The Sheila Variations

Sheila - these creatures, these sub-humans that you speak of...the freaks that haven't seen the trilogy...is it okay if I skip the part where I scour my brain to think of an answer to your question and just kick the crap out of them instead?

Though I did always love that part in Lothlorien when Haldir says "the dwarf breathes so loud, we could have shot him in the dark." Doesn't exactly sum up anything. I just thought it was funny.

Well that's why I put them in Chad - because it seemed very remote to me, like ... they might not have seen it ...but for a very good reason.

Oh heck. Let's go kick some ass.

Sheila,

"Weathertop" was the hill, Amon-Sul was the name of the watchtower, I think.

Gandalf facing down the Baalrog is another good choice. One man standing in the path of an unspeakable evil wanting to go through.

Oh so I wasn't too far off with Wytherspoon. Good to know.

I wouldn't mind invading other countries to spread the Word of Tolkien. Everyone must hear it.

Weathertop, as pointed out above--Amon Sul being the watchtower of the Kings of Arthedain, the splinter ruled by the legitimate heirs of Isildur after Arnor broke in three--but I like "Wytherspoon," too. She's been typecast, but anyone who's seen "Election" knows that Reese is quite a good actress. But I digress. ;-) As to a summarizing moment, I'll just echo the comments that have already been made.

"Gandalf facing down the Baalrog is another good choice. One man standing in the path of an unspeakable evil wanting to go through."

It's a great scene, but of course Gandalf isn't exactly JUST a man, is he? He's a maia--an angel--incarnate in human form, and so this moment is something like a drawing-away of the veil as the forces at a higher order, a greater scale, become physically visible in conflict for a brief moment, since the balrog is a maia, too, though a fallen one once in the service of Morgoth.

Long, long, long scenes of Frodo and Sam gazing at each other.

Ok, bring it on. I have not seen any of the LOTR movies and have no intention to at this time. Please wait....let me have my say before you banish me to Chad or Biff or wherever.

I first read the LOTR when I was 12. It was a few years later when I tackled The Silmarillion. I've re-read the trilogy many times and still occasionally pick up and read my falling apart paperbacks. In my mind the characters look and act....be.....based on Tolkien's words, or my interpretation of them. I also know the timelines, the places, why some people were in some places and others weren't. The luck and the tragedies of circumstance and fate in the books. My take on what it means.

While I have no doubt the movies are great and I certainly don't have a negative attitude about them, movies never are 100 percent faithful to the book, practically it's impossible. Suspension of disbelief is usually not a problem for me and a little variation on a book can still be entertaining in a good movie. But this trilogy is different for me. I have my own vision of Middle Earth and I cherish it.

Every so often I'm tempted to see the movies but then someone brings up something like dwarfs at a battle scene in the movie, where they weren't at in the book (there are other bigger issues from what I've read).

I can't abide that. Nope, not one bit.

Ok, fire away.

Sheila,
You hold down his hands...I'll cut off his thumbs.

That's us going easy on you. Just imagine what we do to people who haven't read the books.

"...movies never are 100 percent faithful to the book, practically it's impossible."

Uh, they shouldn't be: they're not the same medium and they work differently. What Peter Jackson did was tremendously respectful for the spirit of Tolkien's work, more so I'd say than anyone who loves his books ever dared hope.

"...but then someone brings up something like dwarfs at a battle scene in the movie..."

It's Elves at Helm's Deep, Jackson's biggest departure from the story in Two Towers. And if you were as adoring a Tolkien geek as you claim to be, you'd never have written the plural form of "Dwarf" as "dwarfs." It's "Dwarves," which he regarded as truer to Anglo-Saxon. :-p

Emily,

I don't think we need to cut the thumbs off just yet. I'll bring the duct tape for his hands and legs, you pick up some of those clips that hold eyelids open and Sheila can handle the saline drops so his eyes stay moist.

Dave J-I understand it's a different medium and doesn't work the same way. I'm just saying in this case the medium doesn't work for me, even understanding that Jackson did well.

Touche on the dwarves though. Ouch! But no freakin' lawyer is taking me alive.

Who said anything about "alive"? Florida has the death penalty...and we use it. ;-)

Dave-E,
I too read the books at an early age, and have re-read them several times. And the Hobbit, the silmarillion - the whole Tolkeinology thing. For my money his best ever is 'Tree and Leaf'.

Now listen up Dave - I rate Tolkein one of the best writers of the Twentieth Century BUT:

LOTR is flawed. Relatively speaking, 'Return of the King' is crap. Just not up to the standard of the first two.

And Dave - In many ways (but especially with the third movie) Peter Jackson IMPROVES on LOTR. Sure, he drops bits and inserts some dumb cinematic bits. But if Tolkein were alive he would love it. And he would laugh at the Tolkein-purists who are offended by every little deviation from the 'true' story.

And I'm sure he'd reserve a place of special mockery for those who assert their appreciation for his work but consistently spell his name wrong. :-p

THE scene that sums it up for me: morning at Helms Deep. All seems lost. Evil is about to carry the day decisively...

...and then, in a blinding flash of light, the riposte of good comes over the hill, like...well, a blinding flash of light. Like the Resurrection. Like a PBR after a hot day of painting. Gandalf and the ragged horsemen turn the flank and rout the orcs from the field.

It's not only the best moment in the trilogy, it's one of my favorites ever.

Dave E -

Just look away! Just look away! Resist the temptation to watch the movies! They're awful.

Pay no attention to what these folks are telling you! If you love the books as much as you claim, your only experience in seeing Jackson's treatment will be mounting frustration. B'lieve me, you won't enjoy it.

Dave J - Elves at Helm's Deep were indeed a big and pointless departure, but how about the complete muffing of Farimir's character? That struck me as the worst sin in Two Towers.

I'd have said the horns of the Rohirrim echoing in the hills just as the King of the Nazgul is about to ride in to Minas Tirith is the most stirring moment in the trilogy except - oops! - Jackson completely blows this. (Sorry, Sheila. You've read my rant before. But I'm trying to save an innocent here.) Jackson's movies may or may not have merit in and of themselves, but let's quit pretending they really have anything to do with the books. And whoever it was who claimed that Tolkien would approve, well, God bless ye, but I don't think so.

Nephew-I respectfully disagree that The Return of the King is crap. I'm curious why you think so. Regarding Tolkien liking the movies I can't say one way or the other.....who can?

I wouldn't say I'm a purist or a fanatic (though I would dress up as an elf if Sheila or Emily asked.....I'm thinking Elrond here....power baby, power.) Those books were and are a lesson.

Dave E,
Thank you for the respectfully. Please note (Dave J included) that Tolkeen was, like myself, dyslexic and only overcame this terrible problem through sheer mental effort.

Note that I said 'ROTK was relatively crap'. Ergo, compared to most other books it is very good. Just not up to sheer power of the first two. The power of creating an entire world and binding the readers imagination into the fate of the small heroes wandering upon it.

Much of ROTK is multitudes battling it out - preparing for battle, doing battle, and the wash-up of the results. There are too many names milling around in too many crowd-scenes. Characterisation and motive are glossed (of necessity) and the readers good-will in assuming these things is put upon more than any but the aficionadoes can bear. As Scott noted above "Damn Peter Jackson for making Farimir a believable character".

ROTK with just the trip to Mount Doom and the return to Hobbiton would be a superior book.

ROTK jazzed up with Hollywood special effects and a few corny gags works way better than the book.

"ROTK with just the trip to Mount Doom and the return to Hobbiton would be a superior book."

Now I have to respectfully disagree, myself (and I hope it's clear that my previous comments were joking and not meant to be personal slights; apologies if they were taken as such).

Though Frodo and Sam's journey is ultimately more important than the clash of armies, etc., I think we'd be unable to fully appreciate the merit of one without the other. Moreover, the latter is hardly pure distraction: Aragorn's return to the throne (and his marriage to Arwen, though only covered in detail in the appendix) represents the completion of multiple mythic-historical cycles--reunions of what has been "put asunder"--some going all the way back to the First Age. If the plot was left the same, but events external to what the two hobbits in Mordor were doing were not covered, we'd be left to wonder forever what was going on: the story would be incomplete rather than the remarkable whole that it is.

Moreover, I'm not sure you can consistently in one breath praise Tolkien for creating a believable world and then in the next complain about "too many names milling around in too many crowd-scenes", and certainly not as a factor that strongly distinguishes the third volume from the first two. More names meant more opportunity for Tolkien to play with language, and that was the initial reason behind his work in the first place.

As for Jackson, putting Elves at Helm's Deep was indeed pointless: in earlier script stages it was done to provide an opportunity (thankfully rejected) to have Arwen fight alongside the boys. But I want to echo Scott's comments on Faramir: while I like him as written by Tolkien, he really was just a bit too pure of heart, etc., to be quite believable. That said, Jackson's treatment was probably too much in the opposite direction.

Now I'm going to set myself up for attack - but when the elves arrive at Helms Deep (and especially when they all turn their heads the same way) is perhaps my most favorite moment in the entire trilogy. Oops.

It just gives me chills. Even though it doesn't exist in the books.

I just wish they'd left in Theoden saying "what the fuck are you doing here?" ;-)

Tolkien's dialogue is superb, isn't it?

Fer the love of feckin' Jeebus, people, I don't think ANY of us have the right to say whether Tolkien would or would not have liked the movies. He's dead. Period.

I'm with you, Sheila. The elves showing up at Helm's Deep was a "jump out of your seat and cheer" moment. I loved it.

Dave E -- Haldir. And that's all I'm sayin'.

Emily, along the lines of your first comment, I couldn't agree more. Fine, be a purist if you like - but accept the fact that when you change mediums, things must change. Either see it or don't see it, but don't pretend to know the mind of a dead man.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that Tolkien would have COMPLETELY approved of a random unconnected-to-anything-else sex scene involving Boromir and some heretofore unknown female character, and I am very disappointed that that scene wasn't included.

Although I have certainly played it out in my mind.

This "heretofore unknown female character" wouldn't happen to be a redhead, would she? As for what I've played out in my own mind, believe me, Lothlorien's just the back-drop for a porn movie.

I am sure that Tolkien MEANT to write about some lusty redheaded elf whom Boromir loses himself in - after the frightening moment when he meets Cate Blanchett. She sees his soul, she reads his mind ... and so he must satisfy the flesh to forget.

I am sure that Tolkien MEANT to write something like that.

Hmmmm...and now perhaps we have some idea why there are no redheaded elves in his published works, but only in the, er, "apocrypha" that Scott mentioned.

DaveJ: Apocrypha? I am deeply in love with you for using that wicked awesome word. It should be used more often.

So noted...and look: panacea! onomatopoeia! antidisestablishmentarianism! :-p

Elixir. ;-)

Theoden: What do men do against such reckless hate?
Aragorn: Ride out and meet them.

And then they do... and thats my favorite part of all 3 movies..10 men riding their horses into a sea of orcs at Helms Deep, to be followed by Gandalfs skin of the teeth rescue!