cherry pick you lose that sense of time and distance and place that makes LotR such a special read.
Your wisdom is unbound! I award you two ubergeeks! :ugeek: :ugeek:
What can I say to that Odo save that your own clear and unashamed love of Tolkien inspires me to wax lyrical myself. And if it helps those more wayward, younger or who might happen to be famous beards to understand and appreciate the Great Works Of Tolkien in context then all to the better. (Although I should warn that enjoyment and satisfaction in PJ's film versions falls correspondingly as love of the book increases -a necessary but worthwhile sacrifice).
Odo has popped out to attend to his taters.... loves his taters! (I also heard a duck squawking --- but around here we don't pry :? ). Anyhow, I just want to say that I find usually when I overhear hobbits blowing wind up each others shorts (or kilts), I find it mostly very insincere and full of blarney - but your compliments to each other are always true and applicable (I guess it comes from your Puritism - a willingness to see clearly, feel deeply and comprehend the ineffable -- though I hear words like Puritism are profane nowadays :? :oops: ). Anyway, clearly you two are by far the two Wisest Forumers - by a street. I sit back in awe. I think the other Forumers should do the same! (GB is cuter though! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> )
I only "cherry-pick" for research purposes myself. Whenever I pick up LotR for a read, I read from cover to cover Petty. :P [b:3kb90try]GB[/b:3kb90try]
So do you inch ever closer to Right Thinking then? :mrgreen:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"I read from cover to cover Petty"- GB :shock: This sort of statement just makes me more amazed you could not seem to see where I was coming from regarding the Aragorn/Arwen subject!
[quote="pettytyrant101":1l1r47ah]"I read from cover to cover Petty"- GB :shock: This sort of statement just makes me more amazed you could not seem to see where I was coming from regarding the Aragorn/Arwen subject![/quote:1l1r47ah] What it makes clear, is that you can't get past your Book Passion to see that Jackson did a bang-up job weaving an arc for Aragorn and his relationship to Arwen into the body of the story. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> It is as I suspected, it's not that there might be inconsistencies in Jackson's version that you dislike, it is that it doesn't strictly adhere to the text as you interpret it. This, and a misunderstanding of Aragorn's motivations in the films leads you to see "inconsistencies" where there are none. [b:1l1r47ah]GB[/b:1l1r47ah]
"a misunderstanding of Aragorn's motivations in the films leads you to see "inconsistencies" where there are none." -GB You are yet to convince me of that GB. I used quotes and scenes of the film to illustrate why I think PJ emphasis Aragorn's fear of failure more than he does his love of Arwen. You have as of yet been unable to produce anything actually tangible to back up your claim that PJ's Aragorn is similarly motivated and how this is demonstrated in the films. The gauntlet is down GB!
Why all I need are the quotes you already provided. Where you see Black, I see White, Where I see Day, You see Night. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [b:3en0n071]GB[/b:3en0n071]
One says neither the other says neither (nither)...
Oddly GB I think it is you this time who might be letting the book influence you. Given the evidence of the films themselves the only way I can see that you could possibly interpret what PJ has done the way you do is if you are bringing book-knowledge to your watching of the film. Try to watch them as just films, as if LotR the book never existed (I shudder to even write that!) and then tell me honestly that you would interpret Aragorns motivations as purely love? You can't not from the films alone, the dialogue and script simply don't support it. And if you insist that the films alone do support this then how and where?- I'm afraid saying its how you interpret it is not good enough. That's a bit like a Creationist arguing against evolution on the basis its how they interpret it- it may well be but the evidence still doesn't support them! Besides your reply is the worst reply ever to a gauntlet thrown down challenge- so this time I do not throw the gauntlet down, I am slapping your face with it!! :twisted:
  << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>