Emphasis on Characters in the Book and Movie

[Nurvingiel]

Do you think the important characters in the book and movie are the same people? In the same order of prominence? Do you think the movie accurately conveyed which characters were meant to be the most important, or do you think new inductees to Lord of the Rings have a totally different understanding than the movie's intent?

Which characters do you think had more or less focus on them in the movie in the book? How do you think this affected the portrayal of the character? How much of these discrepencies are due to the differences between book and movie media, and how much from artistic decisions about the movie?

This thread is prompted by a Lord of the Rings button I picked up for free at Movie Mart. It features Legolas standing in front of some nameless soldiers, squinting thoughtfully into the distance. I almost didn't take one, thinking other people would enjoy it more, but then I noticed about a quarter of Gimli's helmet peeking over Legolas' shoulder. I thought, "Isn't that just typical," and the button seemed to be telling me an inside joke. And the idea for this thread was born.

Let's take Legolas and Gimli for example (though any characters can be discussed). In the book, they came across as equals who overcame their differences to be best friends.

In the movie, I thought they seemed like friends from the start who liked harassing each other, but that Gimli was a buffoon, and Legolas tolerated this awkward person as a friend because of he was an endless source of hilarity. The nature of Legolas and Gimli's friendship was vastly different in the movie, but more importantly, they did not seem like equals. It seemed like Legolas got more screen time, for one. Further, Gimli was stuck mouthing dreadfully-written comic relief lines while Legolas got to do impossible stunts and see small distant objects.

Both their characters' portayal remind me of my table-top roleplaying days.

Frodo is a character I think got similar emphasis (and dignity) in both the book and the movie. However, because a lot of the parts with less action were cut or shortened (partly because of the nature of movies), he spends of lot of time gasping in horror as the Ring falls onto his finger in slow motion. How do you think this affects Frodo's character? (Partly time is conveyed less effectively in the movie, so you might not realize how much time has elapsed between one mishap and another.)

What do you guys think about book versus movie character emphasis?

[clep_web]

I'm writing this from the point of view of someone who has not seen the Extended Edition of the movies, but the normal edition screened in theatres, and of course read the books.

I liked the first movie because most of their character portrayals were excellent and close to the book. They came across as believable and almost what Tolkien intended them to be. However, the second and third movies were not like the first in this area, though they sported more CGI effects and action scenes.

Take Denethor for example. In the book he was not exactly a power hungry steward as the movie would have us believe; he was a steward of the city doomed to watch as Sauron's forces gained on Gondor day by day, and the main task of the Stewards was to take on the rule of the land until the King should return. Until the King should return. The movie seems to have forgotten the last part, and portrays Denethor as someone who does not want any King in his place.

And Gandalf. In the third movie he has morphed from the kind and wise Istari we knew to a person who seems to do no more than go around commanding people (and beating them up ). I understand that in the EE when he confronted the Witch-King the scene played out completely the opposite of the book. I don't know about other people but I certainly think that his character was one of the most altered in the movies (apart from Gimli, loyal stouthearted dwarf turned jester).

[brownjenkins]

over xmas we had a marathon day and watched all three EEs... i'm one who enjoys both the books (of course ) and the movies, not because i think they were perfect, but because i think they were still powerful movies (i only have to look at my kid's reactions, none of whom have read the books, to realize that)... some characters in the book were definitely shortchanged in the movies, but some characters, or maybe better put, themes, the movie did well... and by "well", i mean had a strong impact, whether or not it was inline with tolkien's intention

Legolas/Gimli is a decent example... while i agree that they were both charicatured a good bit, part of Gimli's comic relief was to add some levity to what is a fairly somber tale... real comic relief is few and far between in tolkien's book... this is fine in a book, but in live action comedy is very important, even if it is not relavant to the story... i think shakespeare is probably the best example of this... one could still argue that the movie's comedy wasn't exactly top-notch, but i have nothing against putting some in to counter the drama... it is a powerful technique and one that widens the audience for the more broader dramatic themes

also, in many ways Legolas was even a stronger character than Tolkien made him, offering advice to Aragorn, for example, in a way that you don't really see in the book... and even the developing friendship between him and Gimli is touched upon in the last battle scene when they talk about dying beside friends

i also liked the idea of Madril and the elves of Lothlorien coming to the aid of the Rohirrim... this is far from tolkien's theme, unless you really want to exaggerate arrival of elrond's sons, and goes rather strongly against Tolkien's theme of the elves time in middle earth being over... but that was one thing that always bothered me about lotr, considering that the whole problem of the ring was basically of elvish origin, especially the Noldor, of which Galadriel was the eldest left in middle earth... it seemed to me that the elves should have been willing to pause for a short bit in their exodus and help out... valinor wasn't going anywhere

obviously, there is the backstory (in the book) of Lothlorien having to deal with the remnants of Dol Guldor, but i thought this was a decent way of showing that the elves indeed did still care about the fate of middle earth, even though it was a place they were leaving... enough even to give their lives for it

one character i thought was shortchanged in the movie and should not have been was Eomer, there is really very little, even in the EE, that reflects the friendship between him and Aragorn that we see developed in the book... i think a conversation or two could have been added between them, as well as the meeting on the field of battle outside Gondor we see in the book

as far as clep_web's comments about Denethor, he was certainly more power-hungry and less noble than Tolkien's Denethor... but even the Denethor of the books did not seem to be likely to willingly pass over rule when the King returned... he still had a great deal of power-hunger and pride that he never quite overcame

[Sparra]

I believe that the character of Gimli was sort of ruined, because he seemed to be just a big joke.

Also, I believe that they shouldn't have had as much emphasis on Arwen, although it was nice to have a little more. In the book, she appears only two times, once in Rivendell and once at the coronation. She was mentioned in Lothlorien, but that was about it. I think Peter Jackson sort of over did it though.

[The Gaffer]

I pretty much agree with BJ's comments above. Denethor's depiction was, IMO, a bit lazy and unimaginative. It could have been done so much better. Another candidate would be Faramir. And Frodo was miscast as well as misscripted and misdirected.

And of course I didn't get anything like enough screen time.

In general, the books give you very little direct insight into people's characters (no internal debates or trains of thought, and they don't change much), which means that we are always going to have differences of opinion around how they've been interpreted for the screen.

Some specific comments:

Aragorn: is portrayed as being beset with doubt in the films, whereas in the book he only ever has doubts about whether to follow Frodo into Emyn Muil or not. I think that they weakened his character to try to create a bit of suspense, and make the love interest more meaningful. I think this tactic failed miserably.

Galadriel: her portrayal in the film was, IMO, excellent. They exaggerated the differences between Elves and Men, making her in particular seem very "other". I also thought Cate Blanchett was excellent. This was one case where the film portrayal made me think again about the character in the book. (Sam the other.)

Saruman: gotta love Christopher Lee, it's an article of faith. They made him more of a vassal of Sauron than he was in the book, in which his ambitions were mainly for himself. To me, that was a bit of a cop-out, but Lee was top notch.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i think there could have been much more emphasis on shelob, i was hardly seen in the films, and i am not amused by this

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by clep_web

Take Denethor for example. In the book he was not exactly a power hungry steward as the movie would have us believe; he was a steward of the city doomed to watch as Sauron's forces gained on Gondor day by day, and the main task of the Stewards was to take on the rule of the land until the King should return. Until the King should return. The movie seems to have forgotten the last part, and portrays Denethor as someone who does not want any King in his place.

While I agree that Denethor was one of the worst transferred characters, in the book he actually did not want any king in his place. In fact, he specifically rejects Gandalf when Gandalf makes exactly that point. He said that he wanted Gondor to be continue to be ruled by the Stewards, and if he couldn't have that he would rather Gondor be destroyed- "Then I will choose nothing!"
Sorry, don't have my book with me for the exact quote.

And Gandalf. In the third movie he has morphed from the kind and wise Istari we knew to a person who seems to do no more than go around commanding people (and beating them up ). I understand that in the EE when he confronted the Witch-King the scene played out completely the opposite of the book. I don't know about other people but I certainly think that his character was one of the most altered in the movies (apart from Gimli, loyal stouthearted dwarf turned jester).

Yeah, it was especially grating at the Last Council, when he starts weeping and moaning about having sent Frodo to his doom instead of coming up with the plan for the march to the Black Gates.

[Jon S.]

I look at the book and the movies as different takes on the same events with the movie being "based on" the book, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm going to comment on just several characters I liked in the movies, not because there were others I didn't like but because it's my experience more people here trash the movies then defend them so I'll hang, in this thread, with the underdogs.

I found the Aragorn of the movies much more realistic and believable - and ultimately human - than the Aragorn of the book. To me, true valor and bravery is not being fearless and doubtless - where's the courage in that? - but in facing and overcoming our doubts and fears.

Maybe it's just me but I didn't - and still don't - view the Gimli of the movies as a "buffoon." I thought the movie version showed loyalty and courage throughout the films and if they, at the same time, used his character to provide comic relief, so be it.

Galadrial's character takes a lot of hits here for the over-the-top freak out scene by the mirror, which I also didn't care for, but otherwise, I liked the character and found it appropriate.

Gandalf's crabbiness didn't bother me. Maybe this is a function of me likely being older myself than many of the folks on Entmoot. Gandalf was a Maian spirit incarnated in an old man's body and so I can forgive him for much.

Here's an example of a character that did bother me in the movies: Elrond. Never, after reading LOTRs more times than I can remember, did I imagine him to be as bitchy and downcast as in the films.

In conclusion, all of our opinions in this thread are just that: personal opinions. So no one's right or wrong, we all interpret everything in life through our personal lenses, if you will. I find it interesting to learn how others interpret stuff, particularly when the interpretations differ from my own, because it pulls me out of my own "box," expanding my POV.

[jammi567]

i totally agree with Jon S., and have to add that for a movie being based on a book, you have to get rid of, change and add things to make it properly work.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Gandalf's crabbiness didn't bother me. Maybe this is a function of me likely being older myself than many of the folks on Entmoot. Gandalf was a Maian spirit incarnated in an old man's body and so I can forgive him for much.

Now, see, I thought Gandalf wasn't crabby ENOUGH. I thought Sir Ian McKellen's portrayal of him (much as I like the actor's work overall) was somewhat too "soft" for the stern Gandalf I know and love. Or at least the stern Gandalf the Grey I know and love.

[jammi567]

does my opinion not matter to anyone.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

... Yeah, it was especially grating at the Last Council, when he starts weeping and moaning about having sent Frodo to his doom instead of coming up with the plan for the march to the Black Gates.

I don't think Jackson's reasons for that scene could possibly have been any more obvious. That scene was the "handing of the baton" from The Wizard to The King, a tangible manifestation of Aragorn's personal growth & the ascendancy of man.