You have raised some very interesting points (and you write very well), but many of them have nothing to do with the assignment. You need to focus on the questions I asked you to answer — read the general comments on the rough drafts that I posted on the “(Almost) Daily Bulletin from the Professor” page this morning.
Keep on topic! This paper is not supposed to a discussion of what Jackson added to or left out of the films. Stay focused on Return of the King!
How well do you think Jackson conveyed Tolkien’s world view? Reread Tolkien’s essay on fairy talkes.
LMF
You have a good focus and understanding of the topics you are addressing. It already looks like you know what you need to work on, and the character perspective approach is really strong. Eligh Hanning?
I like your thoughts on the changes in the timeline as in the Houses of Healing and how they needed to be changed so the story could progress more expediently. But the whole elf family tree might be a little too extraneous and not really necissary even in the meat and potatoes of the book, they’re mostly only mentioned in the appendecies. Brian Nacov September 18, 2008, at 04:50 PM
I like how your focusing mostly on the characters and how they were changed in the conversion from book to novel. I also think that is an excellent idea to talk about the battle scenes.
Donald Turner September 18, 2008, at 03:49 PM
I like your ideas about character perspective and discussing the scourging of the Shire. The scourging of the Shire thing had come up in a lot of people’s drafts and is definitely something that i want to talk about (it seems to be of high interest, considering how jackson left this out of the film). Sarah Chudyk?
Character perspective is something I didn’t even think of!! Great idea. I also like your writing style it is fun to read, I can;t wait to read the finished product. Brittany Thrun ? September 17, 2008, at 11:28 PM
It’s interesting how you discuss the character perspective in both the novel and film. You should consider writing about the difficulties presented to Jackson while making the Return of the King. Steven Wilser? September 17, 2008, at 05:59 PM
Good job! Your draft had some interesting topics that I didn’t see in anyone else’s… just detail and develop. Good luck! Jenelle Jones
The point that you make on how critical jackson’s casting decisions are, as well the abilities of the actors to portray thier characters properly, was really strong. In addition I like the analysis of how Jackson must speed up time to fit the needs of the movie. Good start! Sarah McNutt? September 16, 2008, at 12:11 PM
I liked that you included the Undying Lands in your outline. I found that when I was reading the novel I never new exactly what the Undying Lands were. Perhaps Jackson wanted to recreate this uncertainty. Annika Laughlin? September 16, 2008, at 09:32 PM
You have good ideas for your paper. I found it interesting about the fearing character perspective part because now that I think about it, it is very true! Like I have said to others, I think the ending with the Shire remaining untouched was to give the audience the cliche ending. It made the definite end justifiable. Viewers love to have the inevitable “good” ending. Very good ideas! Just organize and elaborate more! Keilah Bradley September 16, 2008, at 05:29 PM]]
You have a good start to your paper however I think that in the movie it would have been hard to show weeks in the House of Healing especially when it is not a major part of the movie or the books. I agree with your idea that it would have been more interesting if the audience knew how families were intertwined. Also it is Faramir, not Feramir. Carly Lopez?
I think you had some good points. I’m glad that you mentioned specific examples from the book/film and didn’t do a generality that could be seen throughout the rest of the Trilogy as well. It’s good that you’re focusing on the third book. The scouraging of the shire, or lack there of, is a good point to touch upon. Your paragraph about the aftermath with most of the characters is an interesting subject to discuss as well. If you want to talk about why Jackson didn’t introduce it into the film, keep in mind the length of the book, and the amount of information within the book. Jackson even stated (Either in one of the documentaries we saw in class, or during the Directors Commentary), that they had originally established that the main storyline was to take the ring to Mount Doom and destroy it. Once the ring is destroyed, Jackson felt that adding too much more to the film, (besides the multiple endings that were to focus on the pain that Frodo was still going through) would be insignificant to the overall plan. Also, keep the audience and budget in mind. Lauren Brych? September 15, 2008, at 12:42 PM
I like your ideas. And I hadn’t thought of Merry and Rohan before…that could prove interesting. Do you think Jackson’s choice in not stressing that aspect of the movie was a good one?Joseph Bella? September 14, 2008, at 05:22 PM
Maybe you could explain why Jackson did not display the Scouring of the Shire; what stood in his way? Also, what part of Tolkien’s world view was lost by doing this? I personally feel you are being too harsh on JacksonEmily Marvin? September 13, 2008, at 10:52 PM
I liked these points that you included: limited character perspective in the movie, the lack of understanding in relationships (Eowyn and Feramir, Elrond has two sons), and Arwen giving up her place on the boat to Frodo. I think that you have a lot of negative points about the movie, which I completely agree with, but I think that you also need to counter these with some positives and why this movie was successful. Good job! Kelsey Till September 13, 2008, at 04:42 PM
I really like your points on the relationships and the part about Arwen giving up her seat and Frodo being able to take it. I think if you just expand these points more, as well as the others, you will have a good, unique essay. Elizabeth Delano? September 14, 2008, at 08:32 PM
You do raise some interesting facts about the book and the film but please try to including the issues raised by Shippey and how they are adddressed by Jackson in the movie. Trudy Antwi September 15, 2008, at 09:11 PM
I’m aware that this is all terribly disjointed and I’m in need of more detail from the book and movie, but these are roughly what I want to touch on and go into more detail with.
The main points that I wish to address in this essay are Jackson’s methods with using character perspective, how he maintained close relationships with textual descriptions found in the work and how he crafted the scenes on screen, as well as his short comings on certain details towards the end of Return of the King concerning individual characters, their relationship with others, and omission of details.
Character perspective is very important in the novel. Although the entire tale is told in third person, we are often limited to the views of the smallest, or most frightened character in certain scenes, as seen with Gimli in the Paths of the Dead or Merry while riding with Rohan. In the movie, you are aware of Gimli’s insecurities in the Paths of the Dead, though his commentaries more serve as comic relief. While riding with Rohan, we the viewer are more inclined to watch Eowyn face her fears and follow her steps than Merry, as he is made into a little brother figure of sorts for Eowyn. There is more emphasis on her fears and love for Aragorn than Merry’s desire to be of use to Rohan, perhaps as a way to keep the viewer interested and intrigued with fantastical romance.
Arwen giving up her seat on the boat bound for the Undying Lands is never mentioned. We assume that it was all a grand plan for Frodo to go into the West with the elves, when in fact the only reason he could was due to Arwen’s decision to stay with Aragorn. But, after their lovely kissing scene on Minas Tirith, we never see Arwen again. This last scene has led to so much confusion, mostly leading people to believe that it was all a grand metaphor for Frodo’s death, when that wasn’t the case.
The scourging of the Shire should have been addressed, yet it never once is mentioned that the evil of Sauron managed to taint Frodo’s pristine world. It’s almost insulting how the viewer is led to believe that the previous evil in the adventure never reached the Shire, never managed to seeth into the hearts of the hobbits. The Shire is not and was not a fairytale place where bad things never happened.
What happened to the main band of characters after Sauron is destroyed is never touched on. We the viewers assume the hobbits returned home, Aragorn and Arwen lived in Minas Tirith as rulers of Gondor, Feramir and Eowyn have a nice life wherever they may be, while the elves leave Middle Earth for the Undying lands. We never know that Pippin stays to serve Gondor. We never know that Merry served Rohan. They did not stay in the Shire, and that detail like so many others is completely overlooked.
After a dreamy look and a hug, Feramir and Eowyn are presumed to have developed feelings for one another. It seems like days have passed in the Houses of Healing, when in fact it took weeks for Feramir to break Eowyn of her infatuation for Aragorn. Things did not happen so easily and romantically as they did in the movie.
This is not the first skewed perspective of character relationships. The families of elves are never truly touched on, such as Galadriel being Arwen’s grandmother, or the fact that Elrond had two sons. It may have brought greater depth to the relationships to know how people were intertwined.
While reading the novel, there are scenes of battle that are thick with description and difficult to work through. Jackson used scenes rather than dialogue to give life to the story, something that I consider to be a great success on his part. The most prevalent scenes being the Battle of Pelanor Fields and the Black Gates. There was so much CG work involved that it is impossible not to feel like you’re really in the battle.
Devon Cozad? September 10, 2008, at 02:17 PM
