The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hey gents, my son just asked me a question and I didn't have an answer. I told him I'd ask all of you

If the elves are adversely affected by the ring and Sauron's rise, and Arwen is at risk of dying as long as both continue to exist and grow more powerful, how is it that Legolas is at the top of his game? Why isn't he feeling any adverse effects? Or am I just missing something obvious? Thanks!

In the novel, Aragorn does not need prompting to take up his mantle as King. He reveals Narsil at the Council of Elrond, there really is no doubt in his purpose to embrace his responsibility as King.

In the film, they wanted to give Aragorn a character arc, and so chose the 'reluctant hero' angle. They invented the nonsense about Arwen dying because in the movie, that is the final straw in Elrond coming to terms with her decision to marry Aragorn, and also the final straw in Aragorn embracing his role and birthright, leading him to the Paths of the Dead and recruiting the disgraced undead army.

None of that is in the book, and as the screenwriters themselves once said, the farther they strayed from Tolkien, the more trouble they found themselves in. The "Arwen dying unless Sauron is destroyed" plotline does not exist in Tolkien's book.

Stuff like that is why I'm actually very worried about the plan to stretch the simple Hobbit story into two 2.5 hour movies. Tolkien's stuff is great. Boyens' stuff? Not so much - rather more like a soap opera or early 20th century melodrama.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I want to say thanks for answering the questions about Gandalf and his power.

This is a great debate it has sparked.

I am now thoroughly confused as to how he didn't do more to help in the battle against Sauron. In the animated version of The Hobbit from Rankin/Bass he seemed like a god who could do anything.

There were also several things that bugged me in the film that maybe made more sense in the book:

I think the Fellowship too easily allowed Frodo to go on his own at the end of FotR.

How the Nazgul couldn't be killed by a man.

It was confusing as to who Galadriel actually was.

Who was more powerful? Galadriel or Gandalf?

What did it exactly mean when it was said" the time of the elves have passed" and its not "time for men"?

SOme of these were answered. Some weren't.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Stuff like that is why I'm actually very worried about the plan to stretch the simple Hobbit story into two 2.5 hour movies. Tolkien's stuff is great. Boyens' stuff? Not so much - rather more like a soap opera or early 20th century melodrama.

Hopefully most of that extra time is focused on the white council expelling The Necromancer (Sauron's spirit) from Mirkwood.

That was off page in The Hobbit, but should be played up a lot in the movie as it ties that story/time period directly to the LOTR saga.

[Nicolas554]

I was wondering something about the Necromancer. (i've read the Silmarillion, the LOTR trilogie and The Hobbit, but that's a few year ago).

What form does the Necromancer is supposed to have ? Because since Sauron lost his ring, i thought he could'nt get a physical form anymore and that he was ''trapped'' as an eye form in the Mordor.....

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Hopefully most of that extra time is focused on the white council expelling The Necromancer (Sauron's spirit) from Mirkwood.

That was off page in The Hobbit, but should be played up a lot in the movie as it ties that story/time period directly to the LOTR saga.

But none of it laid down in narrative terms by Tolkien, other than "Sauron was eventually driven out of Mirkwood after many days of battle". There are no lines for the characters, no scenes, just a description of the event. All that is going to have to be invented by the same people who gave us dwarf tossing, Denethor's flaming mile, Frodo sending Sam home, "Not the beard", Arwen dying for some fool reason, etc., etc., etc.

Instead of a three hour adaptation of a charming little book, we're going to get a five hour film with incredible amounts of newly invented scenes, and that worries me.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Nicolas554

I was wondering something about the Necromancer. (i've read the Silmarillion, the LOTR trilogie and The Hobbit, but that's a few year ago).

What form does the Necromancer is supposed to have ? Because since Sauron lost his ring, i thought he could'nt get a physical form anymore and that he was ''trapped'' as an eye form in the Mordor.....

I assumed it was a form similar to the eye during the war of the ring... but I never thought about it too much though.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Instead of a three hour adaptation of a charming little book, we're going to get a five hour film with incredible amounts of newly invented scenes, and that worries me.

I am willing to give Peter Jackson the free pass on this one. Sure some of the changes from book to movies were not always "great" but I never really compare the books with the movies. I see them as two different medium and I am looking forward to the added scenes in The Hobbit movie, will make a nice link with the previous three movies.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am willing to give Peter Jackson the free pass on this one. Sure some of the changes from book to movies were not always "great" but I never really compare the books with the movies. I see them as two different medium and I am looking forward to the added scenes in The Hobbit movie, will make a nice link with the previous three movies.

I am too, even with the changes that were made, LotR was still one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen, so yeah I'll definitely give him a chance.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

But none of it laid down in narrative terms by Tolkien, other than "Sauron was eventually driven out of Mirkwood after many days of battle". There are no lines for the characters, no scenes, just a description of the event. All that is going to have to be invented by the same people who gave us dwarf tossing, Denethor's flaming mile, Frodo sending Sam home, "Not the beard", Arwen dying for some fool reason, etc., etc., etc.

Instead of a three hour adaptation of a charming little book, we're going to get a five hour film with incredible amounts of newly invented scenes, and that worries me.

True. But I didn't mind most of the changes, and loved the battle scenes (which I thought Tolkien gave short shrift given how much detail he had everywhere else) so I'm looking forward to that.

But I'll freely admit I'm not much of fan of The Hobbit book. If they were doing a pure adaptation of that I wouldn't have much interest in it as it's a very simple story and too lighthearted for my fantasy tastes.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am willing to give Peter Jackson the free pass on this one. Sure some of the changes from book to movies were not always "great" but I never really compare the books with the movies. I see them as two different medium and I am looking forward to the added scenes in The Hobbit movie, will make a nice link with the previous three movies.

Same here. I don't really compare movies and their source material. As long as the movie entertains me in it's own right, that's all I care about. And I agree that the Necromancer scenes are key in tying these movies to the LOTR movies by getting Sauron as a villain in both.

[Witch King of Angmar]

How the Nazgul couldn't be killed by a man.

I also want to know. Can other nazguls be killed by men?

I know no man can kill Witch King of Angmar.

Who was more powerful? Galadriel or Gandalf?

Gandalf

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Gandalf, Saruman, Balrog, Sauron, they are more closer to Angels than Gods. Grand Bob said Gandalf could be a servant of God, not God himself.

I like this idea. It is clear from even The Hobbit book that Gandalf is not "all-knowing". In fact he is more clearly trying to set Bilbo on "the right path". Gandalf himself is not certain of the outcome much of the time. It is almost Buddhist, in fact

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hey gents, my son just asked me a question and I didn't have an answer. I told him I'd ask all of you

If the elves are adversely affected by the ring and Sauron's rise, and Arwen is at risk of dying as long as both continue to exist and grow more powerful, how is it that Legolas is at the top of his game? Why isn't he feeling any adverse effects? Or am I just missing something obvious? Thanks!

Cause Legolas is really "Will Turner" the new captain of the Dutchman! The Dutchman MUST have a captain!

Sorry...couldn't resist. Don't stab my heart, please

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by DarkDune

I like this idea. It is clear from even The Hobbit book that Gandalf is not "all-knowing". In fact he is more clearly trying to set Bilbo on "the right path". Gandalf himself is not certain of the outcome much of the time. It is almost Buddhist, in fact

Yeah, Grand Bob stated awhile back that in his extensive research, Gandalf and the other Wizards were sent by Eru to lead men and basically tell them what they needed to do to overcome the darkness, but were not supposed to actually intervene in the affair... man I hope I'm getting this right. So many of Gandalf's actions taken in the books were to just give men the direction to overcome. Man, my explanation just sounds so crappy.

Originally Posted by DarkDune

Cause Legolas is really "Will Turner" the new captain of the Dutchman! The Dutchman MUST have a captain!

Sorry...couldn't resist. Don't stab my heart, please

NUH UH!!! He's Balian, a simple blacksmith who leads a conquest to reclaim the Holy Land during the crusades!!!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Yeah, Grand Bob stated awhile back that in his extensive research, Gandalf and the other Wizards were sent by Eru to lead men and basically tell them what they needed to do to overcome the darkness, but were not supposed to actually intervene in the affair... man I hope I'm getting this right. So many of Gandalf's actions taken in the books were to just give men the direction to overcome. Man, my explanation just sounds so crappy.

It's not so bad of an explanation really

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's not so bad of an explanation really

Yeah, but GB's explanation is so much more eloquent

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Yeah, Grand Bob stated awhile back that in his extensive research, Gandalf and the other Wizards were sent by Eru to lead men and basically tell them what they needed to do to overcome the darkness, but were not supposed to actually intervene in the affair... man I hope I'm getting this right. So many of Gandalf's actions taken in the books were to just give men the direction to overcome. Man, my explanation just sounds so crappy.

The only problem with that take is he does directly intervene at times as he does fight in battles, defeat the Balrog etc.

Granted he does more guidance and getting people where they need to be, but he didn't remain solely on the sidelines and just watch the pieces he put in place either.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's not so bad of an explanation really

Who is more powerful? Arwen or Eowyn?

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The only problem with that take is he does directly intervene at times as he does fight in battles, defeat the Balrog etc.

Granted he does more guidance and getting people where they need to be, but he didn't remain solely on the sidelines and just watch the pieces he put in place either.

The Balrog (as far as the Valar were concerned) had no place in still existing in Middle-Earth. The Valar destroyed all of the Balrogs except those who hid themselves deep, deep underground.

Given that it was a foe from the first age, long thought to have been extinguished and originally a Maiar; it's understandable that Gandalf would intervene and fight it.

[Eismagier]

Wasn't the "guideline" that wizards weren't supposed to dominate the other races?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

Who is more powerful? Arwen or Eowyn?

Eowyn, because she is way more cute then Arwen (but that is my opinion only)