- Mar 4, 2014
Where, though?I'd say there's a bit more of a trade-off than that. Frodo had a way better portrayal in the books, rather than the whiny, weak, useless thing he was in the movie. A lot of characters got a better representation, actually.
You can a reasonable case for some, but a much harder case for others. I can understand someone liking book!Faramir more for instance (even if I disagree), but in what world is book!Arwen better than movie!Arwen for instance, when the former's story is only really held in the appendicies.
Alright, cold take - you're wrong.My own LOTR hot take is that it really has quite an odd message. Some people are just better than others and it all depends on who your parents were. If you are born from a race of kings, then you are noble and pure and get to live for centuries and are the only one fit to rule the kingdom. You're really screwed if you are anyone else, unless you were born an elf, in which case life is a dream so sweet mortal man could not even dream it. There isn't really any possibility for movement out of your class.
True, I can see what you're getting at in parts - Aragorn becomes king of Gondor because of linneage for instance. However, there's a reason that it's a hobbit of all people who's able to withstand the One Ring whereas wiser, more powerful people would succumb to it. And your take on elves is understandable in a vacuum, but it flies in the face of the intended themes (i.e. what elves call "the Gift of Men" (mortality) was corrupted into "the Doom of Men," and Numenor fell to that same pride and avarice).
The irony is that by idolizing the elves, you're doing the very thing that the books say NOT to do (if you're a human that is).
Go home, you're drunk.The A Song of Ice and Fire/ Game of Thrones books are mediocre to average at best and George Martin is overrated as an author.
Also, even if I agreed that the books were such things, Martin's written good stuff outside ASoIaF. Take Haviland Tuf for instance.