So, who is your favorite character in LotR and why?

Then again, I also hate the "you are good in every single way" type like Arwen and Aragon who always gets the fairy tale ending.

As a teenage boy I liked Arwen since she was the "hot elf chick"! As an older man I still like her in that she made huge sacrifice for love and had a very horrible death as well.

So yes Arwen and Aragon had happy ending but in bittersweet way.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I'm just sick of fairy tale endings. :-/

At least in Tyranny and other similar RPGs you can be a villain and win. Yesterday I was going through my alien invasion movie collection, and noticed humans always win.

Pfff boring. It should be welcome your new overlord's you weaklings.

Anyway one of the book series I love to read is by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman called the Sovereign Stone Series. It follows a prince who becomes a dark god.

Endings are not absolute. It is a cycle, and was mentioned that way in Tyranny even. Sometimes Good wins and sometimes Evil … or even a stalemate which they hold each other off. Time passes and the wheel turns. I think some stories/games simply start off with evil already having won the last battle and are now in power … and now the cycle is getting ready to turn in the favor of good. I suspect eventually good will fall again - usually corrupted from within as people forget the past and stop being vigilant.

Of course it is more common to have a situation where evil is on the rise to power and good has to stop it so I also get what you mean :)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,960
Location
NH
I believe endings are among the hardest things to "do right".

But it really depends on the story and what you've set out to do with it.

For instance, I don't think LotR would work well with a "bad" ending - due to how it was structured and the rather overt division between good and evil.

I mean, Tolkien deliberately attempted to create a modern age myth or legend akin to the Arthurian Legend.

He wasn't trying to recreate reality with "real" people or anything reflecting what actual life is like - or so it seems to me.

I think that's why some people seem to prefer GoT - because it's more realistic (well, I don't really think it is - but certainly more so than LotR). But I'm not sure people are aware of Tolkien's intention with his tales.

In the same way, I think Star Wars is a similar kind of romantic fantasy (albeit with a much looser style and not a fraction of the work involved in establishing the setting) - where it's a mistake to delve too deep when it comes to character motivation and nuance. This is the primary reason I don't think Knights of the Old Republic 2 is a good Star Wars game - because it goes counter to what Star Wars actually is, and very purposefully so.

I seem to recall an interview with Avellone, where he stated he didn't actually like Star Wars - and he wanted to add his own touch.

To me, completely changing the spirit and intention of a setting is incredibly arrogant when dealing with such a beloved world - but I guess it worked for a lot of fans, so what do I know.

On the other hand, if you're trying to reflect reality with your story - then I tend to prefer an ambiguous ending - because that's what I think most of real life is like.

One of the best endings I can think of is the one in "The Wire" - because there really isn't one. It just makes it clear that violence and crime is cyclical and unending - at least until we do something very different. So, the series just "stops" more than it actually ends - like if we, the audience, just left the cycle at some random point. Perfect.

But, I also like endings that are unpredictable and surprising. It's hard to pin down a science to endings. Again, I think they're incredibly hard to achieve in a satisfying way.

An example of a fantastic ending that's arguably also a little ridiculous - is from the movie The Mist.

It worked so well for me, because I was very familiar with the short story from Stephen King. 99% of the movie is incredibly true to the story - but the ending is entirely different.

It caught me completely by surprise - and it somehow manages to communicate something a little profound and, yet, at the same time manages to be utterly, utterly cruel - which is very appropriate for the rest of the story.
 
Bill the pony. Without him Sauron would have won. If you go by the books wasn't Faramir the only one not tempted by the ring? That's powerful.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,839
Location
Wolf Light Woods
Bill the pony. Without him Sauron would have won. If you go by the books wasn't Faramir the only one not tempted by the ring? That's powerful.

Yes, he was the only man who wasn’t tempted and that’s why I like him :)
 
Endings are not absolute. It is a cycle, and was mentioned that way in Tyranny even. Sometimes Good wins and sometimes Evil … or even a stalemate which they hold each other off. Time passes and the wheel turns. I think some stories/games simply start off with evil already having won the last battle and are now in power … and now the cycle is getting ready to turn in the favor of good. I suspect eventually good will fall again - usually corrupted from within as people forget the past and stop being vigilant.
They are just tropes and almost every game, book, and movie use them.

Just search this site it has them all - https://tvtropes.org/
A word or expression used in a figurative sense : figure of speech. b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché the usual horror movie tropes.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
I've only read the LOTR books after seeing the films. And I've read them quite a long time ago, I think. I'm actually having quite a hard time separating the two. I remember the films very well, and love them to death, but I don't really remember the books. This also be because I've only read the books once, and I've seen the films at least 20 times.

Having said that, I think it's very hard for me to pick just one favorite. I absolutely loved the performances of Aragorn, Gandalf, Boromir, Frodo, Samwise.

LOTR also introduced me to Viggo Mortensen, who quickly grew into one of my all time favorite actors. I loved most of his roles. He's a superb actor.

So, if I had to pick one from the ones mentioned above, I'd have to go with Aragorn.
And man, did this thread give me an appetite for re-reading the books.

As far as the reason why I'm picking Aragorn, I'm not sure. Usually I don't like the white knight, but he seems very different. But I'm not able to point out exactly why. Maybe it's just the impact Viggo has had on me. I'd be curious how my reaction to Aragorn would be, had I read the books before seeing the movie. The ways things are now, I cannot separate him from the character. Even while reading the books, his face was plastered over the character all the time.

Compared to A Song of Ice and Fire, I've only read the first book and seen the first season. The rest have been on my backlog for a long time.

But I think I still prefer Tolkien. He's masterful in lore creation. And doesn't seem to just go for the emotional gut-punch that GRR Martin seems to, with killling your favorite character and getting a rise that way. Of course, that may be just my initial impression of him. I'll have to read the books to get a better picture.

That being said, Tyrion Lannister is superb, in both book and season. And Peter Dinklage is excelent. He may be the best part of that show.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
6,252
Apart from Tom Bombadil, I often think of Radagast. In fact, he is kind of an "unsung hero", because he is nowhere really described. Sad. I alwys find him so interesting, a kind of "master & messenger" of the wildlife, probably working in accordance to Yavanna.
Next to Tom Bombadil, he is the second most mysterious figure to me.

Apart from those two, Goldberry is the next most interesting figure to me, in a similar way, because she is so mysterious.

They all have so much power - yet - very unlike to Sauron - they don't show it. They downplay it, and that's even one very strong understatement !

The only real drawback of all three is, that they are not well to implement in any kind of game without loss of their … "shroud of mysteriousness".

Another to me very interesting figure is Strider - the Strider first met !
This figure is highly interesting to me, becausew he is "shrouded by mysteriousness" asw well - but in a different sense. He really doresn't look like someone to trust. Not at all ! And exactly that is what I like of him : The kind of "play with clichés" !
He is kind of the opposite to … let's say Sauron : He isn't open. Not at all. (Sauron, on the other hand, is VERY open - once he has taken his "seat" in his fortress ! But before that, he might even have looked like a shrouded Strider himself !) He is a bad one. He looks like a bad one. He acts … well, he doesn't act trustworthy, not that much, at least. The others have to trust him, they don't do it that much freely, but rather because of sheer need. They don't like him that much, still, they only travel with him because a dear friend had told them so.



Edit : Tom Bombadil would not be liked by a current gamer's audience. Because … - even although he has so much power - and powah is a much sought feature in games by current gamers ! -
- although he has so much power, he is portrayed like the ultimate "hateable" character : childish, colourful, semingly powerless - all attributes hated by current gamers. Put him into Dark Souls, for example, and you'll know what I mean.
Simply, Tom Bombadil would be cut out by a modder as soon as he put into a game.

Why ? Because everything much be so much dark, grim, gritty, grey, dreadful, deadful, and dark again. "They" call that "a mature game". But in fact "they" are doing nothing but trying to look away from the fact that "mature" can also mean "childish joy" oder the look of a colourful birthday present, for example.
I rather suspect that with this use of the word "mature", "they" rather mean "manly", because colourfulness, for example, is the direct opposite of "manlihood" people often want. A Gansta Rapper would NEVER be colourful. And he would openly say so (that colourfulness is childishness).
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
When I read the trilogy for the first time, the Witch King of Angmar was my favorite character (but I always had a thing for liches and the like). I even drew a picture of him that I hung in my bedroom. Not sure why, but there was a certain similarity to Iron Maiden's Eddie.
Later I saw the Ralph Bakshi animated LOTR movie at a theater - I was the only customer that night - and found the ring wraiths in general pretty enchanting, though Celeborn also made a good impression.

When we went to see the Jackson movies for the first time, I was pretty astonished about the Witch King's Eddieness xD. But my favorite Jackson movie character was the OC Lurtz. Simply gorgeous.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
3,754
I really like Treebeard and the ents. I appreciated their slow, lost in thought, ponderous nature.

But I also like Gandalf as well.

Both entities that could easily get carried away in daily happenings or pleasantries, but were forces to be reckoned with at the same time.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
481
Location
California, USA
All my references come from the books as the movies took some characters into personalities I didn't see in text.

Tom and Goldberry was my favorite section of the book. The rescue and respite during the strife of the story timeline was great. It wasn't even about the unlimited power really. It was about the trivializing of the whole matter from a different perspective. The fact the ring held no power over Tom (didn't even make him invisible) plus he could see the wielder through invisibility was good relief of the heaviness from a story point of view. It wasn't about excessive power to me, it was that it the powers in the story didn't matter to everyone.

When I was younger I read a lot of narrative outside the books from Tolkien and his explanations of Tom further made me love the character. Lots of people had very set ideas and Tolkiens replies left it to speculation or better, told people 'it is, what it is'.
Hes an anachronism that superceeds the story itself. For me, Goldberry says it best when asked 'what' Tom is, she replies "He is."
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,871
Treebeard is an fascinating character as well, yes.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Oh boy, tough one…

If we're talking movies, Gollum easily takes the crown for me. Andy Serkis took that character to a whole new level.

But books… if we include the Silmarillion, I'd have to say Feanor (mightiest of the Noldorin, yet utterly tragic his downfall) and Beren (the man that wrested the Silmaril from the crown of Morgoth with the aid of Luthien).

Now, Lord of the Rings specifically, I'd say Boromir, mighty son of Gondor. I've always liked more "grey" (versus black/white) characters, and succumbing to the Ring and then redeeming himself gets a big thumbs up from me.
Close second would probably be the Ringwraiths… because who doesn't like an evil spirit of terror mounted on flying fell beasts? :)

An example of a fantastic ending that's arguably also a little ridiculous - is from the movie The Mist.

Oh man, that ending is absolutely brutal. It left me staring open mouthed and wide eyed at the credits as they rolled by, thinking, "Really, that's how they're gonna end that?" I didn't dislike it, though. As you said, the movie was pretty close to the source material.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,377
Location
Leuven, BE
In the books i quite enjoyed reading about Gollum. In the movies however i really dislike him. Not a fan of the actor either, he'd be great at someone doing over-the-top theater i'm sure, movies, not so much. I get it that he's supposed to be quite annoying, and wow do they do that part justice. I think he's "a bit much", the annoying part is so overbearing that i can't enjoy him at all in the movies, i just hate him and I feel no pity for him either. He's also way too cartoonish compared to the rest of the characters (i don't necessarily mean the CGI but how he's so loud with these big, theatrical movements all the time).

My favorites in the books was otherwise Frodo and Sam. But neither Frodo or Sam would work that well on their own so its hard to pick one, and with Gollum to really spice it up.. So if i can pick 3 i'd say those three. Both Sam and Frodo is great in the movies as well.

Edit: oh, and the Why.. that's easy, they're the main characters so they do tons of interesting stuff, they go on adventures, they have depth, there's reason to care about them. I guess i could mention some obscure character who seems mysterious and interesting and has a few minutes of screen time, but if we are honest it's hardly for these characters you read the books or watch the movies..
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
?owyn is a very tragic character. Because of that, she always had my compassion.
When I was so much younger, it was to me as if she was kind of a mirror of my own self in some parts (not everything, though - or "of course").
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Gollum is also a very tragic character in my eyes.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Late to the party but: the Gaffer, Hamfast Gamgee.

In honor of him, I once toyed with the idea of tattooing "Elves and Dragons" on my right bicep and "Potatoes and Cabbages" on my left bicep.

The younger Gamgee is okay too.

[Edit: I'm so ashamed, but I won't erase my error above. I should have said "Cabbages and Potatoes" rather than "Potatoes and Cabbages". Luckily I don't yet have the tattoo.]
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
I love the LotRs films but I don't have a favourite character at all. I kind of watch it as an ensemble epic & as such each character plays their part, often a much smaller part than you might think, to which its the sum of the parts that make the whole.

There's no one character that I can't wait to appear on screen & at the same time no character that I could wish wasn't in it as to remove anyone would leave holes, which the theatrical version was full of & only the extended full edits show.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
Back
Top Bottom