Why is TTT the least liked movie?

[solicitr]

They also were two people forced by custom and duty to be what they did not want to be: Éowyn the warrior maid forced to be a nurse and caretaker; Faramir the scholar forced to be a warrior.

I suppose it could be argued that ol' chauvanist Tolkien made Éowyn betray herself (or undergo a personality transplant). With some truth. But it could also be seen as the defeat of Sauron heralding the age of peaceful pursuits, time for the soldier and the shieldmaiden to retire.

[Pearly Di]

I suppose it could be argued that ol' chauvanist Tolkien made Éowyn betray herself (or undergo a personality transplant). With some truth.

Oh, I have certainly seen that argument. And there is some truth in it.

But it could also be seen as the defeat of Sauron heralding the age of peaceful pursuits, time for the soldier and the shieldmaiden to retire.

I like that interpretation, indeed that chimed with me when I first read LotR.

[axordil]

I've always imagined Éowyn and Faramir arguing (nicely) over sword technique when the time came to train their sons--and daughters--in such. "You might be able to do that on foot, but try it on horseback and you'll break your wrist, honey."

I agree that both are forced into roles by a combination of circumstances and cultural expectation, and that the age of (relative) peace allows them to redefine themselves in more fitting ways, but I expect it was a matter of reapportionment, not re-creation. In a way they are a mirror, or would be if there was something TO mirror, for Aragorn and Arwen, who are vastly different, whose love was foreordained, and who had to wait a looooooong time to realize it. F and E's similarities are emphasized throughout our brief exposure to them: the same hand drew them back, after all.

[Elentári]

CT does discuss the conception of their relationship in Peoples of Middle Earth. This from Wikipaedia:

The speed of the relationship of Faramir and Éowyn reflects a culture which Tolkien describes to be "less corrupt", and nobler in which the "petty fencing and approaches" of courtly love is disregarded.[8] A factor in the development of their love came from Tolkien's personal belief that feelings grew quickly in periods of great stress and under the expectation of death.[8] Originally, Tolkien employed the use of thou and thee in The Lord of the Rings to show a "deliberate change to a form of affection or endearment".[25] His son has presented the original drafts for the chapter "The Steward and the King", in which such usage was employed to emphasize the relationship's development:

“ The 'sudden change' to which he referred here ... is possibly to be seen in their first meeting in the garden of the Houses of Healing, where Faramir says ([The Return of the King] p. 238): 'Then, Éowyn of Rohan, I say to you that you are beautiful', but at the end of his speech changes to the 'familiar' form, 'But thou and I have both passed under the wings of the Shadow' (whereas Éowyn continues to use 'you'). In the following meetings, in this text, Faramir uses the 'familiar' forms, but Éowyn does not do so until the last ('Dost thou not know?', RK p. 242); and soon after this point my father went back over what he had written and changed every 'thou' and 'thee' to 'you'.[25]

8. Carpenter 1981, no. 244
25. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1996), Christopher Tolkien, ed., The Peoples of Middle-earth, "The Appendix on Languages", pp. 67–68,

[Pearly Di]

I've always imagined Éowyn and Faramir arguing (nicely) over sword technique when the time came to train their sons--and daughters--in such. "You might be able to do that on foot, but try it on horseback and you'll break your wrist, honey."

That's a great idea for a fanfic.

F and E's similarities are emphasized throughout our brief exposure to them: the same hand drew them back, after all.

A factor in the development of their love came from Tolkien's personal belief that feelings grew quickly in periods of great stress and under the expectation of death.

Oh, yes, of course. And that was his experience too: he courted and married Edith during WW1, when he was on active service in the trenches.


I don't envy those who experience the horror of war, but I do feel a sort of wistfulness in wanting the kind of intensity that inevitably accompanies falling in love during wartime and which can apparently lead to such a powerful and lasting love. Even though it goes hand in hand with desperate sorrow.

I see that intensity in Faramir/Éowyn. No wonder they're my favourite couple.

[solicitr]

Oh, yes, of course. And that was his experience too: he courted and married Edith during WW1, when he was on active service in the trenches.

Err, Tolkien and Edith's courtship was much, much more like Aragorn and Arwen's: it went on for years and years, despite a father-figure's prohibition.* The only part that was 'pushed' by the war was their marriage, shortly before Lt Tolkien's deployment.

A closer example would be son Michael's, who fell in love with his nurse while recovering from wounds and married her in short order.


*The real parallel of course is Beren and Lúthien: but then A&A were intentionally a latter-day echo of their ancestors' romance.

[rwhen]

In staying with this threads tradition, I am VERY late to the party. I did read all 9 pages and that is sayin' something.

To answer the question in the thread title. I am on the side of not preferring TTT to FotR and RotK. For many reasons.

As others have already stated, FotR....well it was splendid..the opening, all through and the closing...the death of Boromir, Frodo and Sam going their own way....and gave us something to look forward to.

When TTT opened and I had to endure a human, an elf and HUH??? a dwarf run for twenty minutes. I was already groaning at that point. This movie had great elements, but lagged so for me. I was wanting the *magic* that FotR had - IMHO.

I think I waited so long for the movies to be made...not from PJ, meaning all my life. I read LotR's first in the late 60's...so this was like a dream come true for me and in FotR...I literally sat on the edge of my seat on opening night with my mouth hanging open, eyes in stardust wonderment at everything I was seeing.

It didn't even occur to me to compare the book to the movie until after my third viewing.

By the time TTT came out, the fascination and comtimplation had worn off and now my expectations were different. Maybe others felt the same. Also as has been noted on this thread (which everything I am writing has already been noted at some point over the past 8 years), TTT had some glaring ommissions/changes/osgiliations and stunning imagery.

Today I tend to take the trio as a whole rather than looking at them individually.

But here is what was most disappointing to me....the cliff dive, the Ents (I love the Ents ), the poor presentation of Théoden (though it got better and he was STUNNING in RotK) and of course...Faramir!!!!

What I liked: Sams speech actually. While I know that most here did not like it, I did. It just wasn't a good closer for the movie to me. I also liked Gandalf the White's coming out, Sméagol/Gollum talks and more.

Anyway, if anyone is reading and thinks there is something to add, I am going to try and be more interactive with you fine folks on HoF and get more involved with discussions.

Later.

[Primula Baggins]

That's excellent news, rwhen!

[rwhen]

Prim!! Thank you for responding.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

rwhen, I think you make an excellent point about the differences in expectations. I think must of us long-time Tolkien fans were really skeptical about the prospect of films made from LOTR. Then when FOTR literally knocked our socks off, our expectations suddenly went sky-high. Certainly there are objective elements of TTT that are lacking both as an adaptation, and as a film, but I think a big part of the lesser reaction to it had to do with that sudden change in expectations.

As for ROTK, it is both the most flawed of the three, and the most powerful (in my opinion). For me at least, the flaws are overwhelmed by its sheer grandeur and emotional intensity.

Oh, and

[Pearly Di]

When TTT opened and I had to endure a human, an elf and HUH??? a dwarf run for twenty minutes. I was already groaning at that point. This movie had great elements, but lagged so for me. I was wanting the *magic* that FotR had - IMHO.

I really like the 'grittitness' of TTT, actually.

The atmosphere of FotR is spot-on: it truly has that enchanting, other-worldly quality that the book possesses. But I loved the Rohan scenes in TTT ... and I pretty much enjoyed all the Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas scenes.

I think I waited so long for the movies to be made...not from PJ, meaning all my life. I read LotR's first in the late 60's...so this was like a dream come true for me and in FotR...I literally sat on the edge of my seat on opening night with my mouth hanging open, eyes in stardust wonderment at everything I was seeing.

My first viewing of FotR was as magical as you describe. I will always remember it. Best Film Experience of my entire life. Just indescribable, seeing my favourite book in the world being brought to life in that way.

I still had some 'ouchie' moments: I couldn't understand why Elrond seemed to be in such a bad mood and I cringed at the Wizard Duel! (I really like it now. ) My biggest 'ouchie' moments were over Frodo's characterisation: I was hopping mad that PJ had him drop his sword at Weathertop. And Galadriel going all Kali ... weird, man.

Nonetheless: these were minor blips. Overall, I just adored that film, and I still do.

I have problems with certain things in all three films: I wouldn't single one film out in particular.

But certainly the Osgiliation in TTT was hard to swallow.

[yovargas]

Have I mentioned how strange it is to me that the "cliff dive" is such a big deal to people. I mean, I get the other stuff for the most part (though I love TTT Théoden) but that one I alwas think who cares?

[sauronsfinger]

from Rhwen

When TTT opened and I had to endure a human, an elf and HUH??? a dwarf run for twenty minutes.

That was one of the things that the film greatly improved on over the book. The idea that a Dwarf in such heavy boots and the rest could run 45 miles a day for three days straight as they do in the book is beyond ridiculous. JRRT knew tons of great stuff that he included in his books but he clearly knew precious little about running long distances and the physiology of it.

At least in the Jackson films Gimli is showing struggling, huffing and puffing and having a rather hard time of it. And it does not go on for three days. That was a great improvemnt for me.

[Pearly Di]

Have I mentioned how strange it is to me that the "cliff dive" is such a big deal to people. I mean, I get the other stuff for the most part (though I love TTT Théoden) but that one I alwas think who cares?

Because it was a lame movie cliche, Yov (oh look, we've just killed one of our leading men! Hahaha, actually we haven't) , and LotR deserves so much better than lame movie cliches.

Yes I know there's Gandalf.

That's DIFFERENT.

That's ... Tolkien!!!!!

[Elentári]

Hear, Hear!

[Pearly Di]

Yeah!!!!!

[Alatar]

Ok, here's my thing. Gollum.

Not the CG, which I thought was great. The kiddie aspect of Sméagol. I disliked him being portrayed as childish. Gollum was great, Sméagol not so much. Peter Woodthorpe's portrayal in the BBC Radio Play still remains my definitive Gollum. He got the duality without the schizophrenics.

And although this is FotR, not TTT, I have to say the Balrog didn't work for me. I know, I'm in the minority, but it just... didn't. Don't ask me why.

[solicitr]

but he clearly knew precious little about running long distances and the physiology of it

And we know so much of the physiology of Dwarves?

[Primula Baggins]

Their body type as described by Tolkien is not the body type of a successful distance runner. Strength and endurance don't use the same physiological resources.

[solicitr]

But, Prim, you're assuming that Dwarven physiology is human, just proportioned differently. We don't know that. What we do know is that Aulë made them 'stone-hard to endure.' What if Dwarven muscles don't build up lactic acid? What if their bodies contain far more blood/body mass? What if their hearts and lungs are much larger than ours?

After all, the Orcs they were chasing were moving *even faster* in aggregate: an in-itself-unremarkable 4 mph, a brisk walk, but maintained for five hours on/one off continuously for three and a half days. That's sheer endurance.

(I should also point out that, notwithstanding the use of 'running' in the text), Tolkien also has the Three Hunters constantly on the move for ca. 10 hours per diem, which makes their average pace roughly a fast walk. Had they been moving at marathon pace, they could have covered the distance in a day!)

If we need a human analogue, we should look perhaps at the Creek indians and the loping run-walk which they could kep up for hundreds of miles.