This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Quality Contributions to the Main Motte
Contributions for the week of March 30, 2026
Contributions for the week of April 6, 2026
- "I think Terry Pratchett is the atheist version of C. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkien."
- "But Halo... Halo was magic."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Narnia, even the heavily secularised film version, is obvious enough that I don't think you could miss it. Even before seeing the film itself, Narnia is famous as a Christian series of children's books, and C. S. Lewis is extremely widely beloved by everyone from Catholics to evangelicals, despite being neither. The first Narnia film was trying to imitate the Jackson LotR and go for mainstream appeal, but by the sequels my impression was that they had realised they were making films for a niche, mostly-Christian audience.
LotR hides it a bit better, especially the films, which tend to strip out Tolkien's ethics in favour of generic fantasy action. It was, of course, Tolkien's intent to be less direct, but in this case the films take out most of the moral worldview, and I'm skeptical much made it through to audiences.
I disagree that the films take out most of the moral worldview. I will grant that it is less obvious than it is in the books, but one of the reasons I think both the books and Jackson's adaptation was so successful was that they successfully capture the essence (or "vibe") of Tolkien's very traditional Catholic worldview and why it might appeal to someone without being "preachy" or in your face about it. Gandalf's conversations with Pippin, Théoden's speech at Helm's Deep, Aragorn at the Black Gates, and the entire character of Samwise Gamgee, are all faithfully represented and carry what I understood to be Tolkien's thesis well.
By rights we shouldn't even be here, but we are... Is a good speech in it's own right but hits even harder in context of having been written by a veteran of the Somme who was looking down the barrel of WWII.
Sean Astin definitely does a good job, though I'll disagree with some of your other examples and characters. In general I think Jackson's films tend to emphasise martial achievement too much, while mis-casting or mis-portraying characters like Aragorn, Gimli, or even Denethor.
For the most part I just don't like the Jackson films, and I feel somewhat vindicated in the Hobbit trilogy, which show the same flaws, only now it seems that the scales have fallen from the audience's eyes and they can see them.
In general I think there's a solid case that the Jackson films are, for the most part, competent Tolkien-inspired action films, but I do not think Tolkien himself would approve, or that they capture much of what he wanted to say. I think they are probably the most overrated films of the 21st century thus far, and there is a lot of competition for that title.
I agree that the absence of both Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire makes Tolkien's commentary on the nature of good and evil much less explicit than it is in the books, and but I have to disagree with the allegations of miscasting or that they didnt capture the core themes of Tolkien's work.
My issue with the Hobbit trilogy is that it is abundantly clear that the studio wanted more LotR movies but the Hobbit is a very different work from Lord of the Rings in both tone and content.
Much of the WTF-ness of the Hobbit trilogy is explained by Del Toro noping out less than a year before the shooting started with the result that Jackson didn't have the preproduction or script finalized by the start date and the problems only got worse for the second and third installments with Jackson essentially having to go "Fuck this, let's just shoot something and hope we can edit it to something coherent".
More options
Context Copy link
There are some castings I really like - Sean Astin's Sam, Christopher Lee's Saruman, and John Rhys-Davies' Gimli all stand out as inspired castings. (I think the films do Gimli dirty, but Rhys-Davies is not the reason why. Fantastic choice.) Sean Bean as Boromir is a good choice as well. Ian McKellen is quite serviceable as Gandalf, and I like Karl Urban's Eomer. Cate Blanchett is a fantastic choice for Galadriel, as is Ian Holm for Bilbo.
Holm brings the role that hapless charm that he also brought to roles like Arthur Dent.Never mind I am a dummy.There are a couple that I also reluctantly acknowledge as good but not to my tastes. Andy Serkis as Gollum is not how I pictured Gollum, or would have played him, but I acknowledge that Serkis knows what he is going for and does it extremely capably. I think that's just a reasonable difference of taste on my part. Miranda Otto's Eowyn is one that I can't quite make up my mind on - it's not how I would have portrayed Eowyn, I think, but I can see what they were going for.
At the same time, there are plenty that I think are bad. Elijah Wood as Frodo and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn are just obviously not up to the role - Wood plays Frodo as a beatific victim and largely nothing else, while Mortensen is completely unable to evoke the majesty or nobility that Aragorn needs to. Orlando Bloom never manages to rise beyond the level of a handsome blank. David Wenham's Faramir and John Noble's Denethor are disappointing as well, which is a shame because I know Wenham has given good performances elsewhere (I liked him in Molokai). Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler are just bad - the films in general just cannot do elves. Blanchett is probably the only elf role in the films that I have praise for, and even that is dragged down a bit by the temptation scene.
In general, I think the films lean too much into being heroic war films, in the face of Tolkien's reflections on the horror and futility of such things, and the theological substrate of the story is pretty much entirely lacking. I don't mind omitting the Scouring or Tom Bombadil, actually, and some choices like that are necessary, but Jackson generally favours bombast over silence, and inserts fake drama whenever he's getting bored. In the book, Faramir's temptation by the Ring takes only a few seconds; Jackson adds a whole sequence. In the book, Frodo and Sam's travel through Cirith Ungol is unnervingly silent; Jackson adds a whole bit where Sam abandons Frodo.
Meanwhile he also cuts many of the book's quiet moments, such as Aragorn looking out to see the dawn at Helm's Deep, or Sam reflecting on the stars. I feel like Jackson hates quiet, whether it's a chilling or terrifying quiet, as in Cirith Ungol, a tense anticipatory quiet, as at Helm's Deep, or even a consoling, reassuring quiet, as at other times.
Anyway, re-doing LotR as just a war story is arguably viable, but there I think the films are undermined by, well, their war being total nonsense? They are full of logistically impossible movements (the elves at Helm's Deep! why?), or maneuvers that range from the physically impossible and suicidal (the relief charge at Helm's Deep) to the physically-possible-but-stupid (the Rohirrim at the Pelennor). I would be able to just enjoy the fighting more, I think, if the fighting were done well. I can suspend disbelief and ignore dodgy fight or battle choreography if the story and character writing are solid, but here they're not, and also Jackson spends so much time on the battles. Helm's Deep is a relatively short section of The Two Towers as a book, but it's half the film, and the Pelennor is inflated as well. If you're going to blow up the battles and spend so much more time on them, at least do them well?
Liv Tyler / Arwen simply shouldn't have been featured in the films beyond perhaps one short scene in Rivendell and another at the end. Expanding that role was a prominent example of how the film series was completely needlessly hollywoodized.
More options
Context Copy link
I do think that the lack of the Scouring of the Shire is a major weakness in the Peter Jackson adaptations. Yeah it takes time, but it's an essential part of the story. Without that, we never get to see the heroes come home, changed by their adventures in the wider world, finding that their home is a bit smaller than they remembered it being. I definitely think that it should've been in the extended edition of ROTK even if it got cut from the theatrical version.
The biggest weakness, though, was his willingness to flat out ignore Tolkien's story themes in an attempt to drum up cheap drama (as you mentioned). I remember once watching the commentary on The Two Towers, and someone (I think Fran Walsh) said that they had the whole Faramir detour because Tolkien's account of the character undercut the story they were trying to emphasize of how potent the Ring is, and how much of a threat it is. Which, to me, sounds like they missed Tolkien's point entirely. Yes, the Ring is powerful, and yes, it's a threat. But it can be resisted, and there are virtues in the world which are stronger than the temptation that the Ring offers. This is seen most clearly with the Frodo/Sam changes in ROTK: in the book, the Ring tempts Frodo but the deep friendship he and Sam share is enough to overpower the Ring's influence. But in the movie, Jackson had to have a dramatic moment, so he guts one of the major themes of the book in order to gin up conflict. It really rubs me the wrong way.
I have long been of the opinion that, whatever their virtues as movies (and to be fair, I think they are excellent in their own right as movies), the Peter Jackson LOTR movies are pretty flawed adaptations of the source material. It's a real shame, because we are unlikely to ever see better than that, as people consider them definitive. C'est la vie.
Ironically, the presence of the scouring in Tolkien's work is a large part of why I roll my eye's at @OliveTapenade's claim that Jackson's adaptation is "too martial".
In the beginning of the story there is a suggestion that the people of the Shire may be able to bypass the question of good and evil by simply going along with whom or whatever, and I interpreted the scouring at the end of the story as a repudiation of this suggestion. The point that I understood Tolkien to be making with the scouring is that you can't escape evil by ignoring it or dismissing it as someone else's problem. Kolmogorov Complicity is still complicity.
The Ents, upon being made aware of the threat that evil posed, took up arms. The Hobbits (minus our protagonists) chose to go along to get a long and that is why they end up oppressed and in need of rescue.
I think Tolkien's own thoughts on the necessity of arms-bearing are complicated. He accepts that it is at times necessary, as with the cases of the Ents, or the hobbits raising rebellion against Saruman's men.
But I would suggest that nobody who has read Meneldur's agonised wrestling with the issue in Aldarion and Erendis could suggest that Tolkien considers the question straightforward or uncomplicated.
One of Meneldur's concerns, which I think is shared by Tolkien (as seen in the comparison between e.g. Boromir and Faramir), is that going to war means training men for war and habituating them in it. Such men will soon develop a taste for conquest, and an affection for wielding power over others. The corrupting nature of power is a constant refrain in Tolkien, and with the benefit of hindsight, looking back at Aldarion's choice, we can see that while aiding Gil-galad must have been the right choice in the short term, Aldarion's combative, martial nature, and the Numenorean intervention in Middle-earth, was an important step along the path that eventually led to Ar-Pharazon, the King's Men, and the Downfall.
Tolkien does believe that violence is sometimes lawful, sometimes necessary. His heroes fight rather than submit to evil. But he also believes that violence is a weighty matter, one that is inherently morally doubtful, and which habituates one to evil. His heroes therefore wield the sword only reluctantly, and with limited scope.
Characters or groups in Tolkien's writing that are sympathetic and war-loving exist, but this is usually presented as a moral flaw. Consider Faramir's description of the Rohirrim:
The criticism I would make of Jackson's films is that I think they delight too much in war and violence. These are the films with Legolas' shield-surfing, or the mumak in RotK. Jackson's past career involves a lot of action comedy (he is the source of the "I kick ass for the Lord!" meme, for instance) and I think you can see that sneaking into his LotR. His depiction of Aragorn puts significantly less emphasis on his wisdom and good judgement, and more on his fighting skill.
The question is not whether passivism is a preferable response to evil. It is not. But the question is about how war and military might are to be understood - whether they are things to delight in, or to regret, and resort to only in times of gravest necessity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, was there an other adaptation of the HHGTTG I missed, or did you get Ian Holm confused with Martin Freeman who played Bilbo in the Hobbit movies and Arthur Dent in the recentish hitchhiker movie?
The other role I mainly remember Ian Holm for has him a lot less hapless charm; Ash in Alien.
Oh, dangit, you're right.
Sorry, Martin Freeman was Bilbo in The Hobbit and Arthur Dent. Ian Holm was old-Bilbo and was never Arthur Dent.
Oops. That's embarrassing.
Both are good casting choices in my opinion though. As you mention, Martin Freeman does "everyman reluctantly thrust into adventure" very well, he pretty much built his career around that, and Ian Holm does very well the "nice and affable guy with edgy undertones hinting at a dark secret".
More options
Context Copy link
Don't worry, it happens to all of us
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link