|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 153 responses total. |
drew
|
|
response 34 of 153:
| 
Feb 4 06:47 UTC 2006 |
I thought I saw a scene of the scouring of the shire in one of the movies.
|
bru
|
|
response 35 of 153:
|
Feb 4 13:53 UTC 2006 |
Frodo saw the scouring in Galadriels Pool. It was one possible outcome, one
possible future. We know it happened in the novel, but it was little more than
an echo of the war, Saurumans attempt to get even with the halflings. It
would have added nothing to the movie.
Yes Bobomir should have let the halflings go and not tken them to minas
morgul. It added nothing to the story to change it, except, it gave the
director a chance to show more indepth the relationship between the hobbits
and a certain Smeagol.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 36 of 153:
|
Feb 4 17:34 UTC 2006 |
The Scouring of the Shire was not "little more than an echo of the war" -- the
whole of the trilogy was Frodo's struggle to keep the Shire safe, and the movie
doesn't let you see how it turns out.
Boromir tried to steal the Ring in both the movie and the book. In the book,
however, there was a great difference between Faramir and Boromir; Faramir was
a Great Man, unlike his father and his brother, who could resist temptation. In
the movie there was no difference whatsoever. It *subtracted* from the story to
change it.
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 153:
|
Feb 6 17:20 UTC 2006 |
re resp:33: In the book, Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were surrounded
by some of the Nazgul when Strider went off scouting (I forget what
for). Frodo got a piece of a sword stuck in him. Strider came back
and chased the Nazgul away, then declared Frodo to be beyond his
healing powers. They went through the woods for a couple of days, then
encountered Glorfindel, who had been sent out by Elrond to try to find
them, along with "the other such who were powerful enough to ride
against The Nine" or words to that effect. Glorfindel sent Frodo on
his horse, "who will not drop any burden that I command him to carry"
(or, again, words to that effect) and then Frodo wakes up in bed.
Other than Pippin, riding with Eowyn when she kills the chief of the
Nazgul, that's the only time any of the hobbits directly confront a
Nazgul. Though Samwise and Frodo and Gollum shudder when one flies
over them on the edge of Mordor.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 38 of 153:
|
Feb 6 18:39 UTC 2006 |
s/Pippin/Merry/ in the "riding with Eowyn" sentence, but other than that that's
an excellent summation -- of the book, not the movie (for one thing, it's Arwen
not Glorfindel in the movie).
|
happyboy
|
|
response 39 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:11 UTC 2006 |
lol!
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:27 UTC 2006 |
It seems to me to have been a very minor change, well explained and
with plenty of reason for it, to omit Glorfindel for Arwen in the
movie. While Glorfindel is one of my favorite minor characters in the
book, I didn't think the omission was any big deal.
I also thought that Saruman's Revenge on The Shire was extraneous in
the book. Tolkien needed some more pages and he stuck that on the
end. The book would have been just as great a story without it.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 41 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:31 UTC 2006 |
Re #40: Glorfindel-to-Arwen was to me, also, a minor change.
The Scouring of the Shire, as I've said, seems to me to be the *most important*
part of the trilogy. For *story integrity* (that is, if you diagrammed the plot
with rising action, falling action, climax, exposition, denoument, etc.) it
would have been better to cut out the *whole War of the Ring* and left the
Scouring (you called "Saruman's Revenge on the Shire"; it wasn't revenge at
all, just him having been kicked out of his old realm and carving out a new one
where he could) *in* than to leave the War in and truncate the Scouring off.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:32 UTC 2006 |
If only the LOTR experts would put some much depth of knowledge into the
hijacking of our Constitution by Xtian extremism.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:42 UTC 2006 |
We did that last week, where were you?
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 153:
|
Feb 6 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Anyway, no one has made a movie of the Constitution yet. If they do
so, we will go to war over the differences between the written and
cinema versions.
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 153:
|
Feb 6 20:59 UTC 2006 |
re #44
Wasn't "National Treasure" about the Constiution?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 46 of 153:
|
Feb 6 21:06 UTC 2006 |
I believe it was about the DoI. But I think the sequel involves another
treasure map written on the back of the Bill of Rights.
|
bru
|
|
response 47 of 153:
|
Feb 6 22:04 UTC 2006 |
What about 1776!
|
aruba
|
|
response 48 of 153:
|
Feb 7 00:54 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: I was sorry not to see the Scouring of the Shire too. But I'm
puzzled why you think it's the whole reason that Frodo embarks on his quest.
As I recall, the Council of Elrond made clear that everyone was in danger,
and Frodo volunteered to go. So he was making a sacrifice for the whole
world, not just for the Shire. That it was a war which affected the Shire,
too, is driven home by the Scouring.
But why do you think the Scouring was more important than the whole war of
the Ring?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 49 of 153:
|
Feb 7 02:02 UTC 2006 |
Define "embarks on his quest." I put his quest -- the *thematic* driving force
of the book, where something that means most to *him* could be more important
than "saving the world" -- starting earlier. I get the wording of what the
quest is from Aragorn's statement about Butterbur (when Aragorn was still
"Strider") -- how there were things out there that would "freeze his blood"
that he was completely oblivious of, but "we would not have it any other way".
Thematically, the War is just plot complications. Getting rid of the Ring is
not the "quest" (whatever the technical literature term for the problem that
drives a story is -- the thing that the protagonist *must* do and *cannot* do);
protecting the Shire is. Frodo leaves it when the peace is invaded by the Black
Riders looking for the Ring. He only accepts what you thought was his "quest"
when *no one else takes it*.
Let me put it this way. Without the Scouring of the Shire, this is a feel-good
story. With it, Tolkien pulls a "double whammy" -- you get to what you *think*
is the end of the story, and then you find out that after going to all that
trouble, the main problem has worsened. After that, Frodo still isn't at peace
-- he's gone through all that pain to make the Shire a place where the hobbits
can live in innocence, and he doesn't fit there anymore.
|
furs
|
|
response 50 of 153:
|
Feb 7 11:10 UTC 2006 |
I love when you guys geek on on LOTR. It's so HOT.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 51 of 153:
|
Feb 7 11:14 UTC 2006 |
Oh, that they would make a movie out of _Place of the Lion_!
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 153:
|
Feb 7 13:31 UTC 2006 |
But there was no conflict at all in what you're calling "The Scouring
of the Shire". Frodo and friends laugh off Saruman and Wormtongue and
their militant organization, and dismiss them with no difficulty.
The rest of the story is a real struggle, from the time the 4 hobbits
leave the Shire to take the Ring to Rivendell, up until Gollum
foolishly slips into the fire in Mount Doom to destroy the ring. Once
the ring is destroyed, they hop on the nearest convenient airline (the
eagles) and reappear in Gondor, then they stroll home, then spend a
leisurely afternoon restoring Hobbiton to it's rightful state, then
Frodo, Bilbo and the Elves leave on their farewell vacation cruise.
Really, the hobbits are extraneous in the whole LOTR story. They don't
matter in the world, except that Aragorn thinks they're cool and
Galdalf likes to hang out with them. No one else had ever heard of
them, or ever would. Frodo lugs the ring to Mordor because Elrond says
he can, for no apparent reason except that he already had had it for a
while. It turns out well but it wasn't a very logical strategy.
The story wasn't logical in any number of ways. Elrond never should
have included Boromir, who very plainly thought the ring ought to go to
him and/or his father. Why send Legolas instead of Glorfindel or
Elrond himself, neither of whom could be intimidated by Ringwraiths?
(Or both?) Gimli was the only dwarf handy if you had to have one, but
why did you have to have one? If you're going to have 9 companions,
why have 4 hobbits? Even assuming Frodo had to go, why not have 3
*useful* members instead?
If I was Elrond, assuming I had to have Frodo and eight others, I'd
have gone with him, and Glorfindel, I'd have recruited Tom Bombadil,
Aragorn would have gone, Gandalf was useful, I'd have asked Radagast
(another wizard), and a couple more powerful elves living in
Rivendell. Or maybe Galadriel could have been picked up on the way.
I'd have Radagast summon up some eagles, I'd have flown into Mordor and
had Frodo drop the ring into the volcano from overhead, and then gone
home, or at least to Gondor to crown Aragorn and get my daughter Arwen
married off. Hobbiton would be safe, Minas Ithil wouldn't be
deforested, Gondor wouldn't have been ransacked, Boromir and Eomer
would be alive, Denethor wouldn't have gone insane, and everyone could
have been home for the weekend. Some good things might not have
happened like Eowyn meeting Faramir, Merry and Pippin meeting
Treebeard, and what's his name the king of the Rohan being cured of his
senility, but really, Elrond didn't plan for those things to happen
anyway.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 53 of 153:
|
Feb 7 13:43 UTC 2006 |
Eh, Tom's a bit distractable...
|
jep
|
|
response 54 of 153:
|
Feb 7 14:00 UTC 2006 |
Not for a short mission such as the one I described.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 153:
|
Feb 7 14:13 UTC 2006 |
In other words, Tolkien is likely to have considered the *internal* conflicts
more important than the macrocosmic ones.
Reminders: they didn't leave the Shire "to take the Ring to Rivendell" -- they
left the Shire to get away from the Black Riders. Frodo takes the Ring because
he's the only one to volunteer (after an hour or so of silence, if I read it
correctly) -- Aragorn, Gandalf, and everyone else (except Boromir, as it turns
out later) knew that they were not fit to take it *to its destruction* (and
Tolkien frames the requirement that it be destroyed rather than used in a
perfectly logical manner, IMO).
I will admit that there's a bit of deus ex machina in getting Frodo and Sam out
of Mordor after the Ring is destroyed -- but again, all that isn't as
important, and I don't think it was all that much, because Gandalf had his
discussion with the King of the Eagles, but before that the Eagles weren't
very available.
I'll agree with you on one other thing here, at least in part -- the hobbits
are extraneous in the *cosmology*. He invented them for _The Hobbit_, and then
tied it in.
Bombadil was more than distractible -- he wouldn't have even agreed. When they
were discussing possible alternatives, his distractability was an issue if *all
the free peoples of the world begged him* to take the Ring.
I'm not sure Boromir's staying alive would have been a good thing.
|
bru
|
|
response 56 of 153:
|
Feb 7 16:02 UTC 2006 |
and just who was tom Bombadil? the ring, and apparently all evil, had
absolutely no effect in him, and he cared not to be involved in the world of
politics at all. He had a complete affinity with nature. Who was he? What
was he? Why was he included in the novel?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 57 of 153:
|
Feb 7 16:09 UTC 2006 |
To show that some things/people weren't corrupted at all by the ring?
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 153:
|
Feb 7 16:15 UTC 2006 |
Tolkien said in one of his notes that one of his goals in writing LOTR
was to write a long story. It seems to me he'd have had a better story
if it were a little bit shorter. There is a lot of extraneous material
which doesn't contribute much to the story, as we have discussed here.
I wonder how much Tolkien's 3 volume story has contributed to the
concept of the modern fantasy trilogy. It seems possible a lot of
other trilogies would also have been 2 volumes if Tolkien had meandered
a bit less.
|