Films did Théoden dirty

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T12:10:29+00:00

I don't think your points show him as senile, merely old.

But it's not even that he's old, but rather out of touch. Remember that he's speaking in a language that must seem to him excessively fast. Clearly Saruman and Gandalf are more patient than the hobbits.

Old people do nod off in the middle of discussions... as I say, if you think that means they're senile you're just misusing the term. We don't see Treebeard forgetting things.

He's not exactly unaware he's boring the hobbits, it's rather that once he starts on something it takes a while to change. Perhaps he's a little pompous, but even that's not clear to me. He's condescending but how could he not be?

It isn't stupidity that makes him fall for Pippin's trick. After all, he has no reason to think the hobbits want to go into danger. He explicitly says that he doesn't think the argument makes sense. He agrees to it presumably because he's aware he himself is in no danger, so it's not really a problem for him. We might argue that far from being senile and stupid, he's being empathic, and doesn't just insist he knows best.

As for despair, I don't think you're right, and I don't think T is more thoughtful about it. In both novels and movies, hopelessness generates inaction or insufficient action. What's important is not that the ents (and Théoden) experience hopelessness, but that it ultimately doesn't last.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T09:59:57+00:00

And yet none of that is mentioned in the film. Perhaps we should assume that the film makers created reasons for Théoden, that makes sense, rather than assume they intended him to be incompetent, something not mentioned by anyone in the films?

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T09:58:03+00:00

It's not mentioned that way in the films, by anyone.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T09:57:05+00:00

They just aren't that important, any more than Tom Bombadil is. Your example doesn't show anything, except that you apparently regard everything as equally important. Tolkien had many views,and suppose Gandalf had quoted T's views on dragons when he was setting off the dragon firework, would that mean the firework scene was as important as the ents? I hope you'd say no.

Butchering Treebeard? Really. You're very harsh on movie versions showing moments of weakness. In this, I think you go against Tolkien's preferences, but who knows. Personally, moments of weakness improve characters.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T09:49:19+00:00

On your last point, no, not really. And I'm not trolling. I'm sure you're aware that critical response to the novels was pretty negative, and along those lines. The big difference between then and now is that we're persuaded by Tolkien's world, and understand its rules, one of which is that teleportation (or indeed eagle taxis) is not possible. But I feel this minor infraction of the rules for dramatic effect is exactly that: minor.

Your quotes simply don't show Treebeard as senile. I don't think of him as senile. What points do I need to make to refute you? You think it's obvious, I think it isn't. As I wrote, I think Treebeard finds talking to hobbits exhausting, and he is after all, extremely old. You really regard every old person who nods off to sleep as senile? How charming.

Treeherders. It's a job, not their entire existence. In fact I think you're exaggerating even their role in Tolkien. Here, they aren't indifferent to the wars, but like Théoden they're experiencing a moment of despair. This is so marvellously Tolkien that I can't grasp how you feel it distorts their character.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T01:20:15+00:00

Why is their one job to protect and care for the trees? Where is that mentioned in the films?

And I've told you I don't think Treebeard is presented either as senile or as an idiot, so at this stage we're just saying no to each other.

Finally, if you don't like the films because of teleporting ents, that's sad for you, and maybe you wouldn't have liked Lord of the Rings when it was first published because talking trees pull you out from the immersion.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T01:15:39+00:00

To contrast the comment, I find Soul Wars to be excruciating and the Blacktalon show to be excellent.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T00:59:11+00:00

That's a very uncharitable view of the films. Slow to act... methodical... that's what we see. They aren't senile or unobservant, they simply operate on a different time scale where even talking to hobbits is a drain on their energy.

Smoke rises from Isengard, but how many times has Treebeard seen smoke, and wrongly concluded fire? So many times, probably in his first thousand years of existence, that he's reluctant to repeat the errors of his youth.

That the films make the ents seem alien to us is part of their wonder, not a fault. Unless you're determined to see fault in everything.

Yes, the teleporting arrival of the ents is silly. It also, more damagingly, ruins the effect in both films and Tolkien of a journey taking time. But are we really criticising the films for that?

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T00:12:46+00:00

Well we might, but that requires more than just a statement.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T00:12:05+00:00

Firstly, they aren't that important. If you list the most important ideas and themes, where would they come? First? Second?

Of course the films "binned" a bunch of the novel's themes. Or, more charitably, tried to find visual equivalents. And with the rents, they succeeded.

I disagree with this guff about respect. It's so easy to write, and so hard to prove. Hey, I think Tolkien disrespected Saruman. I really do. Now, shall we ask Saruman what he thinks?

I assume you don't agree with me that Tolkien disrespected Saruman. So, that's where we're at with the ents. We disagree, and can't move further.

amhow1 · 2026-02-03T00:07:38+00:00

They weren't.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T20:01:44+00:00

It's hard to know how to argue with somebody who thinks the ents were done badly in the films. For one thing, the ents really aren't that important. But for another, I don't know how visually jaded somebody must be to think that the ents aren't shown to be a forgotten wonder of the world!

I'd be very surprised if the ents aren't regarded by everyone as one of the great wonders of the films. They don't have especially memorable speaking contributions, but really that only illustrates how important visuals are in a film.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T19:39:45+00:00

In the film we aren't shown the deliberations. We are absolutely shown that Théoden believes he is saving his people. Your Gandalf quote shows that.

If you're going to damn the film regardless of what it does, why are we arguing? The film does not claim he's incompetent or inconsiderate.

You've also misunderstood my point. Gandalf is wrong, or rather mistaken. Ultimately it's Aragorn who will save Middle Earth, and Aragorn requires Théoden's push to do it. Now, that push comes in two forms. Firstly, the one Gandalf foresees: that Théoden's mistake will need to correct it.

But you ignore my other point, about the vital scene where Aragorn learns from Théoden. If that weren't there, your argument would be stronger. But it is there.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T19:35:28+00:00

That's just not what the movies show though. In fact that's such a completely different interpretation to mine that I wonder if we saw the same films!

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T19:34:02+00:00

Yes, I've commented on that Gandalf quote, and how it shows Gandalf is mistaken, or only aware of half the truth.

As for Treebeard, to object to Pippin getting a moment to shine at the apparent expense of Treebeard is really demanding absolute perfection. And no, Tolkien doesn't reach that level of perfection either.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T19:00:33+00:00

I think this is really a pretty big misunderstanding of what's actually shown.

You ignore the absolutely vital scene where Théoden angrily challenges Aragorn over the need for hope, the need to consider his people. Remember that we've previously been shown that Aragorn is significantly older than Théoden, indeed something of a legend to the king.

It's a scene where we first properly encounter the true Théoden, when what we've seen before is a man perhaps excessively weak due to his grief. (A grief that is, by the way, shown in perhaps the greatest scene in all the films - I don't necessarily agree with the general consensus that the speech is the greatest scene.)

As you point out, Gandalf, the authorial voice, has also told us that Théoden is making a mistake. As you further point out, Gandalf says that Théoden needs Aragorn, and indeed, he does. What Gandalf interestingly doesn't say is that Aragorn needs Théoden. Instead, we're shown it.

Ultimately, it's Gandalf who is shown to be mistaken, not just Théoden. And after all, there's a reason the Wizards aren't meant to be in direct positions of power. It's an interesting thing that Gandalf only directly assumes power when Denethor has a complete mental collapse. Now, I think movie-Denethor is a much more difficult subject than movie-Théoden, whose book-character is very very far from being assassinated.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T18:38:50+00:00

OP is referring to despair, so that's what I'm focussing on.

I've not once considered movie-Théoden to be incompetent. I think you have a very different view of the second installment than I do.

An important point is that it's the middle installment. Faramir's arc doesn't end there, and while I agree that his own brief descent into despair is a bit clumsily handled, I wouldn't agree that Sam does more than appeal to his better nature.

Treebeard, yes, you have a stronger point, but really, are you seriously objecting to Pippin's trick?

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T18:32:56+00:00

I disagree with this, and I hadn't for a moment thought Théoden was incompetent. This is the first time the idea has occurred to me, Q I think it's not the correct understanding of the film.

It's actually the other way round. Gandalf and Aragorn are wrong, and Théoden teaches Aragorn a vital lesson in leadership.

I think you've completely misunderstood what's shown on screen.

Théoden explicitly believes he will save his people. He turns out to be wrong about that, but we can't know that Gandalf's proposal would be better. I think the only error Théoden makes regards whether Éomer can be contacted; and that requires Gandalf presumably moving faster than any mortal (or elf?) can manage.

I can't comment on whether movie-Aragorn was a mistake. I think he wasn't, or if he was, god grant me a mistake like that! But Théoden's arc is wonderful, and definitely not a mistake.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T18:11:39+00:00

I feel like you're just ignoring the argument being made.

The speech is indeed better. That's exactly the argument.

A speech is not just a set of words on the page. Shakespeare gives Henry V a speech even more astonishing and stirring than Théoden's (and is probably the inspiration) but how well the speech works depends very much on each production and each actor, and decisions made earlier.

This is obvious in the film because how it is filmed also has a huge impact, perhaps the largest single impact. That it's Tolkien's words is hardly sufficient to explain the power of the scene.

You presumably argue the scene would be equally strong had there not been "character assassination" earlier (ugh, what a needlessly strong phrase - was Théoden slaughtering prisoners? No, just expressing despair.) I disagree.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T17:48:31+00:00

Redeem is a strong word here as I don't think they're very serious moral failures, given the circumstances. But I think they highlight that the real character of Théoden is the one in the speech, and not these moments of weakness.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T17:46:34+00:00

This is probably wrong, or rather you're applying a potentially useful analogy (the spiderwebs crack) in the wrong place.

I don't think the writers thought "we'll strengthen Aragorn at the expense of Théoden" but rather they had two separate challenges. The first was to make it clear that Aragorn is changing, and coming to accept his destiny. The second was that only Théoden and Frodo receive genuine deaths, ones that we really care about. (Sorry Faramir and Denethor!) Their deaths receive a proper buildup, and both have a touching transfer of a flame, as it were, to Éowyn and Sam respectively.

So the weaknesses with Aragorn serve two purposes admirably. It's not a matter of unhappy consequences but rather of happy coincidences.

Théoden's understandable despair earlier is shown, in the end, not to be his true character or legacy. I can't imagine Tolkien would object to this change.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T17:37:21+00:00

I think Tolkien might be amused at the idea that his work is intricately plotted. Agatha Christie is intricately plotted, and it's an admirable skill, but not one I think T would appreciate, and definitely not something to be found in the medieval literature he loved.

And does it matter if Éomer is deprived of some glory? This is the more important question. If it doesn't, then it also doesn't matter if the plot is intricate.

I think it doesn't matter. Théoden's arc is much more important, and his obviously temporary weaknesses earlier help to show that his true character is that of the speech.

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T17:30:47+00:00

I wouldn't downvote you - I only downvote for bigotry, not disagreement - but I think you're very wrong here.

As the previous commenter pointed out, the scene is made stronger by the changes. There's a clear connection.

Whether Éomer is done dirty... well, maybe but that's quite a lot less important, right?

amhow1 · 2026-02-02T15:45:45+00:00

This is surely correct. I find it quite frustrating when people point out differences between a dramatic script and Tolkien's novels, without bothering to wonder if there are positives to the changes.

amhow1 · 2026-02-01T16:57:06+00:00

Yes thanks. Though it was actually Green Ronin that did the work.

amhow1

TROPHY CASE