Theoden retreating to Helm's Deep rather than "risking open war" always bugged me as an unnecessary change from the book, but it never struck me as a particularly stupid portrayal. The guy has just lost his son and is still getting over being possessed by Saruman, which probably entails some PTSD. It also seemed like he was acting out of guilt and a desire to prevent further deaths. "They can defend themselves better here than at Edoras," says Aragorn. The whole thing about "crops being resown and homes rebuilt" comes right around the time Theoden also says "they will break on this fortress like water on rock...inside these walls, we will outlast them." I always figured that meant he was trying to get them to attack an impregnable position, wear them down, then sally out once he'd evened the odds up. Theoden's complete shock at the size of Saruman's army played into my perception - he wasn't expecting the siege to last a single night, and he *certainly* couldn't have foreseen the breaching of the Deeping Wall by gunpowder. It isn't as sound militarily as the book, but it seemed to me to be relatively reasonable and operating on some logic, especially given that in Two Towers, film Theoden's character is traumatized, grieving, and guilt-ridden. Plus, Bernard Hill could act out the phonebook and make it compelling!
I was unhappy that my favorite Theoden line during the Battle of the Hornbug was watered down completely -- "Will you ride with me, son of Arathorn? Maybe we shall cleave a road, or make such an end as will be worth a song -- if any be left to sing of us hereafter." In the movie it was something "Let us make an end worthy of remembrance" or something relatively unremarkable. The original line showed how important oral tradition and literature was to these people, and how there was no shame in dying in glory and remembered in the great tales and songs of his people. Sam makes a similar comment when he is in the Pass of Cirith Ungol when he is abut to be confronted by Orcs, he envisions how people will sing of his final battle and dies surrounded by his slain enemies... and then realizes if he dies and the Ring is taken, there will be no more songs.
In the book Theoden is one of my two favourite characters alongside Eowyn, so thank you for making this argument and saying everything I've always thought about the differences between movie vs book Theoden. What is even more frustrating is that the actor is one of the best out there from that era, I remember following his career in the 90s so that him as Theoden is perfect casting to my mind, and so I only wish he had gotten better material.
@@earlofbroadst that speech was glorious. The one they gave Aragorn at the Black Gate felt like a mere imitation of Theoden's. Not sure if it was the writing, the staging, or the difference between Viggo and Bernard as men at the time. Dozens of viewings later, Theoden can still choke me up.
My main problem with the treatment of Theoden in the movies is that in the books he's described as a kindly old man. The movie Theoden is a kindly middle-aged man at best
@Tolkien Lore Please forgive me because this is going to be a long reply: I don’t know about you, but I think that James Earl Jones could have pulled off playing Theoden King very well! And I picture a young Ralf Moeller playing Eomer because he is 6’6 in the book, and Ralf means wolf counsel, horse-lover, and success, which is the same as the definition of Eomer’s name. I also picture Maria Sharapova playing Eowyn because Eowyn is 6’2, and the name Maria means rebellious, beloved, lover of the sea, drop-dead gorgeous, etc. And, I know, this also has nothing to do with this video, but, for example, they could have easily casted Tony Gardner as Bilbo and Colin Firth as Frodo because Book Bilbo and Frodo look alike. And their names in real-life have a lot of similarities with their character motivations as well.
@Tolkien Lore *And how Gardener, Firth, and the rest of these actors look like. And, yes, it is hard to depict tall actors like Moeller and Sharapova. But Hollywood could have done it, just like they could have made six lotr movies, and could have shot pretty much all of Middle-Earth in Europe. Last, but not least, the Canadian actor Kevin Durand is 6’6, has a long crooked nose, and looks foul, unless he smiles, like how Aragorn is described. And his name means handsome, crown, and revered king.
Hirgon's ride: It is not explicitly mentioned on his arrival, but when the Rohirrim find his headless body past the Grey Wood, Eomer says: "... and that would be two nights ago, if they used fresh horses from the posts, as is their wont." This is the night of 14th (to 15th), so two nights ago would make it the night of 12th (to 13th). Hirgon leaves Dunharrow with Theoden on the morning of 10th, which would mean that their travel from Dunharrow, itself maybe a day from Helm's Deep, takes at least three full days and two nights (or 60 hours, if you prefer). I could see an errand rider making the trip to Minas Tirith in three days from Helm's Deep, but no army would get back in that time. The Ride of the Rohirrim took from the morning of 10th to the morning of 15th, and it was a legendary undertaking. Also, Red Arrow is the sign of calling for aid, not Black Arrow (used by Bard to slay Smaug. :) )
I honestly wonder how well the films would go down if they were released today with social media and everything, so many characters just aren't portrayed as Tolkien wrote them. I do remember there being a backlash but that was confined to fan forums, now it'd be all over Facebook, Twitter etc.
Movie Aragorn did start to sound kinglier at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring shortly before Boromir died. Movie Frodo Baggins acted a little too vulnerable two or three too many times (one vulnerable Frodo scene for each movie), but still overall brave enough to journey his way to Mordor along with his gardener and faithful friend, Samwise Gamgee. Faramir started off a little too tempted by the ring for the appeasement of his father, Denethor, Stewart of Gondor, but ended up acting much more like his book counterpart after seeing what The Ring of Power had done to Frodo Baggins in Osgiliath, thus changing himself as a better man than before. Movie Theoden was a little bit more poetically tragic who then turned himself around as a true hero overtime thanks to the words of wisdom by Aragorn, which isn't bad, not great either, but good enough character arc in The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Movie Denethor on the other hand suffered much, much worse characterization than all four of these characters combined, creating an unnecessarily cartoonishly tragic villain with an over-the-top version of intermittent explosive disorder or madness, which is really unsettling to any Tolkien fan viewer from casual to hardcore and him showing two scenes of feeling dignifying hardly helped his development as a good character either. I don't feel bad or pity at all towards movie Denethor than book Denethor, which is precisely the problem.
Boy, and I thought the changes to Faramir were the worst but this is a convincing argument that Theoden was very badly served. I loved the movies when they came out, just for the sheer joy of seeing the world and characters I had loved so long up there on the screen, but my quibbles with some of the decisions have grown over the years especially when going back to the books. I think they redeemed Theoden just enough for us to care about his death and they did give him some of the best dialogue based on the original source material (such as where now the horse and the rider and the battle speech at Pelennor Fields). Great picture of Rivendell BTW. I have a similar one but mine is slightly more impressionistic in style.
These claims that PJ, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens were as faithful to the books as possible, are absurd. There's only one Théoden, and that's Jack May, from the 1981 BBC radio adaptation.
In the book, when Gandalf reports the victory against Saruman to Denathor, Gandalf says that to make this report, he traveled "one hundred and fifty leagues, with the speed of wind." Nevertheless, Denethor straight up says, "I know already sufficient of these deeds." I have taken this to mean that Denethor was never really trying hard to keep his Palantir a secret.
They also made him relatively pompous and rude compared with book Theoden, who was a much more likeable character. I wish they'd left in his dying interaction with Merry rather than adding one with Éowyn as you mentioned - that was part of losing some of the finest emotional beats in the book. The only thing I can say is that they didn't degrade him the way they did Denethor. Slight quibble: not Viking Rohan, Anglo-Saxon (specifically Mercian) Rohan. - Related to what was done to Theoden is that Éomer was downgraded to little more than a spear character, and we miss out on his own finest moment when he thinks Éowyn is dead. Sometimes I think some of the problems with the movies are the result of the writers trying to shoehorn the plot into standard patterns taught at film school.
His last words to Merry made me realize how BASED book Theoden is. Merry apologizes for not following his orders and not being able to save him and Theoden assures him "Nah it's ok, you're a cool dude, next time you hit the pipe, think of me." Can you imagine what Denethor would have said in this situation?
Completely honest, about 2-3 minutes before you mentioned Tolkien thought of Rohan as Norse/Vikings I was already thinking along those lines. Very nice!
That Rivendell painting is just awesome! It perfectly fills the empty spot on your wall! I always thought you should fill that gap on your wall! Now it's perfect!
I'll never get over the easy answer to "Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?" not being mentioned in the movie - Gondor was being invaded! (On the same line, two or three lines could have answered the 'Elves at Helm's Deep' thing - just have Legolas say the same thing he does in the books, they're at war already.)
My problem is Denethor and Theoden seem to be BiPolar or something in the movies. Why should we ride to Gondor's aid? Wait the Beacons are lit! Let's Ride to Gondor! (Ummm...what made him change his mind? Didn't see anything of that.) Then there is Denethor who did not want to lit the beacons yet he blames Theoden for not showing up when the city first gets beseiged. Theoden's betrayed him? How? What? It just confused the hell out of me in the movies by Jackson.
Thanks for the brilliant analysis as usual. In a way, you're almost giving the writers too much credit here. They wanted to set up a conflict between courageous war and cowardly peace. Aragorn is the courageous war side, and Theoden was picked to be the cowardly peace side. His big character moment is when Gondor lights the beacons, and he says, "And Rohan will answer!" Of course, that is literally three hours of film time after his character is first established, and it's so carelessly done that we don't even realize it's a character moment. There is no justification for his change in attitude. It's just a hokey film moment. But that's what is actually being set up throughout the entire second movie. It's not right, it's just true. The more I listen to your analysis and re-think all these themes and dialogue, the more I'm convinced that film writers are not appropriate stewards of this material because of the difference in their skill set. They are all about memorable visual moments. Very different from well-developed themes, dialogue, or even writing at all.
A few facts from history: A few hundred men CAN hold out against 10,000! It wasn't just the Spartans at the Hot Gates, either. Fortifications are designed to allow this degree of asymmetry in defense. Also, most sieges consisted of mostly waiting. Considering that Orcs are pretty chaotic, it's not necessarily stupid to hope a siege might begin, then evaporate. Lots of sieges did stop in this way in history.
It broke down from the start when they decided to send all the civilians with Théoden's troops to Helm's Deep since it slowed them down and put all the people at risk. They tried to simplify things and make them more dramatic for the movie but only made it make less sense. The whole conflict between Théoden and Aragorn was designed to give space for Arwen's arc and to reinforce Jackson's idea that the Elves should play a bigger role. It also serves to make Aragorn appear more heroic at the expense of Théoden and of Éomer and the forces of Rohan in general. There's just no reason the dying king couldn't have talked to both Merry and Éowyn at the same time. Obviously he didn't have long but it would only have taken a few words to preserve the spirit of one of the most emotional parts of the trilogy.
First of all, Denethor is Theoden's liege lord, Theoden owes service to Denethor, not the other way around, so this whole exchange was silly. Nothing like that in the book, as Tolkein understood early Medieval politics, he was fluent in Anglo Saxon, he had probably read the Anglo Saxon Chronicles and have a very good understanding of the society that produced the literature that was his primary interest.
“I will not risk open war,” and the tension between Aragorn & Theoden was unnecessary and annoying. It made Aragorn look weak and Theoden sound petty. In the books, Theoden was ready for war but old. The movie made him look reluctant, but in the books, he welcomed death in battle after being freed from Wormtongue’s lies. That was part of the problem of Wormtongue-he made Theoden less than he was before, less battle ready and less ready for death in battle. This was one of the characteristics of his people, loving the glory of battle. The movie broke that with the Helms Deep story. The movie missed the point of the comparison between loving war and seeing it as a necessary evil. This was the difference between Rohan and Gondor that Tolkien intended in his books. I really think the weak Theoden was part of the weak Aragorn story. In the books, Aragorn meets his kinsmen after Helms Deep on the road from Isengard, and he leads them all by power of his will through the paths of the dead. He was shown to be an equal if not a more noble man than Theoden. In the movies, we do not see that confident, strong descent of Melian, Thingol, Luthien, Beren, Earendil, Elwing, and Elros that he was. The writers made both of them less than Tolkien intended. I am not sure why the writers and directors did this. There was enough to work with in Tolkien’s work. I would have liked to see these characters as written.
Movie Theoden has bothered me since release day, for all of these reasons, and it was obvious immediately that they compromised his character to create artificial drama. Your thoughts here are pointing at what I think they were going for, and failed at: Just like they took Aragorn's story and remapped it over LotR proper, they tried to do them same with Theoden by having him be a sad-sack for most of his screen time, *as though Wormtongue was still whispering in his ear.* They just completely failed at properly expressing this, lacking minable source material like they had for Aragorn and Arwen, and the result is a Contrarian Plot-Device Theoden-Puppet. Very sad.
Theoden is the greatest character in the books in my opinion. There are some scenes in the movies that I feel like they did a great job with (when the spell is lifted in TT, even though they changed how it happened, Theoden’s heroic moment afterward never does not send chills through my body.) But then there are times when I just wonder “WTF are you thinking PJ?”
The entire exorcism scene in the movie was ridiculously overblown. Tolkien presented his change is a very subtle, compelling way - whereas pj went straight for the screaming.
That picture is lovely. Regarding movie Theoden, I think he did not get as bad a treatment as Denethor. Boromir, Faramir, Denethor, and Aragorn all get butchered by Peter Jackson’s movies. Seems like all the men of Westernesse were doomed to be poorly represented on the big screen. This is why I rolled my eyes at all the Jackson fans who were critical of Rings of Power while glorifying the PJ trilogy as if it were more or less flawless. I really like those movies. As stand alone films, they are among my favorites. I even think the first Hobbit movie isn’t (completely) awful. But focusing on how popular the movies are doesn’t change how inaccurate they as adaptions. They’re still entertaining, though.
I actually think movie Boromir is more sympathetic than book Boromir, but that's another topic entirely. I think the difference is in the motivation for the changes. I dislike (most) of the character changes made my Peter Jackson, but it seems to me that they were made in service to adapting the story for the screen. His motivation wasn't disrespect for Tolkien and his work, ignorance of the lore, or some political/cultural/social agenda. Rather, Jackson made changes because he believed (perhaps rightly in some cases) that they were necessary to translate the tale from book to film. Moreover, regardless of the changes made, the Jackson trilogy is objectively one of the greatest filmmaking achievements of all time - acting, cinematography, music, costuming, practical effects, etc. The whole trilogy was made with great care, attention to detail, and, above all, a genuine love and respect for the world Tolkien and the stories he told. Rings of Power, on the other hand, reeks of incompetence, disdain for the source material and fans, and a prioritization of "the message" over and above everything else. In the spirit of the thing, Jackson at least meant well, and where fell short of the mark, it was not out of malice. That's what separates his trilogy from Amazon's abomination of a show.
I largely concur, with the one exception of Boromir. For me, he’s about as sympathetic in the movies as he is in the books. He definitely didn’t get the short end of the stick like Faramir. Poor Faramir had his character quite thoroughly ruined. Now that’s something nobody can defend without sounding daft. You’re absolutely right about Amazon’s atrocious little show. Basically every character in that show got the Peter Jackson Faramir treatment. No one working on that show cared about anything other than the message and the money. I know Peter Jackson was pretty ambivalent about Lord of the Rings, but the actors he had were clearly enthusiastic about their work. I believe it was Christopher Lee who actually corrected Jackson on set at one point. That’s how passionate he was about it. I feel that sort of passion for the craft is too rare these days, but I digress.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 Agreed, that kind of passion for the craft is increasingly rare. Faramir was abominably ill-used, which is a crying shame, especially given how David Wenham *could* have portrayed him had writers not committed character assassination.
Yes, that happened with Denethor as well. Seemed like the actor could do a good job with whatever you gave him. Would’ve been interested in seeing him do a more accurate portrayal of Denethor. I bet he could’ve pulled it off rather well if the writers had given him something better to work with. I try and zone out whenever film Denethor is on screen.
I actually think they do give Theoden an arc and it's intertwined with that of Aragorn, which I must say I think was a good decision for the purposes of a film where the narrative and character development has to be much briefer and blunter. He starts out weak and in the power of Saruman, but then his defining characteristic is a wounded pride based on his consciousness that Aragorn is a stronger, better man than him. Initially this leads him into despair, but the influence of Eowyn and Aragorn himself eventually convinces him to up his game and be the heroic ruler he was born to be, first at Helm's Deep and then later (after a second crisis of confidence) at the Pelennor. This is all tied together nicely as he dies, when he says 'I go now to join my forefathers, in whose mighty company I need no longer feel ashamed.' He admits to this insecurity and sense of pride, redeemed by his heroic leadership in the climactic battle. He's essentially a different character in the film, but both iterations are interesting, well-written and suited to their medium.
This and what they did to Faramir are two of my biggest problems with the Jackson trilogy. The only thing I think that tops the theoden debacle is that bullshit where Frodo sends Sam away and takes Gollum's side. I didn't so much have a problem with the idea of Gollum trying to frame Sam for stealing and eating the last of the Lembas since that actually would seem in character for Gollum, but book Frodo would never have fallen for that so easily.
Rohan is Anglo Saxons with horses. Eowyn is clearly Athelfled, which makes Theoden Alfred the Great. Alfred famously dealt with the Viking (Uruk Hai) threat by establishing a fortified settlement called "burh", or "burg" in modern parlance. The Hornburg is precisely one of these. The goal of warfare then was to destroy enemy forces whenever opportunities arose (i.e. when your forces outnumbered the other guys). A burg allow one to hide inferior numbers behind the walls of the burg, where the fyrd (able-bodied male commoners, i.e. the bulk of the defenders at the Hornburg) could help man the walls. The invader then had a choice. He could bypass the burg, but in doing so left an unfought force of unknown size in your rear, who might be reinforced by the time you encounter them again. Or he could assault the burg, and capture it if undermanned (a stunt Athelfled (Eowyn) managed to pull off in later times. Or, if the defenders were stronger than you thought, or you might get your forces depleted in the assault and then be vulnerable to reinforcements arriving before you can complete the capture. This latter is exactly what was depicted in the book.
Theoden is one of my fave characters, I just ignore whiny Theoden, enjoy the powerful emotional punches and then welcome the real Theoden when he finally shows up.
I forgive the filmakers because one cannot expect modern people to understand early medieval warfare. Apparently you didn't understand why the book Rohirrm did what they did. So the movie Theoden acted as he did for the emotional payoffs the moviemakers are trying to achieve.
This is a good rant and I do agree that we were robbed of the Northern spirit with Theoden. HOWEVER I think you're completely missing what Jackson and Hill gave us in its stead. Jackson's Theoden is a man in shock and grief after he is healed by Gandalf. "Dark have been my dreams of late." He says as he comes out from under Sarumans shadow, not knowing fully what was and was not lies. What he does know is that he was betrayed by his right hand man Grima, the anger and pain of that betrayal leads to nearly killing Grima in cold blood. Next Theoden learns the news that "your son is dead, your countryside is on fire and Grima banished your heir apparent who was also your only remaining Marshal". Things are much more grim for Theoden here than in the books. It's not illogical for a man to be filled with indecision when confronted with all of this, and book Gandalf even tells Theoden to go hide in the mountain refuge ( since it is the prudent thing to do; Eomer can go fight the battle and Theoden can protect the people of Rohan) but movie Gandalf doesn't have that option available, he needs Theoden to lead the army. Movie Theoden is forced to make a decision so he chooses to do the prudent thing and protect the people ( it always irked me that because of "plot" they go to Helms Deep, not Dunharrow). The trip to Hem's Deep gives Theoden some time of reprieve, we see him reflecting on his treatment of Eowyn and in context it makes sense that he is evaluating his relationships in the light of grief. The warg attack just ratchets the pressure back up on Theoden, what little army he did have is more ragged now as he gets to Helms Deep. Once there, he knows how bleak his situation is, he knows that sending out riders is nearly fruitless (arguably they could find stragglers from the fords of Isen, but then again those soldiers should probably have been going to Helms Deep anyway to regroup) it's his job to put on a show of confidence for his men and be as confident as he can which is shot down by Aragorn and Theoden does genuinely snap at him, with his "where was" lines, but the most telling line is that last "where was..." Theoden must grapple with his own guilt here, he failed as king. Obviously the battle goes from bad to worse for Theoden, it's understandable that by the end of it he is despondent he is numb with it all. And that is where the spark of Nordic valor takes hold of him. Then the classic Tolkien Eucatastrophy and hope beyond hope the battle is won and Isengard is destroyed. The Saruman scene happens and at the feast in Edoras Theoden is wrestling with Sarumans words. He as king did fail badly but Rohan survived. Now Gandalf is pushing Theoden into a bigger battle with Gondor and we hear the words "what did Gondor do for us?" But perhaps the question Theoden is really asking is "am I able to help Gondor? Am I worthy of saving my old homeland?" Obviously there's a fair amount of speculation in my argument and ultimately I do agree that Book Theoden is always the better Theoden, but I do believe that you are reaming quite harshly on Movie Theoden that isn't fully deserved.
But there’s still no good explanation for why he’s so irrational or why he suddenly completely reversed course. These are why the character is so broken IMO.
@@TolkienLorePodcast well I guess I failed to make my case coherently then because his grief is my rationale for his poor judgement :P And yea, course reversals for the sake of drama are just pointless and infuriating!
I didnt have a problem with theoden and it made sense. He's mind controlled for months if not years. So he has no idea what the hells going on. Then when he released from it he sees. And even though he sees hes not free of the ramifications of what happened. His guilt over the dead and including his son and the last of his line. Thats why he was in such a state in TW. Book wise theres precedence for this with turin turambar when he kills beleg and goes to the lake where the grief is released and hes a mess. Same with his sister after glaurung releases her from the spell. Theyre free but shit has already gone done while they were indisposed and thats not something overcome overnight.
Okay, this is the stupidest and most highly inaccurate way of criticizing movie Theoden I've ever seen in my entire life! Theoden from the movies went from feeling less hopeful to an epic hero of all time over the span of two films, which is a nice way of creating a good character arc. It's not a great character arc mind you, but at least movie Theoden turned out good, nonetheless. Hell, your criticisms of movie less hopeful to a more heroic Theoden made cartoon villain movie Denethor look praiseworthy by comparison!!
It’s not like I have a large percentage of videos doing that. If you want to go live in a bubble of Jackson worship fine, but you’re fooling yourself if you think those movies were not deserving of criticism.
Hi Joshua, this may not be the correct ace to be asking this but I don't know how else to contact you (btw I'm onboard with this criticism of theoden from the pj films, and I really enjoy these dissections). Over the past year I've been collecting many of David day's books on Tolkien lore and reading them as factual, but the other day I was scouring the web to see what else he had written on the subject. to my shock there were a few sources stating that he was somewhat fraudulent and had a tendency to make things up and get dates wrong, this of course made me very conserned about my reading and my knowledge. Do you have any insight on as to where someone can go to find solid books on Tolkien and do you have any thoughts on David day and his reputation in the fan base and scholars? If you have read this thankyou for your time and á na márië 🧝🏻♀️
I’m not sure I could point to any specific instances but he is a bit fast and loose with stuff sometimes, and he’s definitely not “authorized” by the Estate or anything. Robert Foster’s Complete Guide to Middle-Earth is an alternative, and the original Tolkien reference book I think.
Theoden retreating to Helm's Deep rather than "risking open war" always bugged me as an unnecessary change from the book, but it never struck me as a particularly stupid portrayal. The guy has just lost his son and is still getting over being possessed by Saruman, which probably entails some PTSD. It also seemed like he was acting out of guilt and a desire to prevent further deaths. "They can defend themselves better here than at Edoras," says Aragorn. The whole thing about "crops being resown and homes rebuilt" comes right around the time Theoden also says "they will break on this fortress like water on rock...inside these walls, we will outlast them." I always figured that meant he was trying to get them to attack an impregnable position, wear them down, then sally out once he'd evened the odds up. Theoden's complete shock at the size of Saruman's army played into my perception - he wasn't expecting the siege to last a single night, and he *certainly* couldn't have foreseen the breaching of the Deeping Wall by gunpowder.
It isn't as sound militarily as the book, but it seemed to me to be relatively reasonable and operating on some logic, especially given that in Two Towers, film Theoden's character is traumatized, grieving, and guilt-ridden.
Plus, Bernard Hill could act out the phonebook and make it compelling!
I was unhappy that my favorite Theoden line during the Battle of the Hornbug was watered down completely -- "Will you ride with me, son of Arathorn? Maybe we shall cleave a road, or make such an end as will be worth a song -- if any be left to sing of us hereafter." In the movie it was something "Let us make an end worthy of remembrance" or something relatively unremarkable. The original line showed how important oral tradition and literature was to these people, and how there was no shame in dying in glory and remembered in the great tales and songs of his people. Sam makes a similar comment when he is in the Pass of Cirith Ungol when he is abut to be confronted by Orcs, he envisions how people will sing of his final battle and dies surrounded by his slain enemies... and then realizes if he dies and the Ring is taken, there will be no more songs.
In the book Theoden is one of my two favourite characters alongside Eowyn, so thank you for making this argument and saying everything I've always thought about the differences between movie vs book Theoden. What is even more frustrating is that the actor is one of the best out there from that era, I remember following his career in the 90s so that him as Theoden is perfect casting to my mind, and so I only wish he had gotten better material.
Bernard Hill did a great job with the writing he was given. The charge of the Rohirrim always gives me goosebumps.
@@earlofbroadst that speech was glorious. The one they gave Aragorn at the Black Gate felt like a mere imitation of Theoden's. Not sure if it was the writing, the staging, or the difference between Viggo and Bernard as men at the time. Dozens of viewings later, Theoden can still choke me up.
My main problem with the treatment of Theoden in the movies is that in the books he's described as a kindly old man. The movie Theoden is a kindly middle-aged man at best
Back in those times I imagine that counts.
The Tale of Years shows he’s around 70 so that doesn’t work as an excuse lol
@Tolkien Lore Please forgive me because this is going to be a long reply: I don’t know about you, but I think that James Earl Jones could have pulled off playing Theoden King very well! And I picture a young Ralf Moeller playing Eomer because he is 6’6 in the book, and Ralf means wolf counsel, horse-lover, and success, which is the same as the definition of Eomer’s name. I also picture Maria Sharapova playing Eowyn because Eowyn is 6’2, and the name Maria means rebellious, beloved, lover of the sea, drop-dead gorgeous, etc. And, I know, this also has nothing to do with this video, but, for example, they could have easily casted Tony Gardner as Bilbo and Colin Firth as Frodo because Book Bilbo and Frodo look alike. And their names in real-life have a lot of similarities with their character motivations as well.
@Tolkien Lore *And how Gardener, Firth, and the rest of these actors look like. And, yes, it is hard to depict tall actors like Moeller and Sharapova. But Hollywood could have done it, just like they could have made six lotr movies, and could have shot pretty much all of Middle-Earth in Europe. Last, but not least, the Canadian actor Kevin Durand is 6’6, has a long crooked nose, and looks foul, unless he smiles, like how Aragorn is described. And his name means handsome, crown, and revered king.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I wouldn't mind a slightly younger King Theodon since my dad is almost 68, even though he looks like he's still 58.
And fully agreed with the Movie Theoden is a whiny idiot in TT rant.
Denethor is another one that gets the movie idiot treatment in RotK.
Hirgon's ride:
It is not explicitly mentioned on his arrival, but when the Rohirrim find his headless body past the Grey Wood, Eomer says: "... and that would be two nights ago, if they used fresh horses from the posts, as is their wont." This is the night of 14th (to 15th), so two nights ago would make it the night of 12th (to 13th). Hirgon leaves Dunharrow with Theoden on the morning of 10th, which would mean that their travel from Dunharrow, itself maybe a day from Helm's Deep, takes at least three full days and two nights (or 60 hours, if you prefer). I could see an errand rider making the trip to Minas Tirith in three days from Helm's Deep, but no army would get back in that time. The Ride of the Rohirrim took from the morning of 10th to the morning of 15th, and it was a legendary undertaking.
Also, Red Arrow is the sign of calling for aid, not Black Arrow (used by Bard to slay Smaug. :) )
I honestly wonder how well the films would go down if they were released today with social media and everything, so many characters just aren't portrayed as Tolkien wrote them. I do remember there being a backlash but that was confined to fan forums, now it'd be all over Facebook, Twitter etc.
And also, The movies treated Denethor way worse than Theoden
Movie Denethor is a total cartoon.
And Faramir. And Frodo. Aragorn didn't make it unscathed, either
Movie Aragorn did start to sound kinglier at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring shortly before Boromir died. Movie Frodo Baggins acted a little too vulnerable two or three too many times (one vulnerable Frodo scene for each movie), but still overall brave enough to journey his way to Mordor along with his gardener and faithful friend, Samwise Gamgee. Faramir started off a little too tempted by the ring for the appeasement of his father, Denethor, Stewart of Gondor, but ended up acting much more like his book counterpart after seeing what The Ring of Power had done to Frodo Baggins in Osgiliath, thus changing himself as a better man than before. Movie Theoden was a little bit more poetically tragic who then turned himself around as a true hero overtime thanks to the words of wisdom by Aragorn, which isn't bad, not great either, but good enough character arc in The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Movie Denethor on the other hand suffered much, much worse characterization than all four of these characters combined, creating an unnecessarily cartoonishly tragic villain with an over-the-top version of intermittent explosive disorder or madness, which is really unsettling to any Tolkien fan viewer from casual to hardcore and him showing two scenes of feeling dignifying hardly helped his development as a good character either. I don't feel bad or pity at all towards movie Denethor than book Denethor, which is precisely the problem.
Book readers are the absolute worst
Yep. Even Ralph Bakshi did a more faithful version of Theoden in the animated 1978 film, technological limitations aside.
Very true!
Boy, and I thought the changes to Faramir were the worst but this is a convincing argument that Theoden was very badly served. I loved the movies when they came out, just for the sheer joy of seeing the world and characters I had loved so long up there on the screen, but my quibbles with some of the decisions have grown over the years especially when going back to the books. I think they redeemed Theoden just enough for us to care about his death and they did give him some of the best dialogue based on the original source material (such as where now the horse and the rider and the battle speech at Pelennor Fields). Great picture of Rivendell BTW. I have a similar one but mine is slightly more impressionistic in style.
These claims that PJ, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens were as faithful to the books as possible, are absurd.
There's only one Théoden, and that's Jack May, from the 1981 BBC radio adaptation.
Two different mediums, comparing them is pointless
In the book, when Gandalf reports the victory against Saruman to Denathor, Gandalf says that to make this report, he traveled "one hundred and fifty leagues, with the speed of wind." Nevertheless, Denethor straight up says, "I know already sufficient of these deeds." I have taken this to mean that Denethor was never really trying hard to keep his Palantir a secret.
They also made him relatively pompous and rude compared with book Theoden, who was a much more likeable character. I wish they'd left in his dying interaction with Merry rather than adding one with Éowyn as you mentioned - that was part of losing some of the finest emotional beats in the book.
The only thing I can say is that they didn't degrade him the way they did Denethor.
Slight quibble: not Viking Rohan, Anglo-Saxon (specifically Mercian) Rohan.
- Related to what was done to Theoden is that Éomer was downgraded to little more than a spear character, and we miss out on his own finest moment when he thinks Éowyn is dead.
Sometimes I think some of the problems with the movies are the result of the writers trying to shoehorn the plot into standard patterns taught at film school.
His last words to Merry made me realize how BASED book Theoden is. Merry apologizes for not following his orders and not being able to save him and Theoden assures him "Nah it's ok, you're a cool dude, next time you hit the pipe, think of me." Can you imagine what Denethor would have said in this situation?
Gorgeous painting!!! I fell down the Middle Earth art pit hard myself as of late. Always love your content and insights, thank you!
Well said. My impression of Book Theodin was that he mirrored the contrast with Denethor and should've been the Steward.
Completely honest, about 2-3 minutes before you mentioned Tolkien thought of Rohan as Norse/Vikings I was already thinking along those lines. Very nice!
I entered this video reflexively disagreeing. But you made a very convincing case that has completely changed my mind.
That Rivendell painting is just awesome! It perfectly fills the empty spot on your wall! I always thought you should fill that gap on your wall! Now it's perfect!
I'll never get over the easy answer to "Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?" not being mentioned in the movie - Gondor was being invaded! (On the same line, two or three lines could have answered the 'Elves at Helm's Deep' thing - just have Legolas say the same thing he does in the books, they're at war already.)
My problem is Denethor and Theoden seem to be BiPolar or something in the movies. Why should we ride to Gondor's aid? Wait the Beacons are lit! Let's Ride to Gondor! (Ummm...what made him change his mind? Didn't see anything of that.) Then there is Denethor who did not want to lit the beacons yet he blames Theoden for not showing up when the city first gets beseiged. Theoden's betrayed him? How? What? It just confused the hell out of me in the movies by Jackson.
Thanks for the brilliant analysis as usual. In a way, you're almost giving the writers too much credit here. They wanted to set up a conflict between courageous war and cowardly peace. Aragorn is the courageous war side, and Theoden was picked to be the cowardly peace side. His big character moment is when Gondor lights the beacons, and he says, "And Rohan will answer!"
Of course, that is literally three hours of film time after his character is first established, and it's so carelessly done that we don't even realize it's a character moment. There is no justification for his change in attitude. It's just a hokey film moment.
But that's what is actually being set up throughout the entire second movie. It's not right, it's just true.
The more I listen to your analysis and re-think all these themes and dialogue, the more I'm convinced that film writers are not appropriate stewards of this material because of the difference in their skill set. They are all about memorable visual moments. Very different from well-developed themes, dialogue, or even writing at all.
A few facts from history: A few hundred men CAN hold out against 10,000! It wasn't just the Spartans at the Hot Gates, either. Fortifications are designed to allow this degree of asymmetry in defense. Also, most sieges consisted of mostly waiting. Considering that Orcs are pretty chaotic, it's not necessarily stupid to hope a siege might begin, then evaporate. Lots of sieges did stop in this way in history.
It broke down from the start when they decided to send all the civilians with Théoden's troops to Helm's Deep since it slowed them down and put all the people at risk. They tried to simplify things and make them more dramatic for the movie but only made it make less sense.
The whole conflict between Théoden and Aragorn was designed to give space for Arwen's arc and to reinforce Jackson's idea that the Elves should play a bigger role. It also serves to make Aragorn appear more heroic at the expense of Théoden and of Éomer and the forces of Rohan in general.
There's just no reason the dying king couldn't have talked to both Merry and Éowyn at the same time. Obviously he didn't have long but it would only have taken a few words to preserve the spirit of one of the most emotional parts of the trilogy.
About pictures. You also have a Peter-Jackson-Balrog. Is it a depiction that you agree with or like? Beautiful new painting btw.
Balrogs have no wings, but Jackson’s (really Howe’s) Balrog is undeniably cool lol.
First of all, Denethor is Theoden's liege lord, Theoden owes service to Denethor, not the other way around, so this whole exchange was silly. Nothing like that in the book, as Tolkein understood early Medieval politics, he was fluent in Anglo Saxon, he had probably read the Anglo Saxon Chronicles and have a very good understanding of the society that produced the literature that was his primary interest.
Totally agree with everything Joshua said.
nicely put!
“I will not risk open war,” and the tension between Aragorn & Theoden was unnecessary and annoying. It made Aragorn look weak and Theoden sound petty. In the books, Theoden was ready for war but old. The movie made him look reluctant, but in the books, he welcomed death in battle after being freed from Wormtongue’s lies. That was part of the problem of Wormtongue-he made Theoden less than he was before, less battle ready and less ready for death in battle. This was one of the characteristics of his people, loving the glory of battle. The movie broke that with the Helms Deep story. The movie missed the point of the comparison between loving war and seeing it as a necessary evil. This was the difference between Rohan and Gondor that Tolkien intended in his books. I really think the weak Theoden was part of the weak Aragorn story. In the books, Aragorn meets his kinsmen after Helms Deep on the road from Isengard, and he leads them all by power of his will through the paths of the dead. He was shown to be an equal if not a more noble man than Theoden. In the movies, we do not see that confident, strong descent of Melian, Thingol, Luthien, Beren, Earendil, Elwing, and Elros that he was. The writers made both of them less than Tolkien intended. I am not sure why the writers and directors did this. There was enough to work with in Tolkien’s work. I would have liked to see these characters as written.
Movie Theoden has bothered me since release day, for all of these reasons, and it was obvious immediately that they compromised his character to create artificial drama. Your thoughts here are pointing at what I think they were going for, and failed at:
Just like they took Aragorn's story and remapped it over LotR proper, they tried to do them same with Theoden by having him be a sad-sack for most of his screen time, *as though Wormtongue was still whispering in his ear.* They just completely failed at properly expressing this, lacking minable source material like they had for Aragorn and Arwen, and the result is a Contrarian Plot-Device Theoden-Puppet. Very sad.
Theoden is the greatest character in the books in my opinion. There are some scenes in the movies that I feel like they did a great job with (when the spell is lifted in TT, even though they changed how it happened, Theoden’s heroic moment afterward never does not send chills through my body.) But then there are times when I just wonder “WTF are you thinking PJ?”
Bernard Hill was majestic though
The entire exorcism scene in the movie was ridiculously overblown. Tolkien presented his change is a very subtle, compelling way - whereas pj went straight for the screaming.
That picture is lovely. Regarding movie Theoden, I think he did not get as bad a treatment as Denethor. Boromir, Faramir, Denethor, and Aragorn all get butchered by Peter Jackson’s movies. Seems like all the men of Westernesse were doomed to be poorly represented on the big screen. This is why I rolled my eyes at all the Jackson fans who were critical of Rings of Power while glorifying the PJ trilogy as if it were more or less flawless. I really like those movies. As stand alone films, they are among my favorites. I even think the first Hobbit movie isn’t (completely) awful. But focusing on how popular the movies are doesn’t change how inaccurate they as adaptions. They’re still entertaining, though.
I actually think movie Boromir is more sympathetic than book Boromir, but that's another topic entirely. I think the difference is in the motivation for the changes. I dislike (most) of the character changes made my Peter Jackson, but it seems to me that they were made in service to adapting the story for the screen. His motivation wasn't disrespect for Tolkien and his work, ignorance of the lore, or some political/cultural/social agenda. Rather, Jackson made changes because he believed (perhaps rightly in some cases) that they were necessary to translate the tale from book to film. Moreover, regardless of the changes made, the Jackson trilogy is objectively one of the greatest filmmaking achievements of all time - acting, cinematography, music, costuming, practical effects, etc. The whole trilogy was made with great care, attention to detail, and, above all, a genuine love and respect for the world Tolkien and the stories he told. Rings of Power, on the other hand, reeks of incompetence, disdain for the source material and fans, and a prioritization of "the message" over and above everything else. In the spirit of the thing, Jackson at least meant well, and where fell short of the mark, it was not out of malice. That's what separates his trilogy from Amazon's abomination of a show.
I largely concur, with the one exception of Boromir. For me, he’s about as sympathetic in the movies as he is in the books. He definitely didn’t get the short end of the stick like Faramir. Poor Faramir had his character quite thoroughly ruined. Now that’s something nobody can defend without sounding daft. You’re absolutely right about Amazon’s atrocious little show. Basically every character in that show got the Peter Jackson Faramir treatment. No one working on that show cared about anything other than the message and the money. I know Peter Jackson was pretty ambivalent about Lord of the Rings, but the actors he had were clearly enthusiastic about their work. I believe it was Christopher Lee who actually corrected Jackson on set at one point. That’s how passionate he was about it. I feel that sort of passion for the craft is too rare these days, but I digress.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 Agreed, that kind of passion for the craft is increasingly rare. Faramir was abominably ill-used, which is a crying shame, especially given how David Wenham *could* have portrayed him had writers not committed character assassination.
Yes, that happened with Denethor as well. Seemed like the actor could do a good job with whatever you gave him. Would’ve been interested in seeing him do a more accurate portrayal of Denethor. I bet he could’ve pulled it off rather well if the writers had given him something better to work with. I try and zone out whenever film Denethor is on screen.
I actually think they do give Theoden an arc and it's intertwined with that of Aragorn, which I must say I think was a good decision for the purposes of a film where the narrative and character development has to be much briefer and blunter.
He starts out weak and in the power of Saruman, but then his defining characteristic is a wounded pride based on his consciousness that Aragorn is a stronger, better man than him. Initially this leads him into despair, but the influence of Eowyn and Aragorn himself eventually convinces him to up his game and be the heroic ruler he was born to be, first at Helm's Deep and then later (after a second crisis of confidence) at the Pelennor.
This is all tied together nicely as he dies, when he says 'I go now to join my forefathers, in whose mighty company I need no longer feel ashamed.' He admits to this insecurity and sense of pride, redeemed by his heroic leadership in the climactic battle.
He's essentially a different character in the film, but both iterations are interesting, well-written and suited to their medium.
This and what they did to Faramir are two of my biggest problems with the Jackson trilogy. The only thing I think that tops the theoden debacle is that bullshit where Frodo sends Sam away and takes Gollum's side. I didn't so much have a problem with the idea of Gollum trying to frame Sam for stealing and eating the last of the Lembas since that actually would seem in character for Gollum, but book Frodo would never have fallen for that so easily.
Rohan is Anglo Saxons with horses. Eowyn is clearly Athelfled, which makes Theoden Alfred the Great.
Alfred famously dealt with the Viking (Uruk Hai) threat by establishing a fortified settlement called "burh", or "burg" in modern parlance. The Hornburg is precisely one of these. The goal of warfare then was to destroy enemy forces whenever opportunities arose (i.e. when your forces outnumbered the other guys). A burg allow one to hide inferior numbers behind the walls of the burg, where the fyrd (able-bodied male commoners, i.e. the bulk of the defenders at the Hornburg) could help man the walls.
The invader then had a choice. He could bypass the burg, but in doing so left an unfought force of unknown size in your rear, who might be reinforced by the time you encounter them again.
Or he could assault the burg, and capture it if undermanned (a stunt Athelfled (Eowyn) managed to pull off in later times. Or, if the defenders were stronger than you thought, or you might get your forces depleted in the assault and then be vulnerable to reinforcements arriving before you can complete the capture. This latter is exactly what was depicted in the book.
I agree with how they downgraded Theoden (though I think they redeem him at the end), but they downgraded Denethor even more.
Theoden is one of my fave characters, I just ignore whiny Theoden, enjoy the powerful emotional punches and then welcome the real Theoden when he finally shows up.
I forgive the filmakers because one cannot expect modern people to understand early medieval warfare. Apparently you didn't understand why the book Rohirrm did what they did. So the movie Theoden acted as he did for the emotional payoffs the moviemakers are trying to achieve.
This is a good rant and I do agree that we were robbed of the Northern spirit with Theoden. HOWEVER I think you're completely missing what Jackson and Hill gave us in its stead. Jackson's Theoden is a man in shock and grief after he is healed by Gandalf. "Dark have been my dreams of late." He says as he comes out from under Sarumans shadow, not knowing fully what was and was not lies. What he does know is that he was betrayed by his right hand man Grima, the anger and pain of that betrayal leads to nearly killing Grima in cold blood.
Next Theoden learns the news that "your son is dead, your countryside is on fire and Grima banished your heir apparent who was also your only remaining Marshal". Things are much more grim for Theoden here than in the books. It's not illogical for a man to be filled with indecision when confronted with all of this, and book Gandalf even tells Theoden to go hide in the mountain refuge ( since it is the prudent thing to do; Eomer can go fight the battle and Theoden can protect the people of Rohan) but movie Gandalf doesn't have that option available, he needs Theoden to lead the army. Movie Theoden is forced to make a decision so he chooses to do the prudent thing and protect the people ( it always irked me that because of "plot" they go to Helms Deep, not Dunharrow).
The trip to Hem's Deep gives Theoden some time of reprieve, we see him reflecting on his treatment of Eowyn and in context it makes sense that he is evaluating his relationships in the light of grief. The warg attack just ratchets the pressure back up on Theoden, what little army he did have is more ragged now as he gets to Helms Deep. Once there, he knows how bleak his situation is, he knows that sending out riders is nearly fruitless (arguably they could find stragglers from the fords of Isen, but then again those soldiers should probably have been going to Helms Deep anyway to regroup) it's his job to put on a show of confidence for his men and be as confident as he can which is shot down by Aragorn and Theoden does genuinely snap at him, with his "where was" lines, but the most telling line is that last "where was..." Theoden must grapple with his own guilt here, he failed as king.
Obviously the battle goes from bad to worse for Theoden, it's understandable that by the end of it he is despondent he is numb with it all. And that is where the spark of Nordic valor takes hold of him. Then the classic Tolkien Eucatastrophy and hope beyond hope the battle is won and Isengard is destroyed.
The Saruman scene happens and at the feast in Edoras Theoden is wrestling with Sarumans words. He as king did fail badly but Rohan survived. Now Gandalf is pushing Theoden into a bigger battle with Gondor and we hear the words "what did Gondor do for us?" But perhaps the question Theoden is really asking is "am I able to help Gondor? Am I worthy of saving my old homeland?"
Obviously there's a fair amount of speculation in my argument and ultimately I do agree that Book Theoden is always the better Theoden, but I do believe that you are reaming quite harshly on Movie Theoden that isn't fully deserved.
But there’s still no good explanation for why he’s so irrational or why he suddenly completely reversed course. These are why the character is so broken IMO.
@@TolkienLorePodcast well I guess I failed to make my case coherently then because his grief is my rationale for his poor judgement :P
And yea, course reversals for the sake of drama are just pointless and infuriating!
I don’t even mean his poor judgment so much as his refusal to face reality like when he says he won’t risk open war.
What nato is doing with Russia is an example of "cold war "
You make some good points, but I really disagree.
I think I will take some time to jot down a rebuttal.
Thanks for the well researched content.
I didnt have a problem with theoden and it made sense. He's mind controlled for months if not years. So he has no idea what the hells going on. Then when he released from it he sees. And even though he sees hes not free of the ramifications of what happened. His guilt over the dead and including his son and the last of his line. Thats why he was in such a state in TW. Book wise theres precedence for this with turin turambar when he kills beleg and goes to the lake where the grief is released and hes a mess. Same with his sister after glaurung releases her from the spell. Theyre free but shit has already gone done while they were indisposed and thats not something overcome overnight.
They just wanted to give him a redemption arc for increased impact. At the end they made him justice.
Okay, this is the stupidest and most highly inaccurate way of criticizing movie Theoden I've ever seen in my entire life! Theoden from the movies went from feeling less hopeful to an epic hero of all time over the span of two films, which is a nice way of creating a good character arc. It's not a great character arc mind you, but at least movie Theoden turned out good, nonetheless. Hell, your criticisms of movie less hopeful to a more heroic Theoden made cartoon villain movie Denethor look praiseworthy by comparison!!
Love the channel but, really getting fed up with all the picking on Peter Jackson.
It’s not like I have a large percentage of videos doing that. If you want to go live in a bubble of Jackson worship fine, but you’re fooling yourself if you think those movies were not deserving of criticism.
Still the best film trilogy ever made, and, no, I am not living in a "bubble".
Hi Joshua, this may not be the correct ace to be asking this but I don't know how else to contact you (btw I'm onboard with this criticism of theoden from the pj films, and I really enjoy these dissections). Over the past year I've been collecting many of David day's books on Tolkien lore and reading them as factual, but the other day I was scouring the web to see what else he had written on the subject. to my shock there were a few sources stating that he was somewhat fraudulent and had a tendency to make things up and get dates wrong, this of course made me very conserned about my reading and my knowledge. Do you have any insight on as to where someone can go to find solid books on Tolkien and do you have any thoughts on David day and his reputation in the fan base and scholars?
If you have read this thankyou for your time and á na márië 🧝🏻♀️
I’m not sure I could point to any specific instances but he is a bit fast and loose with stuff sometimes, and he’s definitely not “authorized” by the Estate or anything. Robert Foster’s Complete Guide to Middle-Earth is an alternative, and the original Tolkien reference book I think.
@@TolkienLorePodcast thankyouu, I've tracked down the Robert foster book, hoping I can clear up any confusion for myself