fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6630 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6630 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Cardcaptor Sakura]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 81 secrets from Secret Submission Post #948.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

03. https://i.imgur.com/5M9ADPv.jpeg

I don’t know if you feel this way, but I have a little melancholy about the movie/TV versions of characters becoming so culturally dominant over the book versions.

They’re so often flatter and less interesting.

I feel this way even though I do love the movies. And especially some characters. Elrond in the books is just so awesome. He's so full of joy and so complicated and interesting. And the movie version is just not Elrond.

On the other hand, I do think the movies did a really good job with some characters. Like Boromir. Or Sam and Frodo (in spite of de-aging Frodo). And Bilbo (in spite of the Hobbit movies overall being not good adaptions). So they did get some of them right.

You're right about Sam, he *did* get adapted well (unlike in the animated movie!), but Frodo got totally shafted and his spine ripped out for the movies.

Eh. I think they did a really good job of showing the Ring's effect on Frodo and his growing trauma as they got closer to Mordor. And how it continued to effect him even after it was destroyed.

Genuinely would like to know, as someone who's more familiar with the movies and not the book.

It's been a while since I've read them, so I think others will be able to be more in depth, but a difference that immediately comes to mind for me is that Aragorn is a lot more willing to take the piss in the books. There's one scene in particular I'm thinking of, where there's this jackass physician in Gondor, and Aragorn is so, so sarcastic with him, and it's great.

Aragorn is darkly sarcastic and witty from the very start, given his wry chiding of Frodo in the Prancing Pony. He's also competent and has zero doubts about his role in this entire process. He's the Big Damn Hero we need, not the relatable human man Jackson thought we wanted.

I don't agree with that at all. Book Aragorn absolutely has doubts, after Gandalf "dies," and then after Boromir really does. He isn't sure what to do, or what to path to take, and at one point outright says that he's failed and the trust in him was misplaced.

I’m not into Lord of the Rings, but this post discusses Aragorn having a PTSD flashback: https://unnamedelement.tumblr.com/post/643866541679575040/starwrought-i-just-love-so-much-that-one-of-the/ That seems pretty human.

In that moment, yes. But like anons below said, he was all about his mission and destiny from the start so that when he did have problems shouldering the burden, it was a natural contrast. It's classical epic hero framing: he's here for the quest with his whole heart, he has a brief weakness, he overcomes it and proves he is in fact the epic hero he claimed to be at the beginning.

Gimli was a huge badass in the book. He legit did not tire whereas Aragorn and Legolas were panting and slowing down, and only when the pursuit extended for days, did he actually exhaust himself, to show for how long had they been following Merry and Pippin.

Likewise, he was the best fighter of the trio, even above Legolas.

This. Frankly, book!Gimli is more of a badass than book!Legolas, and I'm sad we didn't get to see that in the movies.

That's too bad, because movie!Gimli annoyed the piss out of me.

I don't hate him. But book Gimli is so, so much better.

I am rereading LOTRs (around 23 years after my first go) at the moment and the thing that struck me the most is that Aragorn is basically announcing who he is from day one and being very open about his legacy/ancestry. He's basically Simba "I just can't wait to be king!" whereas in the films they did the whole reluctant ruler who prefers to be left alone angle.

Also the sword is reforged before they even leave Rivendell!

Yup. Jackson and co decided modern audiences wouldn't understand a hero who was self confident and actively wanted to be king, so they completely changed Aragorn's character.

I don't mind the changes to Aragorn or Frodo and I think they worked well for the adaptation. But what they did with Gimli was a travesty.

[ SECRET POST #6630 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

+1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

Re: What are the differences?

no subject