The White Council

Re: AICN's Moriarty Reviews LOTR Script

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : : Well, I wish that were true. There is no reason to replace : : : Tolkien's seventeen years with "seven months later" in the : : : script. Hopefully this will be corrected in the current : : : script, as it will only lead to irrefutable criticisms.

: : ::: "Indefensible"? "Irrefutable criticisms"? Hmmm. Seems like : : we each have our ideas of what is "precious". I think the : : change from seventeen years to seven months is just as : : defensible in a film adaptation as any other point: the most : : basic being that it adds urgency to the story. Gandalf's been : : out looking for Gollum - what difference if it takes him less : : time in the film than it did in the book? In film time is : : telescoped. We know from having read the whole story 20 times : : and the appendices 25 times that many things happened in those : : years (in a particular order) but the only thing really : : important to the main plot is that Gandalf got Gollum to talk. : : I suppose you could argue that the longer time period would : : show the effect of the Ring on Frodo (no visible aging) but : : with Elijah Wood in the role, who's going to notice that?

: Okay, if you want to conduct an extensive discussion about this, after tonight you'll have to wait a few days until I get home to Albuquerque (I'm driving across the country and expect to be on the road for 3-4 days).

***Michael - whenever you read this - welcome back. Hope the road in thie case didn't go ever on and on.

: That said, the change is indefensible because those seventeen years are crucial to the backstory for the Ring. What occurred in that time is really not important. But what didn't occur is completely vital: Frodo didn't age. Gandalf can't just go wandering off in search of the answers only to come back with them seven months later (and if he appears on Frodo's doorstep in the desperate condition Moriarty implies his character will be greatly weakened for no dramatic reason I can think of).

***I get what you're saying here but...my opinion is that the dramatic reason is simply urgency, and to show that Gandalf works harder than perhaps our usual idea of wizards. (I realize that I'm defending a two-script version that may have already changed!) I agree it is vital to show that the Ring has this effect on mortals. I wonder if PJ will show us through Bilbo (in dialogue or comments from other hobbits). If he doesn't then I agree we need to see it in Frodo somehow.

: It takes only a short scene where a subtitle of "Seventeen years later" appears long enough for the audience to see that time has passed. Or Sam and the Gaffer can age while Frodo doesn't in a quick succession of scenes (such as showing the gaffer working the garden after Bilbo departs and then providing a transition to an older Sam).

*** This is very true but in an epic like this I can imagine the use of "time passing" titles or montages getting very tedious.

: The point is that what triggered Gandalf's final concern was Frodo's apparent agelessness. He knew damn good and well Frodo had been given a Great Ring of Power. Although it's not clearly explained in the book, the Rings stopped TIME. Jackson is either not clear on that point or he may feel that since the book doesn't emphasize that power he doesn't need to. Or he may have corrected the error (assuming Moriarty's report is reliable).

***Now here we differ. I think the thing that triggered Gandalf's final concern was that he learned that Gollum had spilled the beans. Suddenly neither Frodo nor the world was any longer safe in the obscurity of the Shire.

: : : That's not fair. There is no way the book can be turned into : : : a workable movie script without some changes. : : : Wholesale deletions (such as the disappearance of Bombadil) : : : are, IMO, regrettable but preferable to changing the history : : : the way Moriarty implies a MAJOR point is changed (see : : : above).

: : : I won't guess whether Arwen has something to do with : : : confounding the Witch-king. It would certainly weaken the : : : story if she did, but I have long expected that there would : : : be differences between the films and the book -- it's : : : an adaptation, after all, and it's Peter Jackson's : : : adaptation. In a way, it's his story -- his version of the : : : story. If you or I were to describe the book to a friend and : : : attempt to provide visual cues, we would undoubtedly tell : : : widely divergent stories.

: : :::As to fears about Arwen - I wish people would remember : : another woman character Tolkien created - namely Luthien. This : : is the model I hope PJ is using for his more active Arwen. She : : will NOT be Xena. She will be Luthien at Beren's side, brave : : enough to withstand the gaze of Morgoth. I'll bet she rides : : from Rivendell in search of Aragorn her beloved and helps when : : the Riders attack a la Glorfindel. And that would be cool by : : me.

: Well, I would not be as upset as many people are by the changes in Arwen's character, but Peter promised (I think -- it's been a while since I read both the 20 questions files) that he would not combine characters. If Arwen takes the place of Glorfindel in the story, then he is doing exactly that, and I think people would be right to get upset with him for making such a forbidden change.

: Arwen is not Luthien. She is her own person with her own fate. She cannot be the strong character that Luthien was for a number of reasons, the primary being that Luthien was an Elf who was technically half-Maia. She would have been considerably more powerful than Arwen before her choice to become human and live with Beren.

: If Peter presents a stronger Arwen than we see in the book, fine. I have no problem with that. It would not be inconsistent with Tolkien's description of how the Elves lived if we saw an Arwen who rode warhorses and could carry a sword. It would, however, be inconsistent if she went openly to battle -- that is not the way Elrond handled her in the book. Whether Arwen was capable of fighting or not, there are strong reasons for why she would not have been permitted to fight, and not just the usual "father has to keep his daughter safe" stuff, either.

: It has to do with the background material Tolkien wrote outside of the story, really. As long as Jackson doesn't contradict what was published, I don't mind if he engages in some embellishment.

I completely agree with you on all this. I didn't mean to suggest that Arwen was or should be Luthien - only that PJ's ideas were not wholly incompatible with Tolkien's.