![]() ![]() Since Glorfindel doesn't play much of a role in the books after the race to the ford, why confuse things with an extra character? Instead the writers took the opportunity to introduce a character who definitely had to appear later: Arwen. ![]() One way to make it a little easier on the audience when doing an adaptation is character consolidation. For this reason, it is much easier to have a very large cast of characters in a book than in a movie. Since movies typically only take 2-3 hours of your time, it can be difficult to familiarize yourself with a large number of characters the way you can while spending dozens of hours reading a book. He has given up much of his power to roam Middle Earth, but he's just come back from the dead - he's got a greater understanding, and faith, than mere mortals.Several Reasons Reason 1: Character consolidation to avoid audience confusion and overload Consider that Gandalf is, in actuality, a minor angle, not a human wizard. The rules of that world are such that some individuals can impact events far beyond the mere application of their physical or magical skills. A plain Wisdom bonus does not carry the power that strength of character and will do in Middle Earth. D&D does not have a stat for what Frodo and Sam have going for them. The other thing to point out is that Middle Earth is not D&D. Doom, and drop it in?" Because being seen by Sauron is the end of the game. The answer to "why do they let them go alone" is the same as "why don't they just hop on some giant eagles, fly over Mt. Gandalf mentions that being of his class of power is a bit of a problem - the more powerful you are, the more likely it is Sauron will see you. The full weight of Sauron falls on you, and you are done. And once in Mordor, if you are found, that is *it*. The bigger a noise they make (say, by killing lots of orcs) the bigger the risk of being found. Why? Is it as if being able to *fight* is actually going to be a major advantage? 'Cause it pretty demonstrably isn't. Sauron with his ring would have spelled certain defeat, right?ĭon't get me wrong: I love the books and really really like the movies (although the CGI is starting to look dated already.the wargs are terrible and the balrog too video gamey). Consider what would have happened if the Nazgul weren't so ineffective in finding the ring. I know Tolkien does it for the sake of the story, but it just seems weak. But it just seems a bit.contrived?.that Aragorn would let two hobbits take the Ring of Power straight to Mordor, and when Gandalf found out later he didn't ride Shadowfax like the wind to catch up with him. Now clearly if Gandalf had been there he would have had a better chance holding the Fellowship together. How could they possibly let a couple hobbits take off with the One Ring, heading for Mordor? I get it, at least from the movie's perspective: Frodo doesn't want people to fight over the ring and feels he must bear the burden himself. But something has been bothering me for quite a while which the movies don't explain in any satisfactory way and I'm wondering if Tolkien's handling of it is better. ![]() It seems I end up re-watching the LotR trilogy every three years or so, although it has been sometime since I've re-read the books. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |