who else?

[SamNotSoWise]

We need to remember that Theoden, though one of the greatest ever kings of Rohan, is of the "lesser" breed of men.

He is not really Aragorn's equal, since Aragorn is of the race of Kings and is more closely related to Elrond than the Rohirrim.

I liked him in the movie, except for his exorcism which was WAY over done. The one I didn't like was Faramir, but that's another thread.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I liked him in the movie, except for his exorcism which was WAY over done. The one I didn't like was Faramir, but that's another thread.

That reminds me of something Rian said to me off the board when I asked her if she liked the Two Towers movie. She replied: "I didn't care much for the exorcism by Gandalf of the demonically posessed, cobweb covered Theoden." That just struck me funny.

[Ainaromenel]

In my mind's eye I thought the way Theoden was portrayed physically was off. I always imagined him to be older, seeing how according to the timeline in the Appendix B he was 71 years old when the Two Towers took place. I definately think that Gandalf's exorcisim bit was way off. I imagined it more of Gandalf telling Theoden to stand up, and he does it. Kinda like how Jesus would tell a cripple to stand up, and they did it (though I am not saying Gandalf's power matches Jesus's power, just using it as an example ). I think there was alot more of a choice on Theoden's part to actually put away his doubts and fears, which were the real things that held him back.

In the movie I suppose Theoden did have the right to do what he wanted in his own kingdom, but Aragorn was directly related to Elros, Elrond's brother, and even farther back to Melian, a Maia (read the Silmarillion if you don't know what I'm talking about). Aragorn was definately the higher in regard to lineage. I think he showed better prudence in the book by not being so rude in another man's kingdom, showing not only that he was humble, but also that he was yet ready to truely take on his task as being the respective King of Gondor and Arnor.

Theoden is an interesting character, and though I think he was much calmer in words in the book

(as he took Merry to be a knight in his army and wanted to hear about the Shire)

, the movie did a decent job at portraying his role. They gave him alot of struggles, which people have talked about, which adds depth to the character. But as I think it is with the movies in their entirety, the books show SO much more depth in all aspects of Middle Earth. I am sorry to those who have not read the books.

[hectorberlioz]

oh yeah. theodens excorcism was really way off....

[Elfhelm]

I rolled my eyes the first time I saw it. I like the way it is in the book, with the light streaming in from above and Gandalf driving off Grima, then Theoden gradually gets his wits back. Saruman didn't posess him, he was hypnotized.

[hectorberlioz]

Exactly. Hypnotized not possessed.
Grima's lies.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"Exactly. Hypnotized not possessed."

Or, perhaps, brainwashed. The actual scene calls for a far more subtle approach then in the movie. But at least they didn't toss Gimli at him.
A real problem with the scene is that it could briefly take you out of that world because of its "Exorcist" similarity and facile handling of the scene. I think JRRT was cited as saying somewhere something like (when that happens it takes you out of the subcreation and you find yourself looking in on a failed subcreated world from the outside).

[hectorberlioz]

Alright, Brainwashed is more aproppriate.
Grima fed his lies and deciet to theoden with a spoon.

[Black Breathalizer]

The film's handling of Theoden's release from under Saruman's thrall was pure genius. It could not have been handled better given the film's time constraints.

A few thoughts about it:

1. I find it amusing that Purists lash out against Saruman's possession of Theoden as being so unnatural in a fantasy world filled with Ents, a jolly nature spirit, Werebears, goblins, talking eagles, wizards and evil wraiths. Give me a break.

2. Screenplays are all about presenting the plot and character motivations in visual ways. It is not uncommon for screenplays based on books to ratchet things up a bit. This is all that PJ did in this case. The basic underlying plot remained true to Tolkien.

3. A strict adherence to the book on this point wouldn't have worked nearly as well. Jackson rightly understood that the scenes involving Theoden return from the darkness would be much more bold and dramatic if handled in this fashion.

[Melko Belcha]

Pure genius? Give me a break, I found the scene embarassing and laughable. It was closer to something I would expect from a D&D movie, not from Tolkien's work. I find the Theoden exorcism as one of the most horrible scenes in the films, it was just poorly thought out and a slap in the face to Tolkien.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I find it amusing that Purists lash out against Saruman's possession of Theoden as being so unnatural in a fantasy world filled with Ents, a jolly nature spirit, Werebears, goblins, talking eagles, wizards and evil wraiths. Give me a break.

Well, the problem is that that fantasy world is Tolkien's, not PJ's. And as I said in the "Taming of Jackson" thread, this scene is a joke. It didn't happen that way in the book, so why do it in the movie? There are many other ways that PJ could and did build the movie up, staying semi-true to the books, but when he foundered, it was 100%. Nomatter how much you like the movies, you cannot justify this scene. It was totally stupid. Tolkien created a beautiful fantasy world, but it is his, not Jackson's

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
Pure genius? Give me a break, I found the scene embarassing and laughable. It was closer to something I would expect from a D&D movie, not from Tolkien's work. I find the Theoden exorcism as one of the most horrible scenes in the films, it was just poorly thought out and a slap in the face to Tolkien.

Couldn't have said it better myself. as a matteroffact, I did say it, in the "Taming" thread.

[Ainaromenel]

Tolkien created a beautiful fantasy world, but it is his, not Jackson's

Awesome Point Sister Golden Hair. I couldn't agree more. I hate how the whole movie business ruins books by twisting things around and making things "more exciting". Jurrasic Park, The Counte of Monte Cristo, and so many other books were taken apart, changing the plot, and ruining the authors work. It's like if someone were to take one of Bethoveen's symphonys and add in a bunch of tunes and take out stuff and rerelase it. Not all books have to be forced into molding it to make it a hit in theaters. Just because everyone else does it doesn't mean it has to be that way. The Theoden exorcism left Theoden looking like he had less will power, that he was just being tossed around from one powerful controller to the next. Gandalf forced the changes on him in the movie. Theoden made the changes for himself in the book. There's a huge difference.

[Black Breathalizer]

I find it interesting how some of you people want it both ways.

On one hand, Faramir's "sudden" change from "bad guy to good guy" of his own free will was - in the words of many of you Purists - hokey, abrupt, and not realistic.

Yet, you want me to believe that if Jackson had taken the same approach with Theoden, you would have all said, "Attaboy, PJ. Great job!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, gang. I believe you.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it interesting how some of you people want it both ways.

On one hand, Faramir's "sudden" change from "bad guy to good guy" of his own free will was - in the words of many of you Purists - hokey, abrupt, and not realistic.

Yet, you want me to believe that if Jackson had taken the same approach with Theoden, you would have all said, "Attaboy, PJ. Great job!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, gang. I believe you.

Anytime Jackson would stay true to the books would be a plus for him. The thing with the two examples you give is that that didn't happen with either of them. There was never a need or reason for Faramir to be made a bad guy. There was never a reason to exercise Theoden.

[Elfhelm]

For the record, if you characterize other people's opinions as "lashing out" when they are just chatting, or you respond to one person as "you people", you are engaging in the same subtle distortion that Grima uses on Theoden. Do not assume that we are so stupid we can't see through your rhetorical tricks.

I guess by your logic, Shakespeare should have Iago posess Othello, since we're all too dumb to figure it out otherwise.

The moral of the story is, If you take a cynic for your chief counselor, you will fall into despair. A Tolkienesque point that the PJ alteration completely loses.

[hectorberlioz]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it interesting how some of you people want it both ways.

On one hand, Faramir's "sudden" change from "bad guy to good guy" of his own free will was - in the words of many of you Purists - hokey, abrupt, and not realistic.

Yet, you want me to believe that if Jackson had taken the same approach with Theoden, you would have all said, "Attaboy, PJ. Great job!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, gang. I believe you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm....PJ did take the same approach. Theoden suddenly becomes 'good guy' from 'bad guy' just as it happened so suddenly to faramir. Actually faramir's 'transition took longer than theodens did.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The film's handling of Theoden's release from under Saruman's thrall was pure genius. It could not have been handled better given the film's time constraints.

Just a second while I clean the throw-up from my keyboard.




Okay - Better now. Damn - got it on the monitor too. Just a sec again....

You have got to be joking me. And you expect US to take YOU seriously when you spew this crap? Give me a break - you have demonstrated by your comments more than any of us so-called purists that you are the one who is blind. Blinded by Jackson's propaganda and the hollywood industry. You obviously like spoonfed movies.

1. I find it amusing that Purists lash out against Saruman's possession of Theoden as being so unnatural in a fantasy world filled with Ents, a jolly nature spirit, Werebears, goblins, talking eagles, wizards and evil wraiths. Give me a break.

The only real thing out of place in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings - is Tom Bombadil. Just because you feel that you can do anything in Tolkiens world because of what you have listed Tolkien presented - doesn't mean an outsider should.

2. Screenplays are all about presenting the plot and character motivations in visual ways. It is not uncommon for screenplays based on books to ratchet things up a bit. This is all that PJ did in this case. The basic underlying plot remained true to Tolkien.

They don't have to dumb down the movie in the process. I'm sure you have never seen a movie like Dr Zhivago either or Momento.

3. A strict adherence to the book on this point wouldn't have worked nearly as well. Jackson rightly understood that the scenes involving Theoden return from the darkness would be much more bold and dramatic if handled in this fashion.

Why do you think it wouldn't have - because Jackson didn't do it that way and the way Jackson did it was the absolute only way for it to work? I love how you use words like "pure Genius" and "rightly understood" to describe Jackson. The problem I find - is he had no love or understanding for Tolkien's work. His motivation was just to make a cool fantasy film (which I consider Excalibur to be a thousand times better and far more enjoyable).

As a side note to you BB - I wish you would stop misquoting me. I have said as films - they are a C in my book. That means - as films I find them acceptable and average. Nothing more. I find them to be on the same level as Terminator 3 (which I think is the best out of the series). They are not thought provoking movies - they are just action flicks. Get over yourself already Grima Wormtongue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
On one hand, Faramir's "sudden" change from "bad guy to good guy" of his own free will was - in the words of many of you Purists - hokey, abrupt, and not realistic.

I think the complaint is generally that Faramir was made "evil" at in the movie. Jackson had NO reason to present Faramir in that way - anymore than he had a reason to have Aragorn running from his destiny and heritage.

Yet, you want me to believe that if Jackson had taken the same approach with Theoden, you would have all said, "Attaboy, PJ. Great job!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, gang. I believe you.

Grima was the one who had brainwashed Theoden - as has been said. Why waste movie time having Gandlaf fight Saruman through Theoden. It's cheap hollywood crap.

[jerseydevil]

BB - I just had a question that I've been wondering for a while. Are you Jackson in real life or one of the other people involved in the movie? Also - have you ever read Lord of the Rings - or are you just talking out your a$$?