Lord of the Rings

thread

1) A stranger than fiction Roman ring mystery thread: this enigmatic Roman gold ring was found in a ploughed field near Silchester in 1785. The square bezel has a portrait of the pagan goddess Venus, inscribed backwards SUNEV for use as a signet ring by the owner. Curiously... pic.twitter.com/Ls0QcDVNzq

— Gareth Harney (@OptimoPrincipi) July 10, 2020

Yeah we were just discussing it over in our blog network channels -- an interesting supposition but not a conclusive argument I think.

watched the first film last night with my other half (she'd never seen it). Very strange seeing this again 20 years after it first got released(!). I remember thinking it was absolutely marvellous when it first came out, like the future of epic entertainment was spooling out in front of me.

I have to say, while some of the seams are a bit more visible than they used to be (certain scenes look very green-screened/super-imposed, and the bit where Cate Blanchett's character is declines Frodo's offer of the ring now comes across as unintentionally hilarious), it does hold up for the most part. I still found the scene in the Dwarf mines with the Balrog very exciting.

I was much more aware this time round of a lack of female characters and no people of colour (save, as my partner pointed out, from the Orcs, which is certainly problematic).

as well as the orcs the getup of the sallow-skinned human followers of Sauron is sort of a pan-asian hodgepodge. samurai bedouins. id assume this is an issue with the source material, though ive never read LOTR.

i watched the trilogy for the first time 2 years ago at christmas. i enjoyed them very much but there is a bit of an issue with overlong battles in the second and third films, did find my mind wandering a little bit when it just becomes monotonous. i do think the films also do look very shit in parts, but there's some millennial nostalgia in me for the early 00s visuals so i wasn't too bothered by it

the orcs and their “black speech” very turkish/central asian to my ears in the book

gollum is often called a little “black” fellow

it’s not great

iirc the nazgul are often called “Black men” by fearful naive hobbitses who don’t know who they are; when i read the story to my kids i translated as “Black rider” in real-time which still isn’t great but at least to my mind emphasises the rider-ness, the horses, the black cloaks etc rather than their actual bodies (of which there is none actually iirc apart from the GLOWING EYES) (no, not “gloin” eyes quiet in the back)

Definitely an issue with the source material - I imagine the offending passages are easily findable online with a simple search for “Tolkien racist”.

I personally don’t find Tolkien’s eurocentrism too problematic; given his era it’s very mild, IMO. But as a middle-aged white guy, I’m happy to be overruled on this.

I like the recent trend of race-blind or race-positive casting in historical & fantasy movies, but 20 years ago the approach/context was very different. I’ve heard that the upcoming Amazon “set in the world of middle earth” series will take the contemporary approach.

Tracer Hand OTM

I have to say, while some of the seams are a bit more visible than they used to be (certain scenes look very green-screened/super-imposed, and the bit where Cate Blanchett's character is declines Frodo's offer of the ring now comes across as unintentionally hilarious)

All true and notable at the time tbh

Yes the other peoples and lack of girl warriors is from the fantasy book written in the early-middle last century by an aulfella

I would say that "black men" for nazgul is v v v readable as in fallen/evil members of the overall race of men tbh tho

Wheel of time series looks to be addressing the inbuilt issues here as they develop for screen, tho obv the issues jordan wrote in between the genders are legendary to readers too

Galdalf kills the Goblin King in the Soviet version of THE HOBBIT, 1985. pic.twitter.com/7Mp2pRHKJo

— Humanoid History (@HumanoidHistory) January 18, 2021

Lol how have we not heard about this til now

It's exactly like I always imagined as a kid. ;_;

watched the second and third films back to back last night. noticed how the orcs coded a lot "whiter" by the third film, but they managed to go unnecessarily orientalist in the final epic battle scene with the oliphaunts and their riders

Forgot to chime in on this earlier! But suffice to say, yeah, issues are existent while at the same time the source material could have been a lot worse. (His big 'out' in many ways was the flash of thought about the dead Haradrim warrior that Sam has in TTT, transposed in the film to a short speech by Faramir -- basically wondering if said dead warrior was truly evil, had been threatened to participate, etc. I read that as mostly a war veteran (from the winning side, of course) thinking back on his experiences and what he saw.)

Our next podcast episode will be about orcs in general and my cohost Oriana, who is leading the discussion, has thoughts and a half. The last one she led was on Eowyn and it's one of our best episodes, I think.

https://www.megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/20

That glorious Russian epic is here with subtitles. Best Smaug Ever.
https://archive.org/details/TheFantasticJourneyOfMr.BilboBagginsTheHobbit

Just watched the first one (extended) with one of my kids. Wouldn't change a frame. I maintain it is some sort of miracle that these movies turned out as well as they did.

Would agree. *sense deems's wrath* Would still agree. But would also definitely say that the first film is the one that works best on its own.

Why on earth (middle or otherwise) would you need any of them to work on their own?!

Well the first one in particular absolutely had to sell the whole thing to start with. Which it did, and I think the ending scene, particularly between Sam and Frodo, is astonishingly well done. As for the middle one, that was more the creative team going nuts about how best to create a film that had a 'proper' ending, so they sure felt it had to end on a particular note. Not the one I think I would have done but hey, I'm not a filmmaker.

That glorious Russian epic is here with subtitles. Best Smaug Ever.

71 mins! That's how you do a Hobbit film, Mr. Jackson.

I agree from now slightly dusty memory that the first LoTR is the best, and also has the best extended edition.

Look

Its the best of the three, and maybe its almost as good as you couldve hoped for (hobbiton through to reaching rivendell, moria, sundering are miraculous tbh)

But anything with elves is not just not-great, it's bad. Add in the terrible darby o'gill banshee on blanchett (seriously that scene has to be up for future correction) and youve already got enough to say that "wouldnt change a frame" is gushing beyond what's sensible

Its the kind of easy management that let him off to do the rest the way he did- increasingly unbothered by performances or plot/pacing from the books (which, while possible to improve upon for a trilogy, were never going to be improved upon by jackson & partners tin ears) and focused more on director's ego and his SFX company

Im not here to berate ilxors, honestly im not, but the end result of praising forays into shite when a limited-but-useful clown like jackson is given power is what you got with the hobbit

And the cost isn't having to watch the hobbit, because what moron watched the hobbit, its the movies that you can see us having had if someone had taken a good hard grip on his neck during an initial showing of his first well-padded cosplay elf scene and hissing "cut. yr. kiwi. amateur. dramatics. out"

I think you’re understating the amount that Viggo Mortensen sells the whole thing; his entrance (iconic!) and the death of Boromir are two of my favourite scenes in the trilogy.

xp you’re right and you should say it

Viggo is absolutely *critical*

Aragorn, sam, frodo, gandalf- all nailed. Thank god because very quickly out of that lot you start to get into tbh the poorer harry potter movies territory

Mortensen himself agrees with me obv. Cool guy.

Sean bean is here to do a job and does it well, as he pretty much always does tbfttstbc

I’m pretty biased on this because I love Hugo Weaving but I liked him as Elrond even though I feel he was a bit miscast...? Idk, all the elves are terribly weak sauce as you say. Also, Christopher Lee was great.

You can pick out lots of good casting, highlights etc even after FOTR (wormtongue, david wenham, all of rohan is good imo, i like that the elves is cockney sleeeegs, etc) but agreed that as soon as hugo weaving feys on set you immediately get the message that jackson hasnt gotten elves qua tolkien, hes in a very different elf place and is pawing for air before going off and making up scenes with zombies and werewolves to make himself feel better

I mean the frustrating thing is that sam neill was right there, ffs. and at least quasi antipodean

and id agree w/u that even saying that he is as good as we get with elves like

Josh in Chicago: drops rock into bottomless well just to see

Ned: pls do not-

Me, from depths: did some cunt just praise peter jackson

I like Sam Neill, but idk where you’d situate him! HW is also quasi antipodean lol? He’s spent like half his life in Australia.

See we’re getting along so well itt, makes u think. Unless you’re going to start on how Tom Bombadil should have been included, cos my book challop is fuck that guy, I’m so glad he got left out.

Honestly the Hobbit is shockingly bad, I had to stop watching it after about 45 minutes and it’s absolutely shocking despite the amounts of money lavished on it. That they stretched it out to three films is among the worst of his crimes.

Pfffft

I know weaving is antipod, I'm suggest he out regardless and sam in as elrond. Hugo can find another gig (not denethor he was fine, but of that type)

I can live without bombadil for practical reasons, now that there is distance. A movie that introduces the likes of that extraneous-to-plot detail/power without having him come in and save things at the end would bamboozle the kids.

And its easy to get on when we're both criticising stuff, we're irish

xp i was well gone by the time hed gotten approval for multiple hobbits, short of casting michael keaton as bilbo he'd never have enticed me back

I actually wasn’t that impressed by Éowyn, but it’s been a while since I watched so idr why. He had a very different idea of her than I did, and that killed me cos she’s like one of two female characters in the books worth mentioning and almost by default (but also not) my favourite.

Well he boosted arwen but the marketing around that was opportunistic and icky, so yeah it was galadriel and eowyn left (and i think both were cat well, and of the two then eowyn was at least left alone to do a job)

Im aware this is not high praise of the effort, like.

https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror

Re: the orc stuff from last week, I liked this essay about the anti-Mongolian sentiment inherent in Tolkien's orcs. The below is a quote from one of his letters

The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

Ned, definitely let me know when the Orcs episode is up, it's definitely something my partner and I were talking about when we watched the films (she hadn't seen them before, so was only seeing it through a 2021 context)

I agree that the elves are weak, but ... who cares, it's not a movie about elves. And I like Blanchett's banshee turn, it's cheap but it keeps it grounded. I don't know if I made it past one "Hobbit" movie, or if I even finished that one, but those movies alone show how good these movies are, because they fail at practically every single thing these movies succeed at. They are more high tech, yet look cheap. They're indulgent and childish. They feel gratuitously padded whereas the skeletons of these movies are so solid they seamlessly supported the addition of *more* material after the fact (imo). The "Hobbit" films are the ones akin to the "Harry Potter" movies, which, as the AV Club's awesome columnist recently underscored, rarely come off as more than mediocre product. I dunno, thanks to one of my kids I've had to watch all those "Harry" movies again, and at their very best they're competent with glimmers of inspiration. But those moments are fleeting and far between and not enough to elevate the movies above their serviceable purpose. But "LotR," yeah, they *could* have been that bad, but they were not, and I suppose credit must go to Jackson. I think even the effects have aged well, but so has the acting/casting, the script, the editing, the score, etc. Just the way it handles such dark material but doesn't come off a grim slog like so many other big budget films in its wake. It's always got a sense of adventure to it and, well, fantasy. Here's that column (about the third one, but also the others):

https://film.avclub.com/the-return-of-the-king-was-the-last-time-a-blockbuster-1846074880

Of course, Jackson has made literally nothing but crap since. He's 0/5 for subsequent blockbuster spectacles, though I guess the WWI doc found a different way to wow.

Well we disagree about everything just posted but that's ok

Ha! Different strokes, etc. But I've seen enough shitty blockbusters to recognize one that gets shit right, let alone one that's just as good (imo) 20 years later. Most movies aren't good two *hours* later! Then again, I have no allegiance whatsoever to Tolkien or those books beyond my love of Led Zeppelin, so maybe that is a factor.

If the framing is LOTR trilogy vs just about any other successful box office movie franchise since then id agree it holds up, btw

If the framing is vs the book (and the promising start in FOTR) thats where i start to pick major faults

And i do think it has that platform to build on (a coherent trilogy plotted out) where most franchise efforts dont

But yeah, look, if they only actual comparison (and i cant think of another) is harry potter then jackson looks great, granted

I actually wasn’t that impressed by Éowyn, but it’s been a while since I watched so idr why. He had a very different idea of her than I did

Mirando Otto gave a good, coherent performance, I thought, but they kind of softened Éowyn compared to the image I have of her in the books. Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines.

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.

Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

Not sure everyone saying things like "ere long didst I tarry in that fell place" all the time would have worked in a Hollywood blockbuster tbh. Also every time Liv Tyler comes on screen I start singing "Dude Looks Like a Lady" to myself, kind of takes you out of the story but that's my fault I suppose.

oh what an elvish lady

about 70% of the books is detailed description of natural detail, wind direction, the particular angle described by a ridge meeting a defile, the direction a path takes in relation to landforms. frankly reading them again with my kids the specificity was stunning. ned probably knows one way or the other, but i think tolkien must have made detailed drawings or even models of the environs he was describing, and seemingly had a grasp of seasonal weather patterns and how those intersected with the above

it's been a long time since i've seen them but apart from a few montage-ish long shots of the hobbits traveling through some stunning landscapes i don't remember jackson even seeming to try at enmeshing the characters (or the audience) into the physical world in that way, which to me is the biggest departure from the books even more than the various plot deviations or ridiculous elves or the unconscionable omission of bombadil (though speaking of enwebment in the natural world, bombadil is the ur-figuration of this, so makes sense that jackson would drop him i guess)

I watched them all again recently and totally agree Fellowship is the one that stands up. I don't particularly like what they did with the elves (the lighting, the earnestness) and the longer the hobbits are around the more it becomes too saccharine and samey (I found myself forwarding Sam and Frodo in Return). Also agree Viggo and McKellen carry it though I think Bernard Hill gets all the best lines.

"Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?"

(curious why @ndy s3rk1s has yet to be mentioned in the +/- columns, is he rated neutral?)

Josh in Chicago: drops rock into bottomless well just to see

Ned: pls do not-

Me, from depths: did some cunt just praise peter jackson

I knew.

Ned, definitely let me know when the Orcs episode is up

Will do -- I usually post updates on the podcasts thread on here. Should be up by Feb. 8 at the latest.

Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines....Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

It's one of those hard calls; honestly I'm surprised as much got in as it did. Two of Aragorn's best hero moments -- his short declamation to Sam and Frodo as they ride past the Argonath/into Nan Hithoel and the 'draws sword in front of Eomer to underscore he is not fucking around' bit when they first meet -- didn't make the cut, but I'm not surprised they didn't.