Kotharian Lightning

Introduction

Having recently watched the Lord of the Rings movies for the first time, I thought it would be interesting to talk about how Tolkien interpreted the mythological races (such as Elves and Dwarves), and how these viewpoints have shaped the modern world of fantasy. After that I’ll give my reviews of the adaptations.

General Thoughts on The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings was one of the primary fantasy series that I grew up with (the other being Redwall) and so I’ve read the trilogy, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion; listened to several audio adaptations, watched the Bakshi adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring/The Two Towers, and player both of the Battle for Middle Earth RTS games.

The Lord of the Rings was one of the largest influences on modern day fantasy, though it was be no means the only influential series, nor the first of its kind. The rather famous Appendix N, detailing the seventy books which most inspired Gary Gygax while he was making the original Dungeons and Dragons game (which is perhaps the most detailed fantasy world ever constructed), has The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit listed amongst a large number of other entries of both books and authors.

Similarly, we can state that many of these authors were inspired by fairy tales, mysticism, heroic epics, religious imagery, and other such cultural elements. Tolkien himself was most directly inspired by a mixture of Christian and Germano-Norse ideas. Thus, the setup for The Lord of the Rings in its background is largely of a Christian construction, with angels and fallen angels battling it out, while also populated with various different races and creatures from mythos that predate Christianity. Additionally, as an extended length series, the Lord of the Rings was one of the first truly detailed fantasy worlds, and many would say that Tolkien focused on this even more than more standard concerns of authors such as characterization. For example, Sauron receives almost no characterization in The Lord of the Rings, and his motive for seeking control over Middle Earth (originally a belief in the establishment of a tyrannical system to establish proper order) is never stated in the original trilogy, only being found in the others. Other characters vary in their complexity, but only a few, like Sam, are regarded as essentially complex. This focus on a detailed world was embraced by many game developers of various kinds, who sought to provide worlds that could easily be explored in hours and hours of play.

Tolkien can be especially credited with solidifying four archetypes in the minds of modern readers, the image of Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, and Wizards. The Gandalf character, for example, was as much the archetypal wizard of the 20^th century as Merlin was for Britain in the years before. Even in the 21^st century he still retails a familiarity, even as very different interpretations of wizards, such as those in the Harry Potter series, have emerged. The question is: do the Tolkien characterizations of creatures hold up on examination? Ultimately, while artistic license exists in how one portrays beings and creatures, this should be done with an eye towards being accurate. Otherwise, if a being is not accurately portrayed, a work would be better served by inventing a new type of creature. Let’s begin the examination.

Elves

I can think of no more lasting impact on modern fantasy than the portrayal of Elves by Tolkien. Before Tolkien, the use of the word Elf by writers on folklore and fantasy was often used interchangeably with Fairy, Pixie, Sprite, and even Goblin at times. This lack of care would lead one to believe that each of these entities were interchangeable for one another. This state of affairs should not, however, be blamed on the writers themselves. Misconceptions about these beings go far back. For example, in the Norse Eddas, the chronicles will refer to both Elves that dwell in the court of the God Freyr (or Light Elves), while also talking about Dark Elves that dwell beneath the earth and most commonly resemble Dwarves. Similarly, Fairies appear as a wide classification which includes anything from beings as small as a few inches tall to beings who are taller and fairer than humans.

Against this tendency, Tolkien chose to portray Elves as the oldest and wisest of the created races. In appearance they are like men, but idealized men. While they are not perfect beings, they also seem to lack the violent impulses of men and usually engage others with wisdom, if of an aloof form. Of course, it should be mentioned that this is their portrayal within The Lord of the Rings. The portrayal of Elves in the earlier Hobbit was much more akin to joke playing fairies. It seems like Tolkien decided that this was incorrect, and so made the change. The revision within The Lord of the Rings has proved extremely popular and influential, and thus we continue to have this image of Elves in modern fantasy where they are like men, but better in all aspects (save that they breed and mature at a slower rate than Humans). Similarly, it is also from Tolkien (albeit not entirely without historical merit) that the linking of Elves and trees occurs.

Tolkien ultimately derived his image of Elves from a number of sources, most prominently Germano-Norse and Greco-Roman folklore, but also Finnish and perhaps even Indo-Iranian folklore (the name Gandalf uses, Mithrandir, appears connected to the Mithra/Mitra of Indo-Iranian religion). The obvious first image is the Elf as a member of the realm of Freyr, the God of nobility and love (Freyr, from whence we get the modern word free, also means sacred love in its original form). This realm is said to be located somewhere in the heavens, or the worlds above our own world, as is true with most of the realms of the Gods (with the exception of certain lower worlds such as Hel). They are to Freyr what the Valkyries are the Odin, mystical warriors who ate at his table and aided him in war. Each Elf who served Freyr was a superb warrior, and they often accompanied him when he was at the house of the Gods or on campaign. Just like how the goal of Odin’s followers was to be received at Valhalla, Freyr’s followers became Elves upon acceptance into his house. Additionally, we have the testimony of Elves serving as guides to men in the legacy of names such as Alfred, meaning “Elf Counsel”.

The other place that the Tolkien Elves are derived from is the book Works and Days, by the ancient Greek poet Hesiod, something every scholar of mythology is familiar with. In that book Hesiod posits that there were originally four different races of men. The first were the Men of the Golden Age, who were created to be deathless, good, and full of joy. Even after their time came to an end, they continued as servants of the gods, dwelling in the air, and they keep an eye on mortals, providing aid and acting as intermediaries between mortals and gods. The second race were the Men of the Silver Age, and these were also magical and powerful, yet they fell to contention with one another, and so were placed beneath the earth by the gods. There they continue to dwell as spirits, and remain counted as blessed. The third race were the Demi-Gods of Bronze, who were the heroes of the Greek legends, often part divine in their lineage and thus capable of superhuman feats. However, these fell to severe war, and eventually annihilated one another in combat. And then came the Men of Iron, who are the present race of men, having none of the virtues of the previous races, and thus are ultimately doomed to fail in the eyes of Hesiod, fated to be destroyed and replaced by Zeus at the next turn of the age.

Thus, Tolkien held that the Elves were the Men of the Golden Age, as flawless as the non-divine can be, and thus imputed upon them also the edenic characterizations of unfallen Christian men, that being a sort of perfect harmony with the world, plants, and animals. They are also associated with both mystical pools of water (such as Galadriel’s water mirror), and with stars that they often reference.

Having stated that, what is the proper take on Elves, and what is their relation to Fairies, Pixies, Sprites, and Goblins?

Elves – Most of the characterization of Elves is fundamentally correct, if one chooses to connect them to these spirits of the air and stars. See, one of the unfortunate elements of the modern tendency to connect elves with forests is that we lose sight of what the old texts say about their origins, namely that they are beings of the stars. We have an endless supply of mythological examples where fair godlike humans come down from the stars or dwell amongst the stars. These beings often serve as moral guides for humans, beings who provide tools and education for them, or even as teachers of magic. Their realm also operates on a different sort of time to our own, which results in a stay or weeks or months turning into years or even centuries. The association with trees and plants is not because the Elves are associated with such things, but because these forms of life are held to originally come from the stars, or at least to have been created by beings of the stars. The actual physical element that Elves and most other mystical beings are connected to is water. If you wish to know more about this, then examine the Water Universe theory of Hinduism (many other belief systems around the world also hold to this theory, by Hinduism has the most complete portrayal). In this theory the heavens themselves are often compared to water, and thus the Hindu version of Elves, the Yakshas and Yakshini, are often portrayed with water vessels, wreaths of flowers, giving birth to flowers from their mouths or navels, and standing upon fish and lotuses. Iranian lore is even more clear with the Yazata, led by their King Tistar (the bearer of the Bright Sword, who is their version of Freyr), being the Gods of the Stars. And one cannot overlook all the Celestial folk of Asian lore or the Star Gods of Amerindian lore (who descended to earth and then returned to the stars after bestowing religion and civilization upon the Amerindians). This all bears greater expansion, which I hope to provide in time, but this seems to be the best interpretation of them.

Rating: 4.5/5

Here’s a brief overview of Fairies, Pixies, Sprites, and Goblins in comparison.

Fairies are a difficult subject to pin, since they often seem like a mixture of pre-existing . For example, in the modern day there are nations of the world, such as Vietnam, which have chosen to reclassify their entire pre-Buddhist system of gods as “Fairies” not because this is canonically justified, but because it is a political move. This is why the Vietnamese ancestral Goddess, Au Co, is now referred to as a fairy, when she was actually either the goddess of a mountain (which is a Genius Loci, or God of a Place in Greco-Roman terms, or a Kami, Minor God in Japanese terms), or she was a major Goddess of weather. This also is what happened in Ireland itself after Christianization where the previous Gods and Goddesses became the Tuatha de-Danann, the People of the Mounds (which had also happened previously with the Fomorians, the pre-Celtic Gods of the islands). Now add to this confusion that fairies are also used to describe a myriad of Dwarves, Pygmies, and the like, and even sometimes just as slang for an entire realm (Faerie proper referring to the “Realm of the Fairies”). Thus, the term is better suited for literature than for categorization. If one had to divide Fairies into different types, one could say that there is one group of Fairies characterized by being tall and beautiful, much like the elves, though of not quite so noble a character. These are perhaps even a group of exiled Elves in folklore (there is reference to the Trickster God who was apparently exiled to earth from the stars), but there are alternative theories about them (such as being the ruling class of the second group of Fairies, or even perhaps another race of being, such as the shapeshifting serpent-folk, or Nagas, of the underearth). The second group of Fairies are the Dwarves, who are primarily characterized by being much shorter than humans (typically 2-4 feet in height). I’ll talk about Dwarves more extensively later, but they are also a very varied group.

Pixies are winged Fairies that seem to be a literary take on the Sprites of Greco-Roman folklore.

Sprites are nature spirits of Greco-Roman folklore who are formed of minor Gods of their pantheon, amongst other things. These may or may not be classified amongst the Star Gods. It all depends on how one wishes to interpret what a God or a minor God is.

Goblin: I’ll talk more about these when Orks come up, but for now suffice to say that they are a sort of dwarf that is associated with tricks and an odd sort of magical commerce (the Goblin Market).

Dwarves

Tolkien’s image of Dwarves seem mostly derived from the Germano-Norse Eddas. In these stories, Dwarves appear as small magical smiths (2-4 feet tall) who live in a realm underneath the earth. This position also gets them named as “Dark Elves” in the texts. They forge weapons and rings, but typically do it out of a desire for gold or other forms of reward. The Gods have a on and off relationship with the Dwarves, where neither appears to trust the other. Typical of this relationship is the tale where a Dwarf came to Freyr, the God of Elves, seeking to marry Freyr’s sister Freya, proclaiming himself the wisest creature in the world. Freyr keeps the Dwarf busy at a game of lore and wit, until the sun rises and the Dwarf finds himself turned to stone.

This relationship touches upon the second element of Tolkien’s Dwarves, a distrust of outsiders with a particular loathing of the Elves due to a historic conflict. The third element of Tolkien’s Dwarves holds that they are in constant battle with various underworld monsters that encroach on their homes, especially Orcs and Trolls. Fourthly, Dwarves, despite their short stature, are much stronger than the equivalent Human, typically exceeding the strength of a strong man.

I’m much less sold on the Tolkien version of Dwarves than his take on elves, which is a pity since his take has perhaps been even more influential in their modern characterization. Simply put, Tolkien removed the vast majority of mysticism from Dwarves in favor of portraying them as a industrial civilization, thus having them as the opposite of the Elves. The closest hints to mysticism that we get from the Dwarves are magical doors, which seems to have some sort of built in password system. However, even this appears to operate in Elvish, which leaves its origins in doubts.

Considered using only Germano-Norse folklore, we still are missing out on the Dwarves who are capable of imbuing their creations with magical powers, and the constant references to Dwarves being full of trickery and magic, even capable of shapeshifting themselves into animal forms. These tendencies only grow stronger as one examines the folklore of the rest of the world, where the industriousness of the Dwarves is magical in nature, and often comes at a price.

As for whether Dwarves are antagonistic to Elves, this is a bit complex to answer. Dwarves seem to have a much wider moral alignment than Elves, and so are more prone to factions. Thus, while we have stories such as the one previously cited with Freyr, we also have numerous stories where the Dwarves serve as the waterbearers of the Elves. There are even famous image from India of Yakshini (female Elves) being borne on the backs of smiling Dwarves. Similarly, Dwarves in Amerindian folklore are portrayed as the water-bearers of the gods and are held to have a role in creating storms. In Mayan folklore it can even be argued that the primary messengers of the Gods of Rainfall, the Chacs, are the Dwarves, and that meeting a Dwarf is the first step to meeting with a God. Of course, there are other stories of the falling out of higher versions of gods and lower versions (such as in Babylonian and Assyrian lore, where the gods almost fought a civil war over labor issues).

It is interesting that Tolkien incorporated the Dwarves fighting against Orcs, Goblins, and underworld monsters such as the Balrog. In Iroquois folklore one branch of the Dwarves serve as the keepers of the underworld, a task they have been charged with by the gods. They keep the beings there from escaping, in particular the evil horned serpents which would wreck havoc upon the world were they to get escape. These Dwarves also serve as the mentors of the humans they find, and are responsible for the .

Finally, the Dwarves are substantially stronger than equivalent men, with references to Dwarves being able to easily wrestle mighty men and even Gods at times. So this is correct.

Physically speaking, Dwarves usually seem to have white, yellow, or brown colored skin, and are 2-4 feet tall. Some are deformed, while others are simply small Humans, or Pygmies. In some cultures, such as the pacific islanders, people born with albinism are historically said to have been fathered by Dwarves. This in turn suggests that some Dwarves have a connection with the old Fairy tales of changelings.

Overall, I think Tolkien did a poor job representing the potential of Dwarves, and this has contributed to the blandness of modern Dwarves.

Rating: 1.5/5

Ents (Tree Spirits)

Ents are inspired by the Dryads of Greco-Roman lore. They are tenders of the trees who are a dying race since the female Ents are long since gone away from the world. We see them as stoic and wise creatures, slow to act, yet strong in their deliberation.

Ents aren’t trying to be like the Dryads, and do not bear their names. Thus, while they are inspired by the tree spirits, they are ultimately the creation of artistic license properly applied. Also, it should be mentioned that there is a reference to an evil tree in The Fellowship of the Ring, which is sentient and attempts to strangle the hobbits with its roots. This occurs in the part of the story in Tom Bombadil’s realm, and hence is not used in the movies.

Rating: Tolkien/5

Hobbits

Hobbits are, obviously, Tolkien’s own creation. Thus they should not be judged on this scale.

Rating: Tolkien/5

Orks and Goblins

[A brief note: Tolkien uses the form Orc for his books, while the lore creatures are known as Orks.]

In the first of Tolkien’s LOTR books, The Hobbit, the more familiar Orcs of later books are missing. Instead, their role in fulfilled by the Goblins. These goblins dwell in caves and are smaller than a man on average (with the exception of their king who is apparently larger). They are greedy, malicious, cruel, violent, and cowardly. There is some link to wargs, or wolves, with them, and they are also sometimes accompanied by crows.

The LOTR trilogy largely replaces Goblins with Orcs, though Goblins are still found dwelling in caves. The distinction between the two seems fairly minor, with both referring to the same sort of being, Goblins simply being the cave dwelling variant. Orcs share the same violent tendencies as Goblins, and both delight in devouring other humanoids.

As for appearance, Tolkien had several different ideas about where Orks came from that will change how one views them. The first idea is that Orcs are the result of Elves who were captured and then broken by an evil god. While Tolkien already has a sort of fallen Angel in his works (in the form of the Balrogs), this could be interpreted as the fall of the first men. Thus, Orcs are expected to look like deformed elves. This is what we see in the live action movies, although the Isengard Orcs seem to be produced from sludge by some sort of industrial process. However, it is well known that Tolkien came to dislike this theory the more he worked with the Elves. Thus the alternatives are suggested that the Orcs were simply made to mock the Elves, being either formed from dirt or from corrupted animals. It is from the corrupted animal theory that we get the second image of Orcs, which shows hairy, squint-eyed, ape-like creatures.

When the ring is destroyed all the Orcs and Trolls lose their minds, reverting back to primal savagery. Thus their sentience was a fragment of the will of a greater being, rather than a thing of their own.

Tolkien developed the Orc from a combination of creatures. First, the name Ork describes a Wildman of the British Isles, Wildmen being a sort of developmental midpoint between the great apes and humans. The characteristics of Tolkien’s Orcs are clearly those of a Christian Demon. It is interesting to note that Demons in Judaism are portrayed as hairy humanoid creatures with feet like a bird.

How do Tolkien’s Orcs hold up as mythological creatures? Once more it is one of those “it depends” answers. I think we can safely discard the first version of their creation. While it is certainly “edgy,” and thus why it is a popular theory, it also seems at such odds with what an Elf is. There is also nothing in real world lore that suggests a connection between a higher lifeform and an ape-like lifeform. As for the morality of Wildmen, many described encounters are similar to the stories of the Bigfoot or the Yeti. Wildmen are usually not malicious towards Humans, but are intimidated by them and prefer to stay away. Of course, there are exceptions such as the Sisimito of Central American folklore, where the males are described as sapient creatures who seek out humans that they might devour them. However, on the other side of the equation, we can cite characters like Enkidu of Babylon, Hamuman of India, or Sun Wu Kong of China. These beings all have a moral alignment which is often superior to that of Humans they encounter, and their intelligence is equal or superior.

Even in the cases where Wildmen attack Humans, it is always because Humans are in territory that they have claimed or protect. For example, Enkidu was known to chase away hunters and disturb their traps since he was a guardian of animals. While inconvenient to Humans, this is not really an immoral act. At worst we are thus left with creatures who are morally divided. They certainly aren’t aggressive invaders and destroyers of Human civilization, and so should not be counted as such.

This is one area where modern franchises have very much improved in the portrayal of Orks. Having them as primitive, if honest, tribalists seems to be better overall than malicious cowards.

Regarding Goblins, the portrayal is simply not accurate. Goblins are not creatures inclined to mass combat, instead they are Dwarves who use trickery to buy and sell goods and services. Rumpelstiltskin is, in my opinion, an archetypal Goblin. He spins straw into gold, but has a harsh bargain that he strikes for his service, claiming the daughter of his patrons. The House Goblin also has a similar function, performing services for the owners of its house, usually accepting some sort of payment, and acting malicious when its desires are not met.

Typical also of the trickster nature of the Goblins is the Goblin Market, or the Midnight Market. As its name suggests, the Goblin Market is an invisible market which becomes visible to some nearby travellers at midnight. Here one can buy and sell goods to Goblins until daybreak. However, once daybreak roles around, the goods purchased from the Goblins usually turn to sand.

Thus, Goblins are fundamentally tricksters and charlatans rather than ferocious raiders.

Rating: 1/5

Trolls

Trolls are another example of a creature that shifted in role between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, Trolls are man-eating Giants who seek to trick Dwarves and thus gain them for dinner (as well as loot their treasures). They are ultimately defeated by Gandalf and Bilbo, who trick them into staying above ground until the sun rises, which turns them into stone.

In The Lord of the Rings, Trolls appear as sub-sapient creatures who are used as raw muscle by their Orc task masters. There is little else to be said about them, though one assumes that their appetites remain the same as in the Hobbit. It is also said in lore that the Trolls were made in mockery of the Ents, just as Orcs were made in mockery of the Elves. Here we can suppose that Trolls represent raw stone and perpetual darkness, while the Ents represent life and growing forests.

Having stated this, what are Trolls? Trolls are a type of hairy giant from Scandinavian lore that dwell in caves. They often demand challenges of riddles to defeat them, matching wits with their opponents. It is from here that we get the famous concept of the “Troll Bridge”. We can thus say that their strength is such that they cannot be defeated without wits.

Little of the ancient lore about them directly survives, however we have an important relation which says a lot about what they used to represent, the Troll-Wife. Troll-Wife is another name for a witch in old Scandinavian lore, and this indicates that witches acquired their powers through the teachings of Trolls, or by marrying them. This association between witchcraft (considered in the negative, or black magic, form) and Giants is all through European folklore, and indeed through worldwide lore. In some cases the witches learn magic from the Giants, in other cases they are the mothers of the Giants.

Given this relationship, defeating Giants with wits is a classic way to defeat them. Thus, while we do not see the magical elements of Trolls, nor their more significant association with witchcraft, the scene from the hobbit is fundamentally good and true to the lore. The Trolls from the Lord of the Rings trilogy are much worse conceived and only serve as dumb brute muscle, lacking even the basic sapience which even the most simple Giants have.

Rating: 3.5/5 (Hobbit) 1/5 (LOTR)

Wizards

Wizards in Tolkein’s lore are star gods who have come down to the earth an become incarnate. They fight for the side of goodness, while their evil counterparts, the Balrogs, fight of on the side of evil. At least this is how it was supposed to be. In actuality, only Gandalf and the Brown Wizard remained true to their mission, while Saruman attempted to seize the world and the other two wizards corrupted the Easterlings and the Harradrim, turning them to Sauron. Gandalf’s true name is Mithrandir, which is derived from the old Indo-Iranian god Mithra/Mitra. Additionally, he serves the sacred fire which is called Ea, the Babylonian god of the spiritual waters (whose name is often theorized to be a cognate of the later Jewish Yahweh).

The path of wizards in middle earth is exemplified by Gandalf and Saruman. Gandalf remains true to his mission and ascends, gaining power after walking in the realm of the Gods. Saruman turns his mind to machinery and corruption, and thus loses his power in time, eventually having nothing left except his wits (which he uses to rule over the Shire as a petty gang leader). Only a few beings in Middle Earth can use magic, and this is typically done by channelling it from a greater being (the Ring-Wraiths), or by a sort of flow out from oneself (Saruman, while his power lasted). The true extent and powers of magic are kept vague, and one never really knows what a wizard is capable of.

The words wizard and witch both ultimately derive from the same Indo-European root of wicca (wisdom) or wichta (sage/wise man). Fundamentally speaking, magic is historically divided into two types, one of which is white magic and the other black magic. White magic is divined from the gods, or from union with certain types of spirits. It is typical that only a tiny minority of people, usually connected to some sort of Divine bloodline, are able to access magic proper. Other forms of mysticism such as dreams are more readily available. Black magic, by contrast, is based in power taken from the gods by giants or magicians, sometimes by the devouring of a God or a Holy Man. Strict rites of bloodlines are then practised to retain these lines, though there is also reference to absorbing magic by interbreeding with Divine bloodlines. While both white and black magic have male and female practitioners, white magic is most strongly associated with the male lineage (the descendants of the initial activities of the magic giving God), while black magic is most strongly associated with the female lineage. This is why, perhaps rather unfortunately, that despite witch and wizard having essentially the same meaning, one always has a more negative connotation than the other.

Human wizards and witches don’t really appear in Tolkien’s work, however he does portray minor star gods as magicians. Overall, it’s satisfactory.

Rating: 4/5

Movie Reviews

As stated previously, I’m familiar Tolkien’s works (albeit it’s been over half a decade since I’ve read one of the books). This wasn’t a blind watch since I’ve seen various clips from the movies over the years, just never got around to watching them. I watched the theatrical versions, which I’m aware cut out some of the extended scenes, but the movies are already three hours, so anything longer than that would more reasonably be done as a miniseries. In general, there is a rule that a word to movie adaptation of 100,000 or more is asking for trouble. Thus, we can assume that of 430,000 words in the series that about 240,000-300,000 were adapted in the total 9 hour run time. This most notably cut out the Tom Bombadil scenes and Saruman taking over the Shire, but overall neither particularly change the series. With that said, here are my reviews:

The Fellowship of the Ring

Every tale has a start and the Fellowship of the Ring begins the trilogy. The book is known for its very extensive beginning section, during which we get any pages of history and lore, things which are daunting for casual readers. The rest is a fairly straightforward journey with a largely unified telling, as the Fellowship is united for most of the journey. Let’s see how they did.

Positives

The shire scenes were very well done on the practical sets, each of which used interesting illusion techniques to create the correct size proportions. Peaceful music accompanies the region, and the going away party very much gets the correct feel. Making this peaceful landscape seem interesting is quite important in the buildup of the Lord of the Rings, since readers of the book will know that the action takes quite a while to get to.

It is also interesting to see the number of allusions made to the old Bakshi animated version, whether in something as scary as the party hiding under a log from the ring wraith hunting them or attacking their beds at night and then screaming, or even in something humorous like the Proudfoot having his feet up on the table. The eye of Sauron being a physical eye is one of the few allusions taken from the rather less serious animated adaptation of the Return of the King.

The fight on Weathertop was interesting, and likely my favorite of the film. It has only a little physical action, but a massive amount of tension. The Ring Wraiths seem like unstoppable beings to the Hobbits, and Frodo’s attempt to use the ring results in one of them stabbing him. It is only the intervention of Aragorn that sees their defeat.

This film has some of the best scenes from the entire trilogy in it. Gandalf’s discussion with Frodo about the burden of being a Ring Bearer was excellent, emphasizing that one cannot choose what life throws one’s way, but one can make the choice of how to act. Similarly, Gandalf convincing Bilbo to leave the ring behind was also quite well done.

I also really liked how Galadriel was portrayed. There is something mystical, kind, and threatening about her all at once. The Elf look from the movie is naturally suited for the female form. Less so for the male, but we’ll get to that.

Overall the practical effects of this movie have all held up very well. The Orcs and Black Riders look very good, the sets are good, and the overall atmosphere is well done.

Neutral

Rather famously, the film made two primary alterations to the book. The first is that it cut out a number of the scenes of the Hobbits on their journey to Rivendell, and also cut out their time with Tom Bombadil and their adventures with the Barrow Wraith. While those scenes would have been fun, they aren’t necessary to the story. In the second change, the Elf who rescues Frodo is named Glorfindel, and he was replaced with Arwen. The reality is that Arwen didn’t really have much to do outside of her scenes with Aragorn at Rivendell, mostly because Tolkein didn’t write a really close romance for the two characters, despite it being extremely important and a source of as much tragedy as joy. Similarly, this has an effect upon how Aragorn is portrayed, but ultimately one which might have been necessary for the communication of this seriousness.

Negatives

I was somewhat more skeptical about how Saruman is portrayed in this film. To be sure, he’s acted well, but the movie takes the interpretive position that Saruman explicitly wishes to join himself to Sauron and serve him, whereas in the book it is said that Saruman has talked to Sauron, but ultimately wishes to replace him using the power of the ring. This is the temptation of Gandalf and Galadriel regarding the ring. Both understand that they could defeat Sauron if they use it, but they understand that they’ll end up as tyrants just like him if that happens. Overall, I just personally prefer the concept of there being several enemy factions instead of just one.

In a similar vein, the wizard duel between Gandalf and Saruman has the unfortunate effect of coming across as comical once Saruman begins spinning Gandalf around.

CGI during the development of this movie was kind of in its infancy. However, comparing some of the effects with contemporary movies like The Phantom Menace (for all the faults of Jar Jar Binks as a character, he is still very well crafted for a CGI character of that era), which came out 2 years earlier, we see that it has issues holding up. The goal of CGI, when used to augment a live action movie, is to blend in as well as it can. The issues with the CGI are selective rather than total. For example, the Ring Wraiths in spectral form look good; the Watcher in the Waters looks good, but CGI Frodo in its tentacles looks bad; the Cave Troll in Moria looks bad; the scene where the Fellowship is running through the halls of Moria looks especially terrible; and the Balrog was 50-50 (it looked good in the darkness, but its movements have serious issues with seeming unnatural).

Elves are always difficult to do properly in film because in order to differentiate them from humans and give them an unnatural beauty, the males are often portrayed with long hair, clean shaven, and wearing long robes. It’s why female Elves come across as paragons of beauty, while male Elves have an issue with coming across as metrosexual. Elrond fortunately escaped this tendency, but a lot of the others didn’t.

Most of the other fights, while well choreographed, have the standard fantasy issue of the heroes, equipped with the same armor and weapons as their foes, taking out enemies easily, ultimately leading to a limit to the tension. This is especially true of the paper armor trope which is in full effect in this movie. Plate armor was used historically because it was basically immune to damage from arrows and blade slashes. This is why blunt trauma weapons like maces, warhammers, and halberds were typically deployed against armored opponents. Here, however, a single slash with a sword or an arrow can pierce through hardened armor, even twice in the case of one arrow fired by Legolas. Arrows in particular are an odd choice for this since they typically cause wounds rather than kill outright (as is even portrayed with Boromir).

Conclusion

Overall this is a good solid movie. The good points far outweigh the bad, and thus it gets a high recommendation.

8.5/10

The Two Towers

The Two Towers is a very different book to film compared to The Fellowship of the Ring. The later is about a slow build journey, whereas the former is very conflict and action focused, albeit with some extended breaks from action in Fangorn Forest with Treebeard. Lets see how it stands up.

Positives

The first scenes with Marry, Pippin, and the Uruks is quite well done. One gets a sense of the Orc savagery and it gives a good example of how disciplined, yet ferocious, the Uruks are.

Much like the portrayal of the Shire in The Fellowship of the Ring, this film very much gets the feel of Rohan correct. We get the sense of a land of pastoralists and citizen soldiers pressed into conflict. The music is very fitting with a mixture of peacefulness, tragedy, and heroic impulses.

The scale of the Battle of Helm’s Deep is very impressive. One very much gets the sense of the scale and brutality of the siege.

The unveiling of the Uruk Army is a very cool scene. (although, on an unrelated note, Wormtongue rolled a one in perception).

The tragedy of the Arwen/Aragorn relationship is very well explained, and the risk is highlighted by Aragorn almost dying as he falls off a cliff. This isn’t in the books themselves, but it is an interesting addition nonetheless. Arwen’s choice is emphasized as she serves as Aragorn’s encouragement to arise again, and this ultimately leads to Arwen casting off Elrond’s doubts as he has sown them in her mind.

We start to truly see the burgeoning of Sam and Frodo’s friendship here, though the best parts of that will be in the next movie. Similarly, Gollum is quite well done, and improves substantially on the previous CGI.

Speaking of which, the CGI of this film is quite improved over the previous and seems to not have the same sort of flaws. Some of the more major moments, like the Fellbeast, still aren’t great, but aren’t terrible either.

My favorite scenes were the Gollum and Smeagel back and forth, which conveys Gollum’s psychology quite well, and Sam’s Monologue at Osgiliath is also very good, which is about why Frodo and Sam should continue on their journey even against adversity.

Neutral

The choice to include Elves at Helm’s Deep is controversial, as it represents a substantial difference from the books. To be quite clear, there are Elves who are fighting against Sauron in the books, however they are limited to the battles taking place in Mirkwood, where they storm Sauron’s secondary fortress, Dol Guldur. There is still some question about the choice of the Elves, as they seem to take the easy way out by sailing across the sea, even while the others remain. Thus, Galadriel’s question posited to Elrond about whether men should be allowed to stand s valid. Still, it does represent a substantial deviation from the source material, so one can debate whether it was a good or necessary addition.

Gimli is within the keep with the others when the Uruks break through into Helm’s Deep, instead of in the caves protecting the women and children. While the change is made for the understandable reason of having him blow the horn, his potential death might have added to the tension of the scene. Of course, fans will know that Gimli survives the events of the book, but the casual moviegoers might find it tension building.

Negatives

I still have issues with Saruman only engaging in war in order to be Sauron’s lackey. It just feels kind of like a cheapening of character.

The entire lore of the Ent people was cut out. While cutting out Treebeards songs and poems is understandable for the sake of time, without understanding that the Ent women have gone away forever, we don’t quite grasp the tragedy that is the last march of the Ents. Here we see the last march of a dying people, the last time they will ever effect the world.

I’m not really sold on the physical changes of Theoden. He is under a spell, but it seems more one of lethargy than actual aging.

Gimli is given too much of a comic relief role in this film. It’s kind of over the top.

Faramir is supposed to be very different from his brother, Boromir. Boromir desires the ring, while Faramir explicitly does not want it, and also doesn’t want Gondor to have it. However, one gets the opposite impression from the film.

The way that cavalry is used at Helm’s Deep is honestly pretty terrible. Even with the sunbeam, the cavalry are still charging a line of heavily armored pikemen down what looks like a really steep hill. Horses could easily fall down and take out the rank of horses behind them. Additionally, cavalry attacking formations of infantry never used a single straight charge, since a horse will eventually get bogged down in formations of infantry. Instead, heavy cavalry performed cycle charges, during which they ran at formations of enemy soldiers, typically while using long ranged lances, then retreated before charging once more.

Conclusion

Overall this was another good solid movie. I wouldn’t give it quite as high a rating as The Fellowship of the Ring, since there were more substantial issues with it, but overall it was a good time.

8/10

The Return of the King

The finale. The Return of the King is a book about completing difficult journeys, fulfilling one’s promised duty, and about the hardships and suffering that are carried even after tragedy has passed by. Let’s see whether this movie achieved its portrayal.

Positives

Shelob’s ambush of Frodo and the subsequent Sam vs. Shelob fight is very well done. The CGI is much better integrated and the emotion over Frodo’s death is very well done.

Gimli’s comedic role has been much reduced here.

Galadriel lifting Frodo out of his stupor is an interesting addition once more. It does give the sense that the elves are at least trying to help.

The interaction of Elrond and Arwen captured the gravity of the choice that she is making for Aragorn. It does differ from the books where she sent her banner with the Grey Company, thus not having doubt in Aragorn, but without the inclusion of the Grey Company it is understandable.

This is Sam’s best overall movie. Gollum’s successful creation of a rift between Sam and Frodo aside, their friendship was well portrayed.

Without the Scouring of the Shire, I liked the callback to the old Hobbit man shaking his head as the four hobbits came home. The after moments where they met again with their friends were also nice.

The final ending, where Frodo goes over the sea, was well done and closed the film out quite nicely.

Neutral

The effects for the Paths of the Dead are quite cool. It is unfortunate the we didn’t get to see the Grey Company, since it shows that there are loyalists to Aragorn, and bear a jewelled banner from Arwen as a sign of her faith in him. Kind of a 50-50 on that scene because of that.

The Mouth of Sauron was ultimately cut from the release version (I know that the extended version restored his scene). Not a major deal, but Sauron trying to mock or discourage Aragorn was kind of an interesting diplomatic tactic.

There is a debate about whether or not the theatrical way of dealing with Saruman or the extended version is better. The theatrical cut follows the book in leaving Saruman locked up in Isengard, with the understanding that he can’t do any more harm, having lost his powers. Of course, that conclusion was after Saruman attempted to use his silver tongue to charm Theoden once more (something that worked for many members of the group, except for Theoden and Gandalf). Additionally, Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff in the book, thus casting him out of the wizard order. The alternative is the extended version, which has the debate, but also sees Saruman get cast off the tower to his death. Neither is ideal in my opinion, with the best solution probably being to have him lose to the debate, but then also be left behind as powerless.

Cutting out the conquest of the Shire was likely a good idea, however it may have contributed to the perception of Lord of the Rings having a feels good ending, even with Frodo’s choice to go over the sea at the end of the film. The worst thing you can say about that addition to the book is that it does ultimately cast some doubts on the competence of Treebeard, having let Saruman go, even understanding that Saruman is still a clever and conniving individual, even without his powers.

I’m unsure about having Frodo turn on Sam when Gollum destroys the last of their food supply. That seems like an odd decision to make when there was no such rift in the book. It does make an interesting use of Gollum employing cleverness as his way to win.

The Battle of Minas Tirith is kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand it is quite cool and one can really sense the grand scale of things. On the other hand, the use of the Army of the Dead ultimately acts as a deus-ex-machina, when the book was a lot more complicated. For example, even after the Orc army fled, an entire army of Haradrim under the serpent banner fought to the death, causing immense casualties amongst both the armies of Gondor and Rohan.

Frodo awaking in the houses of healing contributed a bit to ending bloat. Difficult to know whether the film might have been weaker without it, so its neutral.

Negatives

Faramir has had way too much removed to be a good character in comparison to the books. He now not only lacks his noble characteristic of not wanting the ring, but he also doesn’t get Eowyn as a lover and their scene at the Houses of Healing, wondering about what the fate of the army will be, is cut. Aragon and Eowyn ultimately have more quasi-romantic moments than Faramir.

The palantir is found without context by Pippin, whereas in the book Wormtongue pitches it off the tower at them. This might be in a deleted scene, but it does seem to be an awkward choice of having to find the thing.

Denathor is just unlikable in this movie. I guess that’s what they were going for, but he has a very poor relationship with Pippin, as compared to the book. There’s also the scene where he’s explicitly eating while Faramir is riding out to attack Osgiliath which came across as kind of tasteless.

We never got to see Aragorn and Sauron duel in the palantir. Aragorn being able to confront him would have made for an interesting character moment.

Conclusion

The Return of the King is still a good experience to watch, but it makes too many major changes to the source material that undermine a number of good characters, ultimately cutting their character archs short. I will say that I didn’t enjoy this film less while watching it than The Two Towers, and so if you are a film person only, you will probably like them about the same.

7/10