h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

my brother got confused between Sam and Frodo and Pippin and Merry. Especially in the opening few scenes when Pippin throws down the leaf broach.

I was guilty of having to explain it to him in hushed tones.


XXXX POSSIBLE SPOILERS XXXXXXX








One thing that bothered me about the film was the Mystrious Magical Horses.

Aragron take a tumble gets washed far enough downstream that it takes him several days(?) to ride back again - but ride back he does on a horse that mysteriously just appeares at the riverside.

but that's nothing to riding out wiht King Theoden in Helm's Deep.

Having retreated to to the innermost parts of the keep. Aragorn persuades the king to ride out one last time and then in a previously empty room - there suddenly appear these horses. I just want to know where the hell they came from? Ididn't see any stables...and I'm pretty sure they didn't bring them in with them; so where? I sure hope there's an extended scene or two to cover that one when it appears on dvd next year.




XXXX NO MORE SPOIERS XXXXX


Someone mentioned Gollum's cowardice earlier...I thought that sort of came out right at the very end when he's deliberating with his other self how to kill Frodo and Sam and the only objection Smeagol raises to Gollum's plans is 'that it would be too risky'

I thought the whole Aragorn getting dragged over a cliff and everybody thinking he was dead and then reappearing complete with magical mystery horse plotline was the most irritating and unnecessary plot change in the film. It added nothing, it wasn't convincing, it just set my teeth on edge and I would really rather they hadn't done it.

saw a comment on the aint it cool news website today that was on similar lines...

'the sole purpose of Aragron falling of the cliff' , so it went, 'was seemingly so he could bear witness to the impending arrival of Saurman's army and arrive at helm's deep looking bedraggled and sympathetic with dire news for the king's army.'

and i suppose so that eowyn could get upset about him...
^. .^
= ' =
Gurus
CommunityArtists

>>I thought the whole Aragorn getting dragged over a cliff and everybody thinking he was dead and then reappearing complete with magical mystery horse plotline was the most irritating and unnecessary plot change in the film. It added nothing, it wasn't convincing, it just set my teeth on edge and I would really rather they hadn't done it.<<

I, on the other hand, had absolutely no problem with it.

i have to admit, it didn't exactly ruin the film for me
it was *maybe* unnecessary, but i'm sure peter had his reasons
^. .^
= ' =
Gurus
CommunityArtists

...as a dramatic end to the warg battle (which also rocked despite not being in the book)?

I didn't exactly find it necessary - but then I didn't mind it too much, and it *did* give Legolas the chance for one of the funniest lines: "You're late" - in elvish o'course - "You look terrible"

With reference to the horses in the hall, I thought that they may have hid the horses in the caves with the women and children. Just before Aragorn tells someone to go and warn the one in the caves to get out the back way, so there must be a link from that room to the caves. And, though the gang rode into Helm's Deep before the battle, no horses were seen during the battle, suggesting that the horses had been put somewhere else. If the horses were in the caves all this would make sense.

That's what I thought anyhow.


Geggs

As for the horse that finds Aragorn in the river - I think the 'official' explanation is that it is Brego the horse of Theodred (the son of Theoden that Eomer brings back to Edoras at the start of the film). It may also be the horse that Aragorn is riding during the march towards Helm's Deep, but I'm not sure about that.

Not entirely certain of this stuff myself, but that's what I heard. It might get a more clear explanation on the DVD.


Geggs

It seemed to me from the film sequences that the horsey was guided / persuaded by Arwen in one of her mystical elven moments, which she came round from to have the leaving discussion thing with Elrond. Obviously the elfy maiden was communicating teleathically with the horsey. Obvious, *I* thought

As for horses in Helms Deep, whilst there was only brief reference in the filkm to the caverns, 't there an ancient abandoned dwarven city under the mountains behind it with a huge main hall that is one of the wonder sof middle earth? I seem to remember that this was part of a bargain between Legolas and Gimle, that legolas would go see that only if gimli would go see Lothlorien or somewhere? So plenty of places for horses and the Riders of Rohan owuldn;t really leave their horses behind, would they?

In the book, Theoden says that the horses are kept in an 'inner court' - they couldn't be in the caves (not dwarf-made, but you're spot on: one of the natural wonders of middle earth) because the caves and the citadel are separate - Gimli and Legolas end up in different parts and can't get back together to compare tallies until after the battle.

I don't see that any of the rohirrim would hesitate to share a room with their horses. If anything, they're likely to put the horses safe and/or undercover, even at risk to themselves.

Spot on Cloviscat.

Having just read the backlog, I was wondering why no-one (esp, us types) had commented on this.

The "Glittering Caves of Aglarond" weren't supposed to be attached to the Hornburg at Helms Deep. The Deeping Wall and Dike, together with the Hornburg were fortifications across the entrance to the coomb or gorge which was known as Helms Deep. The wall was pierced by the stream and it was through this weak point that the Uruks of Saruman, broke into Helms Deep.

The forces of Rohan were split between the Hornburg and the caves. As I recall Gimli was separated from Aragorn and Legolas and forced back into the caves, where he played an important part in the defence there. I took this to mean that the Hornburg and the Caves were either on opposite sides of the coomb, or separated, with access to the caves some distance back from the Hornburg. Aragorn and Theoden rode out of the Hornburg, which is clearly a castle from its description.

This doesn't upset me. As with ALL of the changes made relative to the book, as soon as one makes a single change, one is forced to make others.

In my own view and I can neither recall nor be bothered to count how many times I have read LOTR, the Silmarillion, et al. Tolkien set out to create a mythology. Inevitably mythologies lead to interpretations. This posting is riddled with interpretation.

PJ has created an interpretation. What's the problem?

Many of the changes reduce the complexity of the sheer numbers of names for places (Hollin, Chamber of Marzarbul, Bywater), characters (Glorfindel, Gil-galad, Elladan, Elrohir, Gloin) and articles (Glamdring) - those listed above are just a few examples of names that are ommitted.

Furthermore, LOTR is extremely male oriented. How many key female roles are there? Assuming the least important but still key female role is Ioreth, you have something less than ten. How many males roles have equivalent or greater status than Ioreth? Certainly hundreds. PJ has had to do something to balance the books to generate some more generalised appeal.

Okay, as with some of the others here, I don't like all of the changes, but I'm not a film maker. However I am someone who appreciates that a typical 120 page short story can provide enough material for a two hour film, with less than 10 characters. What would YOU do with 1500 pages of material and hundreds of characters and thousands of years of history?

PJ needs to put a spin on it to get the story to fit the format and that is what the changes are about. Some changes reduce the complexity of names, other changes provide new material to balance the male/female bias. But also necessary are changes to maintain continuity and compress the story.

The Entmoot would be too long to include. Cirith Ungol and the ride of Gandalf/Merry to Minas Tirith don't fit in film version of TTT.

I admire PJ for his sheer audacity in trying to produce something that Tolkien might have considered worthwhile.

Ah well, enough for now.

Gloin was mentioned

"The ring cannot be destroyed, Gimli son of Gloin, by any craft that we here possess."

The consensus seems to be that Arwen's role was pumped up to please female moviegoers. But all the female movie goers I talked to hated those silly flashback scenes and wanted more fighting.

I don't have any problem with most of the changes, for the reasons that Madent has described, and I understand why PJ would want to address the male-female imbalance. I just got a bit irritated when they altered the basic characters, making Elrond into a git, stripping Faramir of his honour and blurring the distinction between his nobility and his brother's weakness, denuding Treebeard of his considered wisdom, turning Gimli into a joke.

I still love the movie, I still want to see it again, I still want the DVD. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book as many times as I have I'd be more satisfied - well, there's no 'perhaps' about it, is there? There's no way PJ could have satisfied the zillions of s who will pick up on every slight variance from the book - he's done a brilliant job! And it gives us all something to debate.

And I'll say it again - Gollum was just amazing!

Saw it yesterday - absolutely brilliant. Gollum was certainly the star. Having glance through this thread first, it was quite fun spotting some of the specific moments mentioned.
Yes, I thought Gimli was too comic & some of the changes made added nothing to the film, even detracted from it, but OK, it was PJ's version.
Someone was confused by the Ents deciding not to fight, then suddenly going off? I thought that was explained by the hobbits making Treebeard face the devastation at which he called the Ents to action?

My Mum got confused byt the hobbits, despite having seen the first episode, she'd forgotten there were 4 & wasn't sure which 2 were which.

Looking forward to the last episode!

I had lunch with a friend today, and finally got to speak to someone that enjoyed both movies, but hadn't read the books. She really loved them, but had all sorts of questions that I answered for her. I also convinced her to read the books ... if she wasn't ready for TLOTR, at least The Hobbit! And she'd going to!

*adopts nasal voice* surely that should have read Gandalf/Pippin a few posts back //*returns to thick Lancashire accent*

All the women I know who've seen it want to see more (literally for preference ) of Legolas and Aragorn without needing to see Mirandad what's her name opening her mouth like a goldfish or Liv Tyler sprawled on a couch!

So there's a disparity of female characters - as there is the vast majority of great works this civilisation has produced - from the Old Testament onwards. People do not read LotR to find a *close* association with characters - isn't that the point? It stretches the mind and the imagination...

Sure, there are plenty of films & books without many female characters - though I would hazard the opinion that most of those contain a significant amount of crime/violence/sport, to compensate male viewers for a lack of females to ogle!

I wonder how many men enjoy a film/book principally featuring women?

If the story is good enough, you do not need a particular gender character to identify with - and it may be you have more in common with a character of the opposite gender anyway.

Never was very keen on Eowen's character. I prefer Galadriel & Arwen.

I always preferred Galadriel ... but identified with Frodo. I've never had a problem identifying with opposite gender characters in books.

What do the guys say?