What actor in movies seems less then in book?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I noticed a movie thread on this topic ended 1/29/02, obviously only dealing with FOTR. Now that all three are out are there other views/opinions? I hope so, since the single most irritating one for me was the trashing of Denethor, totally missing the subtlety of his fall, and negatively affecting one of the great scenes in ROTK movie, Faramir's boys going on their suicide charge, generally brilliantly done. To be fair to PJ, a thread giving positive book to movie characterizations could also be made.

[jerseydevil]

Let's see - Merry, Pippin (both just used as comic relief and brain dead idiots - Merry even got to fight several times, but then when Eowyn dresses him up in RotK he acts like it's the first time he drew a sword ), Gandalf (bumbling fool- in most of the movie - including hitting Denethor with his staff), Elrond (arrogant), Galadriel (ice-queen), Denethorn (complete slob and madman), Theoden (excorcism scene), Arwen (yuk - FotR - xena-elf), Sauron (didn't like the way he waqs protrayed), Faramir (complete asshole in TT), Gimli (used for midget jokes in the movie, and shown to be completely out of shape throughout the movies)

Some of these are minor annoyances with the characters - others are major.

I thought except for some short comings - Frodo and Sam were the closest to the books. Sam would never have actually have left Frodo though.

[Salquënòrëwen]

I was really annoyed in Rotk that Frodo asked Sam to go home, and even more, Sam does nothing! He just sat there and cried. Sure, I understand the crying, but the Sam in the books would have wiped the tears away and trudged on, watching over Mr. Frodo, if that part was even in the book.

Also, in RotK, when Gandalf hits Denethor with his staff...ugh! I know PJ was just trying to break up the tension of the moment, but that was a very un-Gandalf thing to do.

Overall, I seriously think the character adaptions in RotK were terrible.

[Aragorn_iz_cool]

DENETHOR!!!! He was so bad he was funny.

[Nurvingiel]

As far as actors were concerned, I think most of the actors were well cast.

It's not David Wenham's fault that Faramir was a jerk in TTT - that was Jackson's lines and blocking etc. Faramir was fortunately excellent in RotK, barring the 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Still, the acting for Faramir was excellent, even when he was forced to act out of character. I was on the verge of tears in this scene, which is almost exactly the same as the book:

"Do you with then," said Faramir, "That our places had been exchanged?"
"Yes, I wish that indeed," said Denethor, "For Boromir was loyal to me and no wizard's pupil. He would have remembered his father's need, and would not have squandered what fortune gave. He would have brought me a mighty gift."
-- p. 99 The Return of the King

All this to say, any faults in Faramir's character in the movies are not due to David Wenham's acting. He did a great job and has some marvellous scenes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
As far as actors were concerned, I think most of the actors were well cast.

It's not David Wenham's fault that Faramir was a jerk in TTT - that was Jackson's lines and blocking etc.

I have always said that my hatred toward the characters have nothing to do with their acting - just the directing and casting. I think Pippin and Merry were completely miscasted.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Aragorn_iz_cool
DENETHOR!!!! He was so bad he was funny.

I agree. But was the because John Noble can't act, or because Jackson's story arc surrounding his character was stupid?
I think it's a little of the former and a lot of the latter. Jackson's ideas of Denethor as a slobbering idiot, and having him do a flaming death leap off a cliff is what ruined Denethor's character.
The only complaint I have with John Noble's acting is I didn't completely like the way he delivered his lines. I think he was slightly mis-cast. I would have put someone like Jeremy Irons in that role.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I agree. But was the because John Noble can't act, or because Jackson's story arc surrounding his character was stupid?
I think it's a little of the former and a lot of the latter. Jackson's ideas of Denethor as a slobbering idiot, and having him do a flaming death leap off a cliff is what ruined Denethor's character.
The only complaint I have with John Noble's acting is I didn't completely like the way he delivered his lines. I think he was slightly mis-cast. I would have put someone like Jeremy Irons in that role.

Hard to get, I'm certain, but my two favorite picks for Denethor would have been Patrick Stewart and Sean Connery.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have always said that my hatred toward the characters have nothing to do with their acting - just the directing and casting. I think Pippin and Merry were completely miscasted.

Actually, given the proper lines and the ability to not be comic relief (neither of which were their fault, as you pointed out), Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd would have done an amazing job.

They already did a great job with Jackson's lines. The reason I emphasize the difference is only because of the thread's title. It implies to me, who couldn't act well enough to live up to their character?

I think:
1) Liv Tyler. I think she is beautiful, but I don't like the way she delivered her lines either. I think she was miscast completely. I like Liv Tyler generally, but she expressed a lack of confidence in an interview I read in that random free magazine you get at movie theatres. I don't think that's the right person to have as Arwen. From what I understand from the books, Arwen is extremely confident.
Liv Tyler cannot be blamed for all the ridiculous scenes Jackson made up and put her in. For all we know, she made an effort to 'nip it in the bud' with those scenes, but Jackson went ahead anyway. Let's give poor, beleagered Liv a break and give her the benefit of the doubt. Jackson, as the director, should take the hit for the biggest flaws in Arwen's character.
2) John Noble. He wasn't terrible, but I didn't like him for reasons stated above.

I hope I don't cross posts with you again JD.

[Twista]

Originally posted by Salquënòrëwen
I was really annoyed in Rotk that Frodo asked Sam to go home, and even more, Sam does nothing! He just sat there and cried. :

lol cry baby

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Actually, given the proper lines and the ability to not be comic relief (neither of which were their fault, as you pointed out), Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd would have done an amazing job.

No - they were too old. They shoudl have been more like 16 and 19. As I have pointed out many times.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Well, one character that comes to mind for me is Faramir. I hate ROTK Faramir even more than TT Faramir. I did not see a tragedy in that charge, I saw a military captain waste the lives of many men in a self-centred attempt to please a father who refused to allow himself to be pleased. A noble man (and I think book Faramir was a noble man) would have refused to send his men to a certain death (and boy it was certain) and accepted whatever punishment followed. To make matters worse, since we don’t see Denethor outline the tactics to be used we are left to assume that it was Faramir’s idea to ride toward osgilliath in a wide line straight into hundreds of archers.

Book Faramir’s mission was dangerous, but it wasn’t suicidal, and Gandalf’s great line “your father loves you and he will remember it in the end” was given to remind Faramir not to do anything to reckless on that mission trying to prove himself to his father. The movie turned that line into Gandalf trying to stop the mission all together because it had no chance of success and most likely would kill everyone (as it turned out all but one). Faramir, in a sense, proved his father right by obeying his order.

The movie is full of these seemingly small changes that actually completely change the characters (Gandalf hitting Denethor with his staff is another example). It isn’t enough that the characters “loosely” follow the plot’s actions, they must do it for the right reasons. If not, then they are nothing more than different people with the same names.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
They already did a great job with Jackson's lines. The reason I emphasize the difference is only because of the thread's title. It implies to me, who couldn't act well enough to live up to their character?

I think it means who was portrayed the least like the book's character. Whether it was because of acting or Jackson's fault.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - they were too old. They shoudl have been more like 16 and 19. As I have pointed out many times.

Actually that's a good point. However, I originally said Elijah Wood (who is now 22, I believe) was too young to play 50-year old Frodo. Did you say you did not have a problem with Elijah Wood's age? I think that for some reason.

For the reference of all (and my fun in verifying):
Age of the Hobbits in TA 3018 when the Fellowship of the Ring was formed:

Frodo - 50 (b. TA 2968)
Sam - 35 (b. TA 2983)
It's hard to figure that out from the appendicies how old Merry and Pippin are, but my guess is:
Pippin - 28
Merry - 31

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Actually that's a good point. However, I originally said Elijah Wood (who is now 22, I believe) was too young to play 50-year old Frodo. Did you say you did not have a problem with Elijah Wood's age? I think that for some reason.

For the reference of all (and my fun in verifying):
Age of the Hobbits in TA 3018 when the Fellowship of the Ring was formed:

Frodo - 50 (b. TA 2968)
Sam - 35 (b. TA 2983)
It's hard to figure that out from the appendicies how old Merry and Pippin are, but my guess is:
Pippin - 28
Merry - 31

That was in HOBBIT years as I have poiinted out. Also - Frodo had the Ring which also had an effect on his aging. Even in the book - Gandalf mentions how Frodo had not aged from his 33rd birthday. I have explained this repeatedly. Aragorn was 87 in the books - and it is mentioned in the TT EE. He looked pretty good - except he should have had some flecks of gray.

Oh - and Pippin's and Merry's age is in the appendix - you just have to use the chronology of the third age.

[cassiopeia]

Merry is 36 at the time of the WOTR. Pippin is 28. Sam is either 38 or 35, depending on if you consider the Tale of the Years or the family trees to be correct.

The worst character for me was Gandalf in the ROTK (I thought he was excellent in the FOTR). When he repeatedly hit Denethor, all I could do was shudder and wonder how they got it so wrong. I thought Phillipa Boyens was supposed to be an expert on the LOTR. Doesn't she know Gandalf cannot use force?

Frodo's age is correct in the movies, IMO. Eljah was about 18/19 when it was filmed; Frodo looked about 33, when hobbits come of age, so I believe there's nothing wrong with this. Again, Phillipa Boyens mentions that nobody complained about Frodo's age -- but (even though that's incorrect, people have complained) this doesn't deviate from the text.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Merry is 36 at the time of the WOTR. Pippin is 28. Sam is either 38 or 35, depending on if you consider the Tale of the Years or the family trees to be correct.

Again those are Hobbit years and would look younger - just like Aragorn looks younger even though he is 87. Pippin and Merry look older in the movies than Frodo or Sam.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Again those are Hobbit years and would look younger - just like Aragorn looks younger even though he is 87. Pippin and Merry look older in the movies than Frodo or Sam.

Sean Astin is about 32 I believe -- about the same age as Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd, so that's about right. (I don't think the eight year age diffence between Merry and Pippin would make Merry look too much older.) But Pippin and Merry and Sam should look younger than Frodo, if you want to be precise.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Sean Astin is about 32 I believe -- about the same age as Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd, so that's about right. (I don't think the seven year age diffence between Merry and Pippin would make Merry look too much older.) But Pippin and Merry and Sam should look younger than Frodo, if you want to be precise.

Well it doesn't matter how old Sean Astin is - it matters how old he looks. He doesn't look that much older than Elijah Wood. Pippin and Merry on the other hand had gowls and wrinkles - which Merry and Pippin should NOT have had.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That was in HOBBIT years as I have poiinted out. Also - Frodo had the Ring which also had an effect on his aging. Even in the book - Gandalf mentions how Frodo had not aged from his 33rd birthday. I have explained this repeatedly.

By posting the ages, I wasn't saying that a 28 year-old actor should play Pippin, I just put that for the relative ages.
Frodo has the outward appearance of someone who has just come of age. He, Merry, and Sam should look about the same age, and Pippin should look younger than them by a bit.
Though I originally thought Frodo should have looked more care-worn, I don't have any issue with Elijah Wood's appearance.

Oh - and Pippin's and Merry's age is in the appendix - you just have to use the chronology of the third age.

I looked for it there and couldn't find it. I did find it in the family trees, where it has Merry's birthday as 1382 and Pippin's as 1390. Sam's, in the family tree part, is 1380 (which would make him 38). Frodo's is 1368.
According to the family tree, Frodo would be 50, Sam 38, Merry 36, and Pippin 28.
I would rather take the third age chronoly's answer.

Now I see what you meant in your first post JD.