The Siege of Gondor

[Thomas Koenig]

Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/

Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

[Michael Ikeda]

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.

From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history. Many of the
film’s shortcomings in portraying a sense of battlefield realism
have more to do with the constrains of the medium. Film is an
incredible powerful medium, after all, but also a very limited one.
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson’s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn’t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."

Post by Thomas Koenig
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history.

Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion isn't
warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.

[Michael Ikeda]

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
Jackson’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.

Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.

Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
the movies. The sentence just before the part I quoted is:

(begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
analysis to “book good, movie bad.” (end quote)

He again notes his overall approval of the movies in the Conclusions
section of the last of the Helm's Deep pages.

"When I discussed the Siege of Gondor, I ended the series by noting
that, for all of the flaws of Peter Jackson’s adaptation, I still
found it one of the most successful book adaptations in film history,
and easily the best fantasy adaptation. In part, this was because
while Jackson had missed many of the details, he had managed to
capture some of the more fundamental themes of the work; he managed
to grasp the spirit of Tolkien, even if he occasionally missed the
letter.

I have much the same verdict here."

[tenworld]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:35:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda wrote:
...

From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
JacksonĀ’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.

I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation since
the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
which actually works better.

I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.

Like scraping butter over too much bread?

Post by tenworld
I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.

I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?


(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Michael F. Stemper
Like scraping butter over too much bread?

:-)

Post by Michael F. Stemper
I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)

Sam will kill whom if he tries what?

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Michael F. Stemper
Like scraping butter over too much bread?

:-)

Post by Michael F. Stemper
I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)

Sam will kill whom if he tries what?

It's a reference to "The Very Secret Diaries" by Cassie Claire:

http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/

[tenworld]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.

Like scraping butter over too much bread?

Post by tenworld
I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.

I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?

when they are hanging around the Rohan places. and the way he takes Aragon's lead in the fellowship
even though as the son of an elven king he would have higher status

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by tenworld

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by tenworld
I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close.

I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?

when they are hanging around the Rohan places. and the way he takes Aragon's lead in the fellowship
even though as the son of an elven king he would have higher status

Did those really differ from the way that the rest of the Fellowship
(give or take Gandalf the White) deferred to Aragorn?

[Paul S Person]

Post by tenworld
...

From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
Jackson?’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.

I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation since
the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
which actually works better.
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

But since when did PJ care about JRRT's timeline?

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?

Keeping in mind he is sixty or so in LOTR.

And how much time separates the two.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?

Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.

(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,
please ignore.)

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by tenworld
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?

Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?

Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.

Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".

My apologies.

Post by Michael F. Stemper
(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,
please ignore.)

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Paul S Person
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?

Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.

Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".

Oh. "Don't"? I guess that it is ambiguous.

That never occurred to me; all the times that I've encountered it,
its meaning was quite obvious. (I obviously cannot judge my use
of it.)

Post by Paul S Person
My apologies.

No problem.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Paul S Person
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.

YDRC.

So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
Keeping in mind he is sixty or so in LOTR.
And how much time separates the two.

The Tale of Years (Appendix B) says Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931. (I
was surprised to see that Bilbo was not only older than Aragorn, he
was older than Aragorn's _mother_.)

Battle of Five Armies was 2941, which agrees with your "10 years
old."

The Ring and Sauron were destroyed in T.A. 3019, when Aragorn was in
his late 80s.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
Jackson??s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
history.

Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.

Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
(begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
analysis to ?book good, movie bad.? (end quote)

The only logical analysis.;)

Post by Michael Ikeda
He again notes his overall approval of the movies in the Conclusions
section of the last of the Helm's Deep pages.

Bah!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Stan Brown]

From the conclusion: "...
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson?s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn?t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."

That "time is limited" is always trotted out by Jackson defenders,
but it misses the point. If time is so limited, so that he had to
leave out some things, no one can argue with that. But then why did
he ADD so much of his own?

"Doesn't capture the depth and nuance" -- that's putting it mildly.

Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
killing of the Trees, or Manwë sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.

[Glenn Holliday]

Post by Stan Brown
Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
killing of the Trees, or Manwë sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.

It sounds like Jackson was a consultant during development of
Amazon's Second Age series. But he is not involved in the
production.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.

This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history. Many of the
film’s shortcomings in portraying a sense of battlefield realism
have more to do with the constrains of the medium. Film is an
incredible powerful medium, after all, but also a very limited one.
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson’s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn’t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."

As to "marvelous", I don't recall any Green Slime in the book, and I
don't think it really worked in the film.

But I will agree that the battle scenes, however evaluated, are /not/
the reason the films fail to tell the same story as the book. For
that, PJ is entitled to full credit.

And I don't want to hear anything about the scriptwriters.

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

[tenworld]

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?

[Nomen Nescio]

Post by tenworld

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?

I would say it's because of Punic wars between Rome and Carthage. Bad
guys (Carthage) used elephants, and they lost. Of course, Carthage is
defined as bad only because they lost, and Rome is defined as good
because they are the ancestors of whole Western civilization.

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Nomen Nescio

Post by tenworld

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

because Indians in war elephants finally stopped Alexander the Great from conquering the world?

I would say it's because of Punic wars between Rome and Carthage. Bad
guys (Carthage) used elephants, and they lost. Of course, Carthage is
defined as bad only because they lost, and Rome is defined as good
because they are the ancestors of whole Western civilization.

Partly, yes. The blogger argues that classical sources always showed
war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Steve Morrison
Partly, yes. The blogger argues that classical sources always showed
war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.

All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
(well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
and the other side used elephants, their use does not appear to
have been a successful tactic.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Thomas Koenig

[quoted text muted]
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.

All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
(well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)

He didn't, but his successors (the Diadochi) did. Ptolemy and
Seleucus and the others held themselves up as the heirs to the god
Alexander.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 21:32:30 -0000 (UTC), Steve Morrison

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Thomas Koenig
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.

I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

Because, when the war elephants panic and trample their own side, it
the bad guys they are trampling?

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Steve Morrison
I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.

Oh, I forgot to add: one of the commenters on that blog is named
"Bill Hicklin". I wonder if that is the same William Cloud Hicklin
who used to post on rabt?