Yet more ROTK

The Taipei Times' critic is a dissenter on The Return of the King. Okay, that happens. But when he describes the Muster of Rohan as Celtic he completely shoots his credibility in the foot. He hasn't got the faintest idea what he's talking about. How does this clown get paid money to make a fool of himself in public while I know dozens of impoverished Tolkien scholars who could do a way better job? He also makes the rather common mistake of referring to a love triangle between Aragorn, Eowyn, and Arwen. Yeah, Eowyn crushed out big time for him in the books, but unrequited love does not a relationship make. Aragorn's heart aches for her pain, but he and Arwen have been engaged for, like, a lifetime at this point. I know Jackson treats things somewhat differently in the movies, but even there, there is no evidence for a relationship between Aragorn and Eomer. Unless it's in the 3rd movie which I see tomorrow. And if it's in there, well, grrrr.

Sheesh. I wish they'd at least have required the people writing critical pieces to have read the damn books. The Guardian's critic doesn't even seem to have seen the movies when he says, "Well, with Saruman's omission there is no compelling intelligence directing the forces of darkness;" For crying out loud, did he ever see the movies? Hello, Sauron? Saruman is merely a duped lieutenant of Sauron! The guy can't even decide if he loves it or hates it!

The movies' producer, Barrie Osborne, makes yet another stupid comment

For me, there are resonant messages in the characters. For example, Aragorn is a guy who never thought he'd amount to anything . . . and he goes inward to discover that he has the greatness to be a leader of men. I think that's an amazing, heroic story.

Uh, no. Aragorn has known since very early in his life he was the inheritor of the throne of Gondor. He has been working all his life to make it possible for him to take up his throne, not least because Elrond has stipulated that Arwen shall give up her immortality for no lesser being than the King Returned. Sheesh.

David Edelstein, writing for the NY Times includes a very interesting comment from a fan attending the Trilogy Tuesday in NYC

Wandering around the theater, I saw people reading Tolkien. Miriam Kriss put down her book to explain that she was there in tribute to Peter Jackson, "a fan who understood." Then she delivered a rather stunning tribute to the fan aesthetic: "The problem with the last George Lucas `Star Wars' movies is that he's not a fan of his own work. You can't be if it's your work. But he doesn't understand anymore why we loved `Star Wars.' He just sits and stares at special effects on his computers. I'd rather see `Star Wars' movies by people who grew up with `Star Wars.' A fan would get it.

"

Comments

[Anton Sherwood]

Osborne is wrong about book-Aragorn, obviously, but not about film-Aragorn; people urge the latter, on several occasions, to ``be all that you can be'' (to pinch someone else's line).