Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

What was different? Must have missed something.

Movie:  Gollum gets thrown over the edge in a tussle with Samwise.  Good triumphs over evil.

Book:  Gollum loses himself so thoroughly in ecstasy after getting the ring back, that he dances into the crack of doom.  Evil destroys itself.  Most consistent theme throughout all of Tolkien's works.  Good wins battles, but always loses the bigger picture, barely persevering until evil's own nature implodes on itself.

I don't see how the movie version changes the book's message. Frodo being able to give up the ring would have been good triumphs over evil. But he can't. The evil of the Ring is able to corrupt him just as it did Gollum when the critical moment comes, and their conflicting desire for the Ring destroys it. Thus evil destroys itself, as the Ring's most noticeable power is what undoes it.

Frodo definitely was not acting heroic there. It isn't ambiguous. He even says "The Ring is mine." Once you've claimed the Ring, Sauron has you.

[SalmonGod]

And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

What was different? Must have missed something.

Movie:  Gollum gets thrown over the edge in a tussle with Samwise.  Good triumphs over evil.

Book:  Gollum loses himself so thoroughly in ecstasy after getting the ring back, that he dances into the crack of doom.  Evil destroys itself.  Most consistent theme throughout all of Tolkien's works.  Good wins battles, but always loses the bigger picture, barely persevering until evil's own nature implodes on itself.

I don't see how the movie version changes the book's message. Frodo being able to give up the ring would have been good triumphs over evil. But he can't. The evil of the Ring is able to corrupt him just as it did Gollum when the critical moment comes, and their conflicting desire for the Ring destroys it. Thus evil destroys itself, as the Ring's most noticeable power is what undoes it.

Frodo definitely was not acting heroic there. It isn't ambiguous. He even says "The Ring is mine." Once you've claimed the Ring, Sauron has you.

Watched it before making my previous post, and just watched it again.  He definitely doesn't say that, and it seems rather ambiguous to me.  He could very well have come to his senses after being separated from the ring and the pain of losing his finger.  I can't tell if that determined face he makes is "I have to end this" or "The ring is mine".  He has his wits about him enough to let the ring go and grab the ledge.  It's certainly more ambiguous than the book ending, and it still serves no purpose but to bring it more in line with audience expectations.  Or perhaps as HugoLuman says Peter Jackson himself found the original resolution too boring.  He's not exactly a fan of subtlety, if you look at the stuff he made before LotR (Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles).   Modern audiences expect an antagonist to die in a bitter, over-dramatized, and intensely personal final fight, and there tends to be a lot of backlash when that doesn't happen.  Strangely, Jackson kept the anti-climactic ending to Lovely Bones, and it was definitely not well-received.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Watched it before making my previous post, and just watched it again.  He definitely doesn't say that, and it seems rather ambiguous to me.

He says the Ring is his when he puts it on, before Gollum bites his finger off.

He could very well have come to his senses after being separated from the ring and the pain of losing his finger.  I can't tell if that determined face he makes is "I have to end this" or "The ring is mine".  He has his wits about him enough to let the ring go and grab the ledge.

He looks deranged to me, not determined. Perhaps more importantly, he's not trying to throw Gollum at all. He's got him by the hands, trying to wrestle the Ring away from him, and they trip.

[SalmonGod]

It would seem out of character for Frodo to try to throw Gollum into a lava pit, even given the circumstances.  I would be quite shocked if he just ran up and shoved him over.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then where exactly are you getting this perception of a ruined ending from?

[SalmonGod]

Because whether it retains the original theme is debatable.  Whether it does so or not, it still tosses out one of the most memorable and defining moments in the story, and replaces it with something more in common with any run of the mill action movie.

[Bauglir]

All it seems to do is add emphasis to Frodo's need for the Ring, to be honest. He tries to do something to get it back, but other than that it has identical results, including death by tripping instead of the expected intentional violence. Instead of happiness killing Gollum, its mutual greed, but it's still certainly the Ring's corruption that destroys it. It was an unnecessary change, sure, but I don't think it meaningfully changed anything to the extent you're claiming here.

For that matter, Gandalf was still pretty clearly chief-king badass. He's the one responsible for fending off the Balrog, as well as saving everyone's asses at Helm's Deep. The Pelennor was kind of a wash, because of the Army of the Dead (which wasn't a function of Aragorn's badassitude so much as his lineage), and everyone was looking pretty boned at the Black Gate. The Nazgul were portrayed as pretty effective, as I recall (the only difference, I guess, is that Arwen is apparently solely responsible for the river thing instead of Elrond and Gandalf and Glorfindel). Can't really object to the Frodo thing - I didn't really notice it much outside of the first movie when it was appropriate, but YMMV.

Faramir, yeah - I agree that the movies got less effective as adaptations with each iteration (and I'm afraid of this happening with the Hobbit), but I still feel like they did an acceptable job of adapting the work, even by the last movie. And it's certainly far better than anything else I've seen that's tried.

[Vattic]

Fair enough. For some reason I remember seeing the ending from the book.

If you are worried about it ruining the ending then you might not like what Tolkien later said. Gollum's fall was no accident Eru was the cause.

[Dutchling]

And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

What was different? Must have missed something.

Movie:  Gollum gets thrown over the edge in a tussle with Samwise.  Good triumphs over evil.

Book:  Gollum loses himself so thoroughly in ecstasy after getting the ring back, that he dances into the crack of doom.  Evil destroys itself.  Most consistent theme throughout all of Tolkien's works.  Good wins battles, but always loses the bigger picture, barely persevering until evil's own nature implodes on itself.

What. That is new to me. I am fairly sure that in the non-extended version it happens exactly like in the book. Or rather, the struggles were left out.

edit: Your ranting do make me want to actually read the Lord of the Rings though. and reread The Hobbit, considering I barely remember anything of it. It will have to wait till after the Silmarillion though.

[WillowLuman]

Here's the relevant clip. Oddly enough, I have memories of the book ending being in the movie. Guess that must be the non-extended edition?

[SalmonGod]

Don't think so, considering I've never seen the extended edition.  I watched the extended of the first two, but decided I was finished after seeing RotK in the theater.

[Dutchling]

Well, I clearly remember Smeagol biting invisible Frodo's finger, dance in ecstasy and fall in the fire.

Either three people here misremembered or you actually did watch the extended version. I could watch thr end of lotr3 right now, if only I had DVD-player here

[SalmonGod]

Well, I clearly remember Smeagol biting invisible Frodo's finger, dance in ecstasy and fall in the fire.

Either three people here misremembered or you actually did watch the extended version. I could watch thr end of lotr3 right now, if only I had DVD-player here

Yeah... he did all those things.  I was pointing out that he didn't fall in while dancing in ecstasy.  He danced and then Frodo attacked him, and they fell over in the scuffle.

But this has been rather beaten to death now.  It was a small part of a much earlier post that multiple people then zero'd in on.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, fair enough. Also my memory aligns with SalmonGod's, but eh.

Anyway, I'll certainly agree that they're not the best possible adaptations and Jackson made a lot of unnecessary changes.

[Ghills]

Hm. I think the Hobbit was a good movie, just not necessarily the same story as the books.  Some of the character changes were especially jarring - Thorin seemed inconsistent, Bilbo got changed to be sillier and smaller - but it was good movie.  The dwarfs were generally much better than in LotR, so that was a plus. I was afraid we were going to see the 13-dwarf frat comedy team, but instead we got a look at a much more physically-oriented culture, who are perfectly civilized for their definition of civilization.  And the movie didn't fanboy elves like Tolkien did, so that was nice.