Lord of the Rings movie/book question

[InvisibleTouch]

Potential spoiler warning if you've never read the books nor seen the movies, but intend to some day - especially if you're like me and have (had) totally no clue as to what the story was even about. You might not want to read further, because it may give some things away. Otherwise, read on. Please note that my outlook comes from the movies only, as I have not read the books.

Yesterday I abdicated all my responsibilities and spent most of the day watching the "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy, back-to-back. Which is, in retrospect, the way it was surely meant to be watched, since the first two movies don't come to conclusive endings, and the next part picks right up where the previous one left off. Now, I'm more of a sci-fi than a fantasy fan, and so I've avoided LOTR for years, having had a total misconception of what to expect. I was imagining lots of sword-and-sorcery and weirdness, I guess. Turns out I loved it. I even found myself thinking, "Shouldn't Gandalf be doing more wizardy stuff than he is?"

The one thing that seemed faintly off was the ending to "Return of the King." To my writer's sense, that movie should have ended right after Aragorn's coronation, where everbody bowed to the Hobbits. That was the ideal dramatic "note" that finished off the long epic. While it was warm-n-fuzzy to see the Hobbits' return home, and nice to see Sam getting married, etc. etc., all of that stuff just watered down the dramatic impact of the ending. I'm sure the intent was to stay true to the book, and maybe it all came across as more necessary and vital to the conclusion in the book, but in a movie format, it was unneccessary filler at the end, IMO. Still, not distracting enough to take away from the overall experience.

I have not read the books - though now that I've seen the movies, I'm tempted to try them sometime. My question is to those who have seen both the movies and read the books - because I didn't understand why Frodo had to leave at the end. He was home again, all was well with the world - so why did he have to leave? I feel like I'm missing something that must have been explained in the book, because it just came out of nowhere for me - an excuse for another tear-jerking farewell scene. Can someone enlighten me?

[skygazer]

1. It's pretty simple really

The movie left out tons of stuff that was in the books. The books are phenomenal - the movie was just okay, IMO. Too much fucking with the story for effect, for my liking and not really clear on a lot of things that needed to be clear. As usual, a gross simplification of a complex story, as movies based on books generally are.

Read the book, you won't regret it.

[RevolutionaryActs]

3. Exactly.

The movies are good, but no where near how good the books are. :)

[XNASA]

2. As they say, you can never go home.

Simply ....after his adventure, Frodo had to listen to his wanderlust.

Also....there are a couple of things that happen in the book on the way back to the Shire that were cut out of the movie. I won't give any of it away, but if you read the books, you'll understand.

[InvisibleTouch]

6. Had to listen to his wanderlust ... okay...

...that makes sense to me, and could have been very clearly portrayed in the movie by a brief conversation, even without going into the book's details which you hint at. I'll take your explanation, though, as it clears up that nagging question.

IMO it's not possible to translate a book exactly into a movie - but it is possible for both to be good. Of necessity, a movie has to change and condense some things; there are some concepts that can be better conveyed in text, some things that are more powerful visually. So of the stories where I have read the book and seen the movie, I've rarely been disappointed or felt that the movie cheated the original; I realize it's just a different format, and must follow different rules.

In the case of this story, the movies have intrigued me enough to want to read the books someday.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I really wouldn't say it was wanderlust driving Frodo.

It was something more akin to PTSD. See my other post in this thread.

[boneygrey]

4. You've got to read the books

they're awesome. Will answer alot of your questions. I thought the movies were great and represented the books well given the huge amunt of material to work with.

[scarletlib]

5. frodo never really recovered from all the many wounds

he suffered on his journey to Mordor to destroy the One Ring.

He was stabbed by a Morgul blade and the wound never really healed, etc.

He was in pain physically and emotionally. For his great service to Middle Earth and all of its peoples he was gifted by the Elves to go with them into the west. Into that eternal life that awaited them. A journey only the elves knew how to undertake.

FYI because Sam was also a ringbearer he also got to take that same journey at the end of his life.

[InvisibleTouch]

9. In pain from his wounds...

...that makes sense to me too, and was in fact hinted at in the movie where he was shown to be in pain from the stab-wound that would never heal. Again, a brief verbal exchange would have made it more clear. I guess I need to be hit over the head with what the filmmaker was trying to say. :) Other than the ending, though, I have to commend the movies for making the story clear and understandable to someone who had absolutely no idea of what to expect.

[LiberalEsto]

7. Frodo was scarred

physically and emotionally by his ordeals. Today we would call it Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

He was never able to go back to his old life and re-assimilate into the hobbit community. He had nightmares, couldn't sleep, and couldn't talk about his experiences because nobody around him except Sam understood what he'd experienced.

Sam was less traumatized -- he hadn't been stabbed by a Ringwraith, stung by Shelob, or lost a finger to Gollum's fangs. Sam hadn't borne the torment and temptation of the Ring for very long. Sam had Rosie and their family.

Arwen, in choosing mortality to be with Aragorn, handed Frodo her chance to retire to Elvenhome. When his life became unbearable, he took the opportunity and sailed there from Middle-Earth to find healing.

Frodo's inner pain and inability to return to "civilian" life reminds me of what some war veterans are said to experience.

[aeolian]

15. But Sam leaves, too, as did Bilbo.

I don't think PTSD is a fair analogy. Merry and Pip stay behind, and they saw some shit, too. I think the ringbearers' leaving has rather more to do with becoming bound up in the story of the World, which is really more the sense of scale one gets after reading the Silmarillion. I think it also has to do with their having such direct contact with the spiritual world, which has been slowly withdrawn as mortals ascend.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. All of the hobbits who were ringbearers are allowed to leave,

however, both Bilbo and eventually Sam, only leave at the end of their lives in Middle Earth, due to special dispensation. Frodo is the only one who really needs to leave, at a still young age, because he is not able to readjust to life in the Shire due to the depth of his woundedness.

Merry and Pip did not suffer the kind of trauma that Frodo did. Even Sam didn't suffer that level of trauma. The level of trauma that they experienced had the effect of maturing and strenthening them, rather than damaging them in the way it did Frodo.

In any event, Merry and Pip were never ringbearers, so the special dispensation wouldn't have applied to them.

All this is only my opinion of course.:)

[Crunchy Frog]

8. In order to truly understand the story, you really need to read the books.

After all of his traumatic experiences, Frodo in effect, suffers from PTSD, although it didn't have that name, and wasn't really well understood at the time the book was written. The author Tolkien suffered the same thing after his horrific experiences in WWI.

Frodo is not able to truly return to the Shire because his wounds are too deep. He will only be able to find genuine healing in the Undying Lands over the sea where normally only the elves are allowed to go.

Tolkien is also trying to emphasize the notion of sacrifice ie, Frodo's sacrifice of his ability to go back to a normal life, for the sake of a higher good.

Some excerpts from the end of the book:

"But", said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, "I though you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done."

"So I thought too, once. but I have been doo deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them...."

I didn't particularly care for the movies myself, as they did not, for me, capture the essence of the books, and I'm a great lover of the books. You may end up finding that you don't particularly care for the books though. It's all a matter of personal taste.

I believe there was alot of stuff added into the DVDs that were not in the original cinematic releases.

[InvisibleTouch]

12. Thanks for the insights!

And thanks to everyone else who responded, too!

[aeolian]

16. You're named from Monty Python, have a Tolkein pic as your sig,

and have a Wes Clark pic as well.

...are you me? I'm confused...

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Wow, is that you too?

Have we found our mirror images? Tell me more, please.:D

Edit, I have a Tolkien avatar as well, although his picture probably isn't widely recognized.

[aeolian]

26. *moves limbs oddly and slowly. Watches reflection mime them back* (n/t)

[Lorien]

23. "Heading West" was also a reward

since Frodo had sacrificed himself to save Middle Earth, he was invited to go to the Elvish Avalon, where he and Bilbo would not suffer death.

Tolkien followed every major character to his or her death in the appendices of the trilogy. Aragorn and Arwen ruled for hundreds of years, and finally died at very ripe old ages, Merry and Pippen were also married and had several children each, and continued to travel and have adventures. I can't remember every character's story, but Tolkien had created a very complete world with a long history, and he didn't leave many loose threads at the end. The books are rather Victorian in style, but well worth reading if the slower pace doesn't trouble you.

[truebrit71]

10. First of all you did the right thing by watching them BTB..

The movies individually were splendid, but when seen in sequence one right after the other it really adds to the experience.

I have yet to watch the extended editions BTB but I intend to do that soon..

Whilst the movies were lengthy in either format, there was an awful lot that was left out. There was also some re-writing that I felt was un-necessary.

Gandalf was more of a 'worldy' type of wizard, in touch with the magic and mystery of nature and not a guy that uses a lot of splashy magic. Peter Jackson did that deliberately.

The best thing to do is to read the books. They are without doubt masterpieces of modern literature.

[aeolian]

13. Humble answer (with spoilers)

As for the end of the story, the movies left out the final step to be taken in the growth of the hobbits, Merry and Pippin especially. In the books, when they arrive back in Hobbiton, they find it has been taken over by some small petty evil (I won't tell you who): houses knocked down, trees felled, smoke pouring from foundries, laws, laws, laws. Sort of a scaled-down version of the epic good-evil battle played out between Mordor and Gondor (and back into the Silmarillion). It is for the four hobbits, alone without Gandalf or Aragorn of Elrond, to free their own land from their share of the shadow, and to become rightfully the lords that they are. And, in their quaint hobbit ways, they do, with Sam, Merry, and Pippin becoming the mayors (essentially) of Hobbiton, Buckland, and Tookburough.

As for Frodo, I've always felt that his story is far longer than the Lord of the Rings. Sauron was an ancient evil. He was, in fact, a divine spirit, who had been around before earth was even created. Dark divinity, yes, but "godly" nonetheless. Frodo touched that power, saw it, wielded it, claimed it for his own at one point, was wounded by it, scarred by it, changed by it, etc. He could find neither rest nor peace again in mortal lands, and indeed was no longer meant for mortal lands at all.

Bilbo, too, was a ringbearer, and he passed over the Sea with Frodo. In fact, in the books, Sam breifly wears the Ring. He, too, was a ringbearer, albeit not for very long. And at the end of his life, he also sails to the West. (That line in the movie about "the last ship to sail into the West" is bullshit)

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. And that bit missing from the film is very important

because while Tolkien didn't write the books to have allegorical meanings, the one message that he did put in was that the old, peaceful, rural way of life was being destroyed by industrialisation - The Shire was meant to represent where he grew up, whihc was absorbed into the city of Birmingham.

And there's a small explanation of Gandalf in the Silmarillion - he is actually another divine spirit, like Sauron, who is sent to inspire Middle Earth to fight Sauron. So his magic is not as important as his relationships with Men, Hobbits etc.

[aeolian]

25. Indeed, Gandalf feared Sauron

He was commanded to go by Manwe, the "king of the gods," for simplicity's sake. Olorin -- Gandalf's true name -- was considered the wisest of his race, but not the most powerful. When he was told that he would be one of the Istari, the five wizards whose purpose was to oppose the rise of Sauron, he told Manwe that he feared Sauron, and that someone more powerful should go in his place.

Manwe nonetheless ordered him to go. When Manwe's command was pronounced, Varda, the queen, said something to the effect of "he will not be the least," meaning that Olorin would do great deeds. This offended Curunir, who was to be the head of the Istari, and who would later be known as Saruman. Thus, the conflict with Gandalf had been simmering in Saruman's heart for a long, long time.




...man...I'm amazed that I have a girlfriend...that is so geeky...

[left is right]

14. It didn't end with Aragorn's coronation

because it wasn't his story. Read the trilogy, if you are like most people you will find it worth your while. You may even find it thrilling and the characters noble, especially faithful Samwise.

[mikehiggins]

18. Frodo couldn't just "fit in" after what he had gone through

He still suffered pain (as was pointedly pointed out) from the wound he got on Weathertop, and the wound to his spirit he suffered when he ultimately succumbed to the Ring was equally harmful.

He had to go.

[warrior1]

20. If your going to read the books

start with the very first one. The Hobbit. Then to the trilogy, The Lord of The Rings.

Here's a link to Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345340426/103-7539475-4469435?v=glance


You won't be disappointed. It is a tough book to read.

[Mz Pip]

22. It was the end of their time

more so for the ringbearers than all the rest. The destruction of the Ring brought about beginning of the age of men. The time of elves and hobbits was ending. The time of magic was ending. The time of immortals was ending.

Arwen gave up her immortality to stay with Aragorn. The rest of the elves left because they knew they would lose their immortality if they stayed. End of an era.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Lisa]

24. the book has umpteen endings ...

... and you're right, InvisibleTouch -- the movie format kind of forces stories into a standard pattern, where an overly-long denouement seems unwieldy or dissatisfying. Novelists have a bit more leeway.

I think Tolkien was drawing from earlier European myths and legends which end up with the enchanted folk leaving for a mystical place in the west, so that part of the story makes more sense, in that context. C.S. Lewis, one of Tolkien's associates, had his characters going to Narnia (or a place like it) in the last book, by the expedient of having them all killed in a rail accident. I've noticed that more recent fantasy writers, like Lloyd Alexander and Susan Cooper, have added a new twist to this -- in their versions of the story, the "ordinary" characters decided NOT to retire to Paradise, but to stay here in the disappointing mundane world, because they feel their services are needed.

As far as showing the hobbits returning home -- I had been thinking as well that it was kind of a loose end, since apparently Jackson didn't intend to show the "Scouring of the Shire" part from the book, where we and the characters experience the shock of seeing what's been done to the place while they were away. (Jackson just showed the "foreshadowing" scene in Galadriel's magic thingy and that was it.) Re-fighting the War of the Ring would have added at least another half hour to the movie, so I can understand his decision even though I liked that part of the book.

But after seeing the film a number of times, I think that continuing with the story after the coronation did help make an important point about the differences between the Shire and the larger world outside. Rather than leaving the hobbits out there, it brought them home again -- if it sounds familiar, "The Odyssey" does this too. These heroes come back to a community which doesn't really understand what they've been doing, and they have to resume their lives again. King Elessar might have bowed to them, but the old guy down the road from Bag End just kind of shrugs. And that's how it is for the vast majority of us, even those who've been on adventures.

They've all been transformed -- in Frodo's case he's been so changed and arguably traumatized (Tolkien didn't show him being tortured by the orcs but there's an implication he was, more severely than Merry and Pippin), that he can't be "normal" again. Tolkien himself was a frontline WWI veteran and was dealing with some of the things he'd seen -- in part, I suspect, by writing this book.

Now that WWI and II are in the distant past for most people today, and Vietnam is receding, literature has kind of moved on -- but at the time, hundreds of thousands of people in that generation experienced "the return home". A lot of authors from the period mention it in their work (even Dorothy L. Sayers -- her "Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club" isn't so much a mystery novel as a story about a bunch of veterans who deal with their trauma in different ways). What Frodo goes through isn't unusual for literary characters from that era (and for some, it ends in suicide rather than a boat ride with old friends).

Even those of us who didn't live through a war or weren't in the military can have a similar kind of experience - say, a summer job living in isolation and doing difficult or dangerous work -- or even working on a prolonged and exhausting election campaign. You tell people who weren't there and they often can't relate. It's possible that Jackson was trying to tap into this, so we'd think about parallels in our own lives. (A number of people, acquaintances and even some posters on DU, have mentioned the little glances that the foursome are giving each other in the pub, while the rest of Hobbiton carries on obliviously.)

p.s. I saw Sean Astin's book today, which describes the film and its aftermath -- and he actually describes some of these same feelings -- the in-jokes he and the rest of the cast and crew share when they happen to meet. Many of them are still close, but they won't all be as close as they were back then ... a war veteran I know said pretty much the exact same thing about his buddies a while back.

[InvisibleTouch]

27. Thanks for the additional info and insights! n/t

[scarletlib]

28. Just a general comment and big compliment

on the discussion of the original question. I am really impressed by all of the very thoughtful explanations. I have read the LOTR many times and I gained more insight into the characters from reading this discussion.

Thanks!

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

29. You have a point, but I think the Hobbits' return was more of an epilogue

Frodo's leaving, the return home, and the completion of the story by Sam serve as a relaxing bookend.

Of course, Pete Jackson could've just been trying to make the longest movie in history, but it works.

[Orsino]

30. This was all due to Peter Jackson's decision...

...to tell an action/adventure story, rather than a tale by and for hobbits, so to speak.

(SPOILERS)

A theme of the book is that nothing escapes war unscathed. When Sam looks in Galadriel's pool, he sees visions of the Shire in ruins and hobbits taken prisoner. This foreshadows "The Scouring of the Shire," in which the hobbits return from the war to find that Saruman, bereft of magical might but still perternaturally persuasive, has taken over Hobbiton and the surroundings, virtually enslaving the populace for his gain and that of his human and orcish ruffians. Prominent hobbits have been jailed, and the Party Tree has been felled.

The four hobbits, proven in war, organize a hobbit resistance and capture Saruman. Frodo, who has foresworn violence, lets Saruman and Wormtongue go, and Wromtongue kills his master before being filled with hobbit-arrows himself. Sam later helps to heal the Shire by scattering bits of dirt from Galadriel's garden, her gift to him that had no other purpose. He plants a mallorn (like the White Tree in Minas Tirith). Elvish flowers bloom, and a generation of predominantly blond hobbit children is born. S.R. 1420 (the year) ale is deemed the best ever.

"The Scouring of the Shire" emphasizes the idea that no one escapes evil unscathed.

About all Jackson retained of this storyline was a nice little scene of the four hobbits sitting alone in an inn in the Shire, watching all the hobbit normalcy around them while remaining separate from it.

The book makes clear that many years pass before Frodo sails off into the sunset, lending extra poignancy to the last line of the book, delivered by Sam (now the master of Bag End and no longer Frodo's gardener): "Well, I'm back."