The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Show]

I just had another thought on the subject.
It was greed that lead to the creation of the ring. Sauron desired control over others so much he created powerful rings for others. Then he created his one ring to rule the rulers. Greed forced him to put much of his own power into the ring so that he could control the others.
And it was that very same greed in the ring that lead to it's destruction. The book with it's Eucatastrophe aside, the movie is better (in this thought process).
Think of it, without a eucatastrophe to drop Gollum in the pit, the ring would have survived. Instead, greed for the ring, on both Frodo and Gollum's parts, lead to the rings destruction.
I know what I'm thinking but having trouble with the words, so bear with me.
Frodo, as the hero, set the stage for the rings destruction. Any single person, regardless of strength, never could have tossed the ring in the fire. At the last they would have been overwhelmed and claimed the ring for their own. If they had not already done so on the road there.
So it is only by both Frodo and Gollum being present, that the greed inspired by the ring turned to it's own undoing. Only through the struggle of Frodo and Gollum could the ring have made it over the edge.
Jackson quite nicely, and with a minimal change, made the rings destruction from something that just sort of happened (or was caused by a higher fate), into the destructive nature of evil destroying itself.

Then, once you get your head wrapped around that, think on this comment from Gandalf. He said that it never entered Sauron's thoughts that they might try to destroy the ring. But what if Gandalf was wrong. Perhaps Sauron did think they might try, but still never worried about it. He had that base covered already. The power of the ring simply would not allow someone to do it. The power of the ring would have corrupted the person and forced them to reveal themselves to him.
That, and any party big enough to overwhelm the ring bearer and force his hand, would have been easily picked up by his own forces.
So we have Sauron defeated by the truly most unpredictable of things. A power struggle over the ring, that made an oops and dropped the ring in by accident.
I guess there was still some level of Eucatastrophe, but it wasn't as big as the book originally put it.

[Light In The Dark]

Well, Frodo and Sauron's greed was different, no? Sure, they both had a large quantity of greed, but they were different types. Sauron only had the greed for power. Frodo and Bilbo, (and Gollum), it seems never wanted the Ring for Power, but they found it as a treasure. . . their precious. They just seemed complete if they had it in their positions or if they were wearing it on their finger, I do not think they had that greed to be the all-powerful ruler of Middle-Earth.

You said, Show, that: "And it was that very same greed in the ring that lead to it's destruction.".

I'm not understanding how those two are the same greed, perhaps that is not what you meant? Elaborate?

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm with you all the way Show. If you go back and look at what I posted earlier you will see I was pointing to the same thing (or did I post that at Narniaweb? ). Basically though my position has always centered on the point that the Ring would not allow itself to be intentionally destroyed by causing an "Addiction" in its bearers, thus the only means of destroying it required at least two equally "addicted" people to fight over it at the edge of the Lava Pit. It could only be destroyed "accidentally", or Providentially if you will.

LITD, I think Show meant "Addiction" when he said Greed. In that sense of "Greed", Frodo, and Gollum (and to a far less degree Bilbo) were all addicted to the Ring.

GB

[Beren]

I think that both versions fit the medium that they are in. Jackson's method was the best method for the film, but Tolkien's method was much better for the book. Jackson had only one story to tell (in the form of 3 films), and he needed to end it with something strong and solid.
Tolkien had created a universe. He had manuscripts to back it up. He had countless drafts and revisions, literally decades of blood sweat and tears he put into it. Although Jackson had much of the same, his ended with LOTR (and somewhat Hobbit). Tolkien continued until his death. So the eucatastrophe was so much more fitting. I love it because after such huge things had been happening, and after the whole world had been half-destroyed had been destroyed 2 or 3 times (the Valar, elves, and men trying to defeat Melkor and Sauron), the simplest of things, a mere slip of the foot, ended it all. Of course, after that there was always the corruption of men to deal with (which we still deal with today).
The eucatastrophe was so small that it was too big for the movie. Haha, that's absurd I know, but please understand me. In order for the eucatastrophe to work, it must be surrounded by insurmountably huge events that had been happening for thousands of years. Jackson only had the time period of LOTR to film, so his endeavor was too small for the small event of the eucatastrophe. So he had to put in something bigger (for his small endeavor) to take its place.

Now I feel smart because I actually made that a teeny bit clearer than mud...

[Show]

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what I meant. I was having trouble getting my vague thoughts into words. It happens.

I think it was something along the lines that the greed Frodo was feeling was in fact Sauron's. Therefor making it not two different greeds but all one and the same. Being all Saurons Greed and evil.

[Beren]

You mean like the greed Frodo was feeling was not his own, it was purposefully generated by the Ring and backed by Sauron. For indeed, Sauron put most of his being into the Ring.

Since most of Sauron (but not all) was in the Ring, the Ring's first priority was to restore itself to Sauron so that they could be complete. But it knew that if it couldn't complete that, that if it took over its bearer then, although it wouldn't have the small part that Sauron didn't put in the Ring, it would still be 95% complete. So another Sauron would arise, 95% as powerful. This is of course assuming that the bearer would give in. Frodo almost did. But he was able to hold out long enough so that he didn't.

[Eldorion]

I wasn't too pleased with the ending Jackson gave us. I don't think that the films' scope was too small for the eucatastrophe to take place: the prologue and continual references throughout the films of a long and storied past to Middle-earth are able to establish the basics of the structure. The main body of LOTR the book (not counting the Appendices since they come after the end of the story) does not reveal the stories of the First and Second Ages, though there are scattered references that can be picked up if one has read the Silmarillion and other works.

Another interesting point about the destruction of the Ring is that Tolkien held that God, Eru, was the one who caused it. In Letter 182 he refers to Eru as "the Writer of the Story ... 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'". In the movies however, it is the intervention of Frodo (trying to re-claim the Ring) rather than Eru who causes it to be destroyed. This change quite simply misses the point about the Ring: it was utterly beyond anyone to destroy (save God). It could have been worse - in an early cut of the film Frodo pushed Gollum over the edge - but the change is still present in the version we see, even if it is not as significant.

In the end, going back to the original question, I think Tolkien addresses it quite well in Letter 246 where he says: "Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds".

[Beren]

But Frodo did not intend to have Gollum and the Ring fall over the edge. He wanted the Ring. He was consumed by it. In the book, the Ring ended with an accident. Gollum was obsessed with the Ring, and was looking at it, and stepped to far, and fell. An accident. In the movie, Frodo and Gollum were struggling over the Ring, and they stepped too far, and fell. An accident.
The only difference in the movie is the fact that Frodo, after having his finger bitten off, decided to try to get the Ring back. And, visually, this is probably the best idea. You don't want Frodo on his knees just sitting there wallowing over his poor finger while Gollum is overly jubilant over getting the Ring. If Frodo was possessed by the Ring (which he was), that ownership that the Ring had on him would not end until the Ring died. So he wouldn't care about his finger for very long. The Ring's possession of him would draw him until the Ring itself was destroyed.
In the book, this probably would have happened too, if it had not happened a lot faster. It was like, Gollum got the ring by biting Frodo's finger off, and he held the ring in his hand and fell off. In the movie, he rejoiced for a spell, so Frodo had time to act.

Was it a good idea to add 30 seconds of time in the movie? I think it was. You get to SEE (which is what movies are all about) Gollum's reaction when he once again obtains ownership of the Ring. You also get to see the Ring's total possession of Frodo in the fact that not even a severed finger gushing with blood would stop him from retrieving his precious.

[Eldorion]

In the movie, Frodo and Gollum were struggling over the Ring, and they stepped too far, and fell. An accident.
The only difference in the movie is the fact that Frodo, after having his finger bitten off, decided to try to get the Ring back.

The point is right there in the second sentence of the quote. The destruction of the Ring in the book was the result of the direct intervention of God. In the movie it was because a pair of brawlers slipped and fell. One could suppose that possibly Jackson intended for this to be the work of Eru (though personally I'm doubtful that he's ever read Letter 246), but it is still the intervention of Frodo at the very end that makes it possible.

And, visually, this is probably the best idea.

Looking at the scene purely from the perspective of visual interest then you are absolutely correct. However, I think that the story is more important when the two aspects have to clash.

If Frodo was possessed by the Ring (which he was), that ownership that the Ring had on him would not end until the Ring died. So he wouldn't care about his finger for very long. The Ring's possession of him would draw him until the Ring itself was destroyed.

He was also probably in shock and intense pain, and it would take some time for him to be able to do anything. I think we're on the same page with this.

In the book, this probably would have happened too, if it had not happened a lot faster. It was like, Gollum got the ring by biting Frodo's finger off, and he held the ring in his hand and fell off. In the movie, he rejoiced for a spell, so Frodo had time to act.

A lot of things in the book would've been different if the chain of events was altered. That's circular reasoning though. Also, Gollum rejoiced in the book too, and it was during that rejoicing that he fell.

Was it a good idea to add 30 seconds of time in the movie? I think it was. You get to SEE (which is what movies are all about) Gollum's reaction when he once again obtains ownership of the Ring. You also get to see the Ring's total possession of Frodo in the fact that not even a severed finger gushing with blood would stop him from retrieving his precious.

The movies could have SHOWN us Gollum's reaction and yet not deviated from the book. There were already plenty of examples of Frodo's obsession about the Ring and the weight it was on him, so that does not necessitate a change, particularly one with as radical an effect on the story.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding who is taking which position Beren and Eldorion. But I just want to add my perspective and see if it makes sense to either of you.

In my view, Jackson's version matches up just fine with Tolkien's. Though the details are slightly different, it's clear to any who were paying attention, that Jackson was paying far more than lip service to Tolkien's notion that Providence was the key to destroying the Ring.

The Ring could not be destroyed intentionally by one individual. It simply would not allow it's own destruction. Sensing it's impending Doom, it would overwhelm any Ring-bearer at that point.

In the Mines of Moria, Gandalf makes it clear that the fate of an individual is not up to another to decide, and that for good or ill Gollum had a role yet to play, and that Frodo was meant to have the Ring . He is talking about Providence , clear as Day.

Gollum, thought to be dead by Frodo and Sam, survives his fall into the chasm outside Shelob's Lair. He reappears on the slopes of Mt Doom, just in time to battle for the Ring. This was a necessary component to the destruction of the Ring. Providence again. And finally, on the ledge, the last struggle seals the Ring's fate. It's not really important who ends up with the Ring at that point. What is important is what Providence demands. The Struggle itself. Only by someone "Accidentally" falling with the Ring or dropping it, can the Ring be carried into the Lava Pit of Doom. As long as Jackson demonstrated this, he was perfectly in keeping with Tolkien's notion of Providence.

Providence works through individuals, by choosing those who are most likely to choose a path that synchronizes with the needs of Providence. This is different from the Manipulative Power of the Dark Side, which forces individuals to bend to it's Will, against their own judgment. So Choice and Destiny in the hands of Providence are two sides of the same coin.

GB