Beren writes: Maybe that is why i dislike the third PJ movie so much... all that remains there is fighting and war; while the books so clearly show Tolkien's dislike against war, violence and anything to do with arms.
I respect your veiw regarding the above, Beren, but in his defence, Peter Jackson had compiled the film for people who did not know about the books. PJ and the two other writers of the film actually took into consideration what the Professor would think of their work and how best they could be true to the spirit of the book. They didn't change things willy-nilly and for the ratings. In proof you should buy the extended version dvd's and watch the 'behind the scenes' segments. PJ and the writers share their reasoning for the changes made. I am actually thankful to PJ for leading me to Tolkien.
Coming back to your comment above, I put this question to you: knowing the pure evil that Sauron was, was there any other way, realistically, to save Middle Earth?
My argument has two segments.
Firstly, as someone who did not know the story, during the first, second and third films, Sauron was established as someone that was evil, hatred and malice in a solid form. For one of the characters to go to him and say something along the lines of: "lets be friends" and both of them kiss and make up with Sauron becoming a "goodie" after that, would not give much credibility to his character, and many would leave the cinema disappointed and never pick up the book. Its the same as smiling at an axe murderer about to kill you, give him a hug and say:"lets be friends". It's just plain unrealistic. If someone is about to kill you, you would, realistically, fight back to save yourself, and that realism is what Peter Jackson was trying to portray. Yes, there was a huge battle at the end, but just go back to the book and see how many orcs the Roherem and Gondorian armies were trying to save Minas Tirith from. It makes Helms Deep look like a walk in the park. In order to save Minas Tirith, there would need to be an equal force against the mighty force of Mordor, plus, I feel, a miracle.
Secondly, what would have been the point if Frodo succeeded in destroying the ring and hence distroying Sauron if there were no people left in Middle Earth? The fighting in all of Lord of the Rings is seen as completely functional. Kill or be killed. Defend or be completely wiped out. It was not a blood-thirsty bunch of men out to have fun, it was about pure and utter survival. The dwarves had taken a knock in the mines of Moria thanks to the goblins, the elves had mostly left for Valanor and the Followers (us) would have been wiped out as well as the Hobbits in Hobbiton if Aragorn and his group, the Roherem and the Gondorians hadnt put there feet down and plainly and simply defended.
Tolkien fought in a war that didn't have much meaning, I mean what started it? A Austrian-Hungarian Archduke got shot and the suspected country was attacked. And thousands of Britains died to keep the peace in Europe. [/quote]It was a meaningless war (unlike the 2nd world war that fought against the oppression of a nation). I think that Tolkien saw the meaningless of the war of world war 1 that his friends and other fellow countrymen had died for and in his book portrayed a war much more meaningful - survival of good and the survival of life.
Saying this, I would just like to ask again: was there realistically any other way to save Middle Earth from the might of Mordor and Isengard (with Saruman's Uruk hai)? If there is, I would love you to share it with me.
This is my veiw and you or anyone is welcome to disagree.
I look forward to any comments.
Lyanness
