Dumbing it down

[Beleg Cuthalion]

This is partly inspired by my own thoughts and partly by the avatar of Elrond's Daughter.

I don't really think it's the fault of Orlando Bloom or any of the other cast members that Legolas comes off as some sort of outrageous M-E equivelant of Neo, given to constant overstatement. It was Peter Jackson and his co-writers who introduced the stunts that many Tolkien enthusiasts revile (such as mself), the at times overtly-modern in influence dialogue (Legolas proclaiming "Game Over" as though he's just finished up a brisk session of Pac-Man, or Gandalf's "You'd better hope we don't have one of those on our tail", sounding suspiciously like a seasoned Bomber Command pilot inveighing against the likelyhood of Messerschmits come to mind), and plot points that ought to already be obvious made explicit ("A diversion!").

My point is that I feel that the writers, despite their stellar work on much of the films seem to, in my opinion at least, attempt lower the bar far enough that even the most witless theatre-goer will not fail to have the message pounded into his brain. It just seems as though all subtlety is abandoned in many cases in favour of making a point in as broad a fashion as possible.

To make a comparison with a film I loathe, having Legolas surf down the stairway or the Mumak's trunk is similar to the WWF references found in one scene of Shrek. It's as though if we don't include at least a few references to prosaic modernity that the audience will develop no interest in the film they're watching.

Are we really as dumb as all that?

[Nimrodel_9]

Welcome to the Barrow-Downs, Beleg!

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but ok.
You'd better hope we don't have one of those on our tail I didn't like that line. It sounded to modern, and my brother noticed it too. It's the same with the "game over" part.
As for the part where Lego slides down the oliphaunts trunk, it reminded me of Tarzan. :p

Nim

[Beleg Cuthalion]

As for the part where Lego slides down the oliphaunts trunk, it reminded me of Tarzan. :p

NimWhoah! That's freaky. Here I was writing this and I'm thinking, "Legolas swing! Angry Oliphaunt take Jane!! Jane!!". :D

[Nimrodel_9]

Whoah! That's freaky. Here I was writing this and I'm thinking, "Legolas swing! Angry Oliphaunt take Jane!! Jane!!". Heh heh. Great minds think alike? That or LotR obsessed minds are connected. :)

[Encaitare]

You'd better hope we don't have one of those on our tail

Well, horses have tails... and they were on a horse... :rolleyes:

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Well, horses have tails... and they were on a horse... :rolleyes:Indeed. But that particular turn of phrase wasn't originated until recently. A much more accurate (and I think, more pleasing to the ear) line would have been "And you had better hope we do not have one of those at our heels".

[Kitanna]

Mmmmm, are we really that dumb? Well, Tolkien fans would have no problem understanding the movies without those kind of lines thrown in. But the LOTR movies are for everyone and not everyone can understand Tolkien's works. (like myself, I can't read the Silm without stopping and rereading, trying to get a grasp on what the heck is going on) Personally I think PJ and team threw those lines in to help/ add a modern feel for the casual movie goer. Kinda of like the whole Aragorn and Arwen thing. Don't you think that would confuse people if at the end of ROTK Aragorn just married some random elf instead of Eowyn if you hadn't read the books? Things had to be added to help people who hadn't read the books. It just helps to understand things. I didn't read FOTR until after the movie and I found understanding a lot of the history easier because of those dumbed down parts from the movie. But to each his own.

Though a lot of those lines are even more dumbed down then they should be. Like Gimli at the Black Gate "well that concludes negoations (sp? oh whatever)". Well duh. That kind of thing is really not needed. It takes away from the dramtic scene with some mindless line. And from Gimli of all people (and dwarves). Gimli is way to cool for something like that.

[The Saucepan Man]

My point is that I feel that the writers, despite their stellar work on much of the films seem to, in my opinion at least, attempt lower the bar far enough that even the most witless theatre-goer will not fail to have the message pounded into his brain.I suspect that it has more to do with making the film relevant and accessible to film audiences than with patronising them.

[Neurion]

I suspect that it has more to do with making the film relevant and accessible to film audiences than with patronising them.Yes, but it's still more than possible to carry such good intentions way too far.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, but it's still more than possible to carry such good intentions way too far.That, of course, depends on your perspective. From the point of view of most ardent fans of Tolkien's works, you are right. But vast numbers of film-goers, many critics and those responsible for nominating and selecting films for awards would probably disagree.

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences. Perhaps they would have suceeded in equal measure had they not used the techniques described above, but we cannot know that for sure unless and until a more faithful film adaptation of the book is made.

[Lalaith]

I didn't mind "one of those on our tail" or the surfing, but I do agree about the dumbing down in general...and of Gimli in particular.
One of the things that bugged me was that many of the additions made by the film-makers involved the spurious imposition of 21st century sensibilities onto these characters.
It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child." Now, that is very much a 21st century feeling. In societies like that of Rohan, parents buried their children ALL the time. Illness, war and so on. I'm not saying they wouldn't have grieved deeply, of course they did, but it wasn't that feeling of "this is all wrong" that we have today.

[tar-ancalime]

It's a small thing I know, but something that rankled with me was Theoden's weeping at Theodred's grave, "no parent should have to bury their child."

I was just watching TTT last night, and this line struck me too, but for a slightly different reason. It made sense to me that Theoden should grieve openly--a king losing his only heir has wider repercussions than an ordinary death, and especially a king who's already been weakened by an outside influence should rightly be concerned about the future of his kingdom and about succession.

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

[Essex]

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."No disrespect, Tar-ancalime, but I think if we were to disect the movie to this level, then we will be here till doosmsday! :)

[davem]

From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences. Perhaps they would have suceeded in equal measure had they not used the techniques described above, but we cannot know that for sure unless and until a more faithful film adaptation of the book is made.

I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.

I know movies have to appeal to a mass audience & studios are averse (to say the least) to any kind of risk taking, but my feeling has always been that if they didn't want to be as faithful as possible to Tolkien's work they should have written their own story & filmed that. Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible. One can argue whether the writers/director did that as far as the story is concerned, but I do question whether they had sufficient respect for Tolkien's language (or for the English language itself - 'Our list of allies is growing thin'! 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.' etc.). What irritated me most was characters jumping, often in the course of a sentence, from an archaic to a modern idiom. I have to agree with tar-ancalime in this regard. If we take the line given to Galadriel which I just quoted, it sounds wrong & out of character for her to say something like that because up to that point she has been using a very archaic style of speech. To suddenly change her speech pattern & phraseology causes serious problems for some of us, because one of those idioms must be 'false' - in the sense of not being her 'natural' way of speaking. Either the archaic style was false & the modern 'true' or vice versa. If the archaic is her natural 'style' then she is being condescending in suddenly adopting a modern idiom - which turns what she says into an insulting platitude - or if the modern idiom is her natural one then her earlier use of the archaic just comes across as pretentious. The language & speech patterns a character uses reflect the way that character thinks. Galadriel simply would not say 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.' because she wouldn't find that form of expression natural. She might say something like 'Oft has it been seen that the deeds of those deemed insignificant by the Wise have shaken the Towers of the Mighty' or some such (with abject apologies to Tolkien!!!) but she wouldn't talk about 'small persons changing the course of the future'.

(And I just know someone is going to pounce on all my grammatical fox paws in that post :( )

[Boromir88]

SpM:
From where I am standing, it looks like Jackson and co suceeded greatly in making the films relevant and accessible to modern audiences.
I would agree. It is second on Imdb.com, just below "The Godfather." This is an opinion poll of imdb's users on what movies would people MOST likely enjoy. Also, we can credit Mr. Jackson for having Tolkien recently being reinstated as the top selling Author's of this century.

I know for me personally, the movies got me to pick up the book again. I hadn't picked up LOTR for about 15 years, and when the movies came out it got me back into appreciating him like I did back in the day. As a fan of Tolkien that is the best thing the movie has done, introduced more people into the world of Middle-earth, and gotten them into Tolkien.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

davem, fox paws or not :p, I think that may be the best expression that I have seen given to my opinion on this subject. Thanks for putting it in those terms. Now on to the meat:

Personally I think PJ and team threw those lines in to help/ add a modern feel for the casual movie goer. Kinda of like the whole Aragorn and Arwen thing. Don't you think that would confuse people if at the end of ROTK Aragorn just married some random elf instead of Eowyn if you hadn't read the books? Things had to be added to help people who hadn't read the books. Posted by Kitanna People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

Sophia

[Beleg Cuthalion]

People frequently make this argument about Arwen's expanded role. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Arwen's part in the story is any more confusing in a film medium than it was in the original book. Her role is very small indeed as Tolkien wrote it and he took no pains to explain why Aragorn would pick Arwen over Eowyn. If we can understand it once we've read the book with no expansion of her role, I don't see that it makes a difference when translated to film.

So, though I disagree with the "more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film" argument, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than this one. This one, I feel, is patronising to the casual moviegoer.

SophiaArwen's role in the book isn't confusing at all, if you actually read the Appendices. According to Brian Sibley, Tolkien wanted to expand on Aragorn and arwen's love and history together within the Lord of the Rings, but he could never figure out how, so he included it in the the appendices instead of the main body of the story.

Tolkien did intend his mythology to be relatable to his readers, but not in the sense that an adolescent raised on a steady diet of pop-culture would find readily familiar.

[The Saucepan Man]

... their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably.A view that is probably surprisingly common. And I suppose it depends how one comes at the question. If they are arguing that the films are better at making the story accessible to as wide a range of people as possible in the early 21st century, then I would agree with them. Personally, I prefer the books, but it's a matter of taste and opinion and they are entitled to theirs.


Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.But what does that mean? Jackson and co would no doubt put up a respectable argument to the effect that they made as faithful an adaptation as was possible in the circumstances and within the constraints within which they were working. One could dispute that (and many of course do), but how far do you take it? What exactly is an adaptation that is "as faithful as possible"?

And I am rather perplexed as to why it should be a moral issue. Clearly they had the legal right to make the films, so no issue there. By selling the film rights, Tolkien gave his permission to anyone holding those rights to film his book. And, given that Jackson and co have made a trilogy of films that has brought pleasure to millions of people (and indeed have led many to the books), I cannot see that they are due any moral censure either. If they are, who are they answerable to? Who is responsible for deciding whether they have discharged their moral duty or not? I'm sorry, but I really don't see it as being a moral issue at all.

[Kitanna]

Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.

Is it really an obligation to do that? If they have the rights they can do as they choose. It's not what I would call an obligation, it's more of a respect thing. Jackson and company kept many things the same and I think that's more out of respect for Tolkien and his work then because they were "obligated" to. I can see though how taking respect as a moral issue, but I don't see this as an moral obligation.

[The Only Real Estel]

What bothered me was the clunky, ungrammatical, and anachronistic language Theoden used: Why not "No father should have to bury his son." Or "No king." The insertion of gender-equal language in this situation rings a little false to me, not to mention the lack or agreement between "parent" and "their."

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.I agree. While I enjoyed the films, I find it disapointing that the films seem to be, in some ways tailored to the current generation.

Those who say that Jackson and crew supposedly "improved on Tolkien's work by making it more accesible" are really not taking it for what it is. In my oppinion, the biggest reason for the popularity of the films is because they dramatize Tolkien's epic, not because the characters drop "accesible" lines like "Let's hunt some orc". I really believe that if they had included more of the actual story, the films might have even been more succesful (they certainly would have avoided some annoying plot holes, like why Arwen braves the Ringwraiths sword in hand, and then spends the rest of the film pensively waiting, or why exactly Arwen was dying, or why Aragorn decided to let the Army of the Dead go when he did, instead of ordering them on to Minas Tirith).

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture. To just cite one example, one sentence of George Washington's inaugural speech lasted one and a half pages. The fact that we've been trained to think within the span of ever-shrinking sound-bites for three generations now, and the fact that the films tend to reflect this at times, is dismaying.

[Neurion]

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO."No parent should have to bury their child" might have amused (or maybe enraged) Tolkien as a philologist, given the grammatical contradictions inherent in the juxtaposition of the words "Parent" (singular) and "Their child" (plural).

[Encaitare]

I don't see any problem with the 'gender-equal' language that he uses here. I don't think that he needs to specify a son because surely he would not only be grieving because he's lost his heir? 'No parent should have to bury their child' works well for me becaue it is true--no parent should have to bury their child. I don't think it would've made much difference to Theoden whether he had lost a son or daughter, he would be grieving over either one of them equally IMO.

It's the grammar, my good Estel, the grammar... :p

Although if he had said, "No parent should have to bury his or her child," it really would have sounded awkward.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.

Quite possible.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Arwen's role in the book isn't confusing at all, if you actually read the Appendices.

To clarify, I was speaking in the context of the main body of the story. The Appendices are great reading material but saying that Tolkien made Arwen clear in the Appendices is roughly like saying that PJ Merry and Pippin's friendship more detailed in the Extended version. It's all well and good or even great, but clearly, if it had been necessary for understanding it would have been included in the main text. I think you'll find that there is quite a large body of readers who begin after the Prologue and stop before the Appendices.

Sophia

[Lalwendë]

A few random thoughts because I need my breakfast...

"No parent should have to bury their child". This is a line I always find quite striking, and the delivery by Bernard Hill is perfect and it is very touching. But, I find it stands out a little too much and though I like it, I find it somewhat incongruous; it seems somehow too modern and emotional for a king such as Theoden. So, it's a well delivered line and provides an emotional moment, but it is also out of context.

Those who say that Jackson and crew supposedly "improved on Tolkien's work by making it more accesible" are really not taking it for what it is. In my oppinion, the biggest reason for the popularity of the films is because they dramatize Tolkien's epic, not because the characters drop "accesible" lines like "Let's hunt some orc".

When I hear people say that the films are better than the books, that they improved on the books, my blood pressure starts rising and I start to get irrational thoughts. :eek: To me the books are LotR, the films are just something else, like an extra, like another appendix, or an extremely beautiful special edition in a different cover but with so many printing errors I have to put it on one side and go back to my battered paperbacks.

How could Tolkien's work be made more accessible? LotR was already one of the biggest selling works of all time, and most readers who were likely to have enjoyed it would have read it already anyway, unless they were too young to have done so by the time the films were released. It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version? Surely this means all those people who never read books anyway? It can't mean those who read the books after the films and enjoyed them, as they would likely have come to the books in any case, despite the films. So the films were made for the class of people who hate reading? Or are they made for those who like reading but couldn't be bothered with the books? I know I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Middlemarch, as it saved me reading a book I found unutterably dull; is it for this reason that the films were made? To save people from having to bother reading the books?

A final thought I had is that in many cases the books were adapted to such a ridiculous degree by the scriptwriters that many aspects of the story actually became more difficult to understand. One example is what they did to Aragorn in making him be such a reluctant heir to Gondor, and in the changes to Frodo, turning him into a victim. I've had to explain so many things in cases where parts of the story were changed from how they appear in the books; clearly, in many respects the films actually made Tolkien's world less accessible, and less explicable.

[Lalaith]

You know, in the same way as we now watch film adaptations from the 1960s and 1970s that were intended to be set in historical times, such as Tom Jones, and laugh at the anachronistic hairstyles and make-up, I wonder whether generations to come will watch movie adaptations such as LotR from our era and laugh at the psychobabble that has been inserted, as redolent of our obsessions with "emotional journeys" and "personal development" - the way that all characters, in order to be deemed interesting, have to explain constantly exactly how they are feeling, and how they feel slightly differently about something now, to the way they felt half an hour ago.

If y'all will allow me to veer slightly off-topic to illustrate this point: My OTHER favourite book of all time, I Capture the Castle, was also recently adapted for the cinema. And, would you believe it, the buggers did the same thing there. The original, despite being written as a first person narrative, was an intelligent story with plenty of room for the reader to draw his own conclusions and speculations as to motivation, past and present. The film's writer and director decided that they would create, and spell out, their own emotional hinterland for all the characters, and the story became a lot less interesting as a result.

This is the kind of dumbing down I dislike, even more than silly lines of script such as 'lets hunt some orc.' Lord of the Rings is heroic epic, for crying out loud. Why do we need Frodo, Aragorn or Theoden to be constantly blithering on about some inner angst they are having to conquer? Ben-Hur, Spartacus and all the old epic movie heroes didn't turn their audiences into therapists, they just got on with it.

[Essex]

Although if he had said, "No parent should have to bury his or her child," it really would have sounded awkward.I think I remember reading about this problem with the English language a while back. i.e. We don't have a word to use in the place of the singular 'his or her', and have the use the (grammitically incorrect) plural 'their'?

PS anyone want to join me in a sacrificial burning of the book mentioned above that says the films are better than the books? It's their opinion ok, but it's the wrong one!!!!!!!! ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

I have to admit that I find it strange how many people here are upset or annoyed by things in the films purely by reference to the books. I suppose that is inevitable with any adaptation of a book to film, particularly of one as well-written and well-loved as LotR. But it does seem to me sometimes that people here are going out of their way to find fault with the films.

As I have stated many times, I do not consider them to be perfect. But as films, they are some of the best that I have seen. And, as has been pointed out, they are there amongst the most popular and successful films ever made. So they must be doing something right.

I am sure that there are few (if any) here who would scrutinise any other film in quite the same depth to which they put the LotR films under the microscope. Of course, that's understandable, given that we are all here in consequence of a love of Tolkien's works. But woud you treat any other film in the same way? Personally, if I did not frequent this forum, then I would be blissfully unaware of about 90% of the criticisms that have been levelled against the films in this forum. Yes, I would be aware of the differences from the book, but most of those don't bother me. It is only those matters which are inconsistent or inexplicable within the context of the films themselves that concern me at all (and, to my mind, there are far less of those than the threads here might suggest). And, even then, they are not sufficient to impair my overall enjoyment of the films. Certainly, it would never occur to me to call into the question the likes of Theoden's line at his son's burial (which, grammatically correct or not, I thought was rather moving) or Galadriel's lines to Frodo in Lothlorien.

Tolkien was an exceptional story-teller with an in-depth knowledge of language and myth. Is it really any surprise that the screenplay does not fully do his lines justice? I should imagine that there are few writers around today who would have been able to write a script that would stand up fully in comparison with the lines that he wrote. Fewer still who would have been either able or willing to undertake the screenplay for these films. Perhaps they should have retained more of the original lines, but I was actually quite surprised at just how many they did retain (even though many were swapped between characters). Given that, on any view, major changes and omissions were inevitable in a translation of the book to screen, it was similarly inevitable that some of the lines would need to be re-written and additional lines added.

Perhaps I am just easily pleased. Perhaps I am strange in being able to separate the films from the books and enjoy them both without letting the one impair my enjoyment of the other. But I have never really understood why it is that people get so worked up about what I regard as fairly minor issues. As I see it, you either enjoy the films for what they are (and overlook their minor foibles) or you don't enjoy them (and don't watch them). Why should a "different take" on the characters or some dialogue which might seem at odds with the lines written by a man who was a master of language annoy you when you can sit and enjoy the films and then go and read the books and enjoy them even more? These are the kinds of questions that I always seem to find myself raising on threads like this, but I have never really got a satisfactory answer (or at least one that I can understand). I can come close to understanding those that say that the films are a huge disappointment compared to what they might have been. But would they really ever have been? And, in any event, I am one who tends to view the glass as half full rather than half empty. Or maybe, as I said, it's just because I am easily pleased.

Finally:


How could Tolkien's work be made more accessible? LotR was already one of the biggest selling works of all time, and most readers who were likely to have enjoyed it would have read it already anyway, unless they were too young to have done so by the time the films were released. It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version? Surely this means all those people who never read books anyway? It can't mean those who read the books after the films and enjoyed them, as they would likely have come to the books in any case, despite the films. So the films were made for the class of people who hate reading? Or are they made for those who like reading but couldn't be bothered with the books? I know I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Middlemarch, as it saved me reading a book I found unutterably dull; is it for this reason that the films were made? To save people from having to bother reading the books?I agree with you concerning the popularity of the book. But I would hazard a guess that the number of people (living today) who have read and enjoyed the book is still a small proportion of those who have seen and enjoyed the films. I do believe that there are many people who have read the book who would not have done so but for the films (particularly as my wife is one such person). But there are many more, I am sure, who have seen the films who will never read the book. Surprising as it may seem to us, there are many people in this world who would prefer to see a good film than read a good book. Books (or certain types of book) do not appeal to everybody. Neither does the kind of language that Tolkien uses appeal to everybody. There are many who simply saw the films as great action films - nothing more and nothing less (you know - they were the ones shifting uncomfortably in their seats during the final sequences ;) ). And fair play to them, if that is what they enjoy. Who are we to regard them as somehow inferior or "dumb"?

And that I would wager, is why the film-makers tried to (and quite clearly succeeded in) making the films accessible to as wide a range of film-goers as possible. If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down. But I do rather dislike that term, as it sems to me to be somewhat patronising towards those who have different tastes to us and perhaps want something slightly different from their films and books.

[Essex]

I have to admit that I find it strange how many people here are upset or annoyed by things in the films purely by reference to the books. But it does seem to me sometimes that people here are going out of their way to find fault with the films.Well said. I totally agree (not suprising). Some people seem to WANT to find fault in every part of the film.

But as films, they are some of the best that I have seen. They are the best films ever made IMO. (But this doesn't go against what I said in my last post. To say they are far superior to the books is IMO ridculous)

I am sure that there are few (if any) here who would scrutinise any other film in quite the same depth to which they put the LotR films under the microscope.Indeed, as I said earlier, we'll be here till doomsday discussing the films if we get down to grammatical issues (but yes, I've fallen into the trap, but am trying to explain Bernard Hill's use of words in my post)

Certainly, it would never occur to me to call into the question the likes of Theoden's line at his son's burial (which, grammatically correct or not, I thought was rather moving)I have had to bury one of my children, so yes, this is very moving and heartfelt to me. I know his sentiments entirely. IMO you do not know grief until the loss of someone close to you or that you love, especially a sibling.

Perhaps they should have retained more of the original lines, but I was actually quite surprised at just how many they did retain (even though many were swapped between characters). Yes, on re-reading the books, I was also surprised at how many of the lines WERE from Tolkien. Although I've yet to do this for the last film, but hey, this gives me an excuse to read it again!

[ohtatyaro]

It is not exactly a difficult or daunting read, so I wonder who are these people who would never have read LotR and had to have this accessible version

um... foreigners? That is, me? Probably? Sure, I was provided the books by a friend, but, I mean, I asked for them after I watched the movies.

:D

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, my disclaimer. ;) I love the films, as they are the only decent films of my favourite book, and on the whole, Jackson did a wonderful job, but they are not perfect. Is this that they simply are not perfect or that they do not live up to my expectations given that LotR is something of a sacred text to me? A bit of both, I think, but I've still watched them over and over and I collect memorabilia, so that should tell you that I do like them.

I do believe that there are many people who have read the book who would not have done so but for the films (particularly as my wife is one such person).

This is one benefit that the films did bring, more Tolkien fans, and more chances to talk Tolkien. Though I'm sure that there is a little something inside all long time fans that feels as though a secret has been torn away from them, alongside that feeling of pride that we were there before the films. That's quite an honest thing to admit, I'm sure, but nevertheless its something that may have a bearing on exactly why many long time fans have such a critical tendency. ;)

But there are many more, I am sure, who have seen the films who will never read the book. Surprising as it may seem to us, there are many people in this world who would prefer to see a good film than read a good book. Books (or certain types of book) do not appeal to everybody. Neither does the kind of language that Tolkien uses appeal to everybody. There are many who simply saw the films as great action films - nothing more and nothing less (you know - they were the ones shifting uncomfortably in their seats during the final sequences ). And fair play to them, if that is what they enjoy. Who are we to regard them as somehow inferior or "dumb"?

But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment. If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.

I could use the analogy of a good and a bad teacher. The good teacher has a class of 15 year old boys who want to do nothing more than mess around with their mates, but he/she presents lessons on poetry and Shakespeare which hopefully engage them. The bad teacher assumes they won't want to know this kind of thing anyway and so denies them the opportunity, instead focussing on such 'useful skills' as writing job applications and so forth. In the same way, there are people who think "art" is simply not for them and prefer to tune into reality TV etc. That's their choice of course, but they are denying themselves much pleasure. Sometimes I wonder if I would be happier not questioning things and just to get on with life without ever troubling my grey matter; after all, who is the happier? Who can say? But I think Tolkien's writing was spectacular enough to have been left umtampered with and the audiences would still have come rolling in, and it was a missed opportunity to get across some of that beauty.

And a "good on you" to anyone who has come to love the books from watching the films, as they must have found the language quite a weird experience after the way it was often used in the films.

If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down. But I do rather dislike that term, as it sems to me to be somewhat patronising towards those who have different tastes to us and perhaps want something slightly different from their films and books.

As to the general idea of "dumbing down", I don't find it patronising at all. To me, to dumb down is to render complex things into simplistic things. And all too often, dumbing down consists of removing that which is considered challenging or difficult. It in effect denies people the chance to decide for themselves. To me it does not refer to something which is in its essence different to the 'high-brow', but to media/cultural products which have been altered. The Sun could not be seen as 'dumbed down' because it never was 'high brow', but if The Times started producing articles which were like those seen in The Sun then that would be dumbing down. I think my working class 'chip' is coming out now; too many years spent under the assumption I am not intelligent enough to grapple with 'big words' has made me a keen defender of our right to learn and use those 'big words'. I'll slink off now and read some Walter Greenwood ;)

[lindil]

Originally Posted by davem
I think that's why they fail for me - this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond, though we know at first he held out little hope for that. I've just finished reading 'The Lord of the Rings:The Films. the Books, The Radio Series' by Jim Smith & J Clive Matthews (Virgin Books) & their opinion is that the movies improved on the books immeasurably. They criticise Tolkien on virtually every page while praising Jackson & the writers for putting right all his numerous 'faults'.
I agree that the movies were dumbed down, though I am sure PJ would characterize it differently.

Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit'.
I have been criticized for using the 'bastardized' word in regards to PJ and his work before, but it really works best in a literal way.

PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.

In virtually every case where he invents [or approves PB's inventions] the result is often pitiful.

I mean seriously, would any sane person not want to use absolutely as much of JRRT's dialogue as possible? Any substitution of JRRT's dialogue w/ recently fabricated hollywoodisms is and was a sad thing.

I wanted to like the movies I reallty did, and can pretty much enjoy the exp. FotR. but I lost all interest in the films after RotK. We have the expanded RotK, but I have never wanted to endure another watching to see what the actors and Howe and Lee managed top salvage of PJ's attack on M-E. :rolleyes:

So I concur wholeheartedly Beleg C, it was dumbed down, and maybe it truly had to be, but then, maybe better to not do it, or maybe as Alf says in Smith of Wooten Major, "better a glimpse of Fairy than none of all".

-------------------------

addendum

Lalwende makes a few excellent points about old-timers and criticism and they all c ertainly apply to me. But I would say this, If the movie wee done with the same love of Tolkien and integrity as this website and forum is run by the Admins, it would have been a true masterpiece in far more peoples eyes.

Accomadations to modern tastes may be sweet for a season but it will never endure as long or deeply as JRRT's writings. They movies are destined I imagine to be a more than a footnote, but not much more, in the History of M-E.

Lalawende posted:But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment. If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.
A long quote but 100% spot on imo.

[Formendacil]

I think I remember reading about this problem with the English language a while back. i.e. We don't have a word to use in the place of the singular 'his or her', and have the use the (grammitically incorrect) plural 'their'?

"No parent should have to bury its child."

Okay, I admit that sounds even worse than "their", but I had to say it....

Personally, I agree that Theoden would have been more likely to say "No father should have to bury his son." than the in-movie version, had he expressed such a sentiment out loud. Had it been a daughter who had died, he would have said daughter. Had it been a female character, she would have said mother (not father). Really, gender-inclusiveness has been taken too far.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

These films can be twisted to suit any propoganda.

You dare criticise? You patronise me!

You dare to love? You are dumb.

The films were dumbed-down; even those who do not like the expression still concede this when we consider the usual accepted definition of the term. Never let anyone tell you that you are an imbecile for caring as much about the films as you do about the book. However, it must be accepted by all right-minded people that the films are a pale imitation of the book.

Now I'm not knocking pale imitations: after all, I myself usually pose as a pale imitation of an intelligent person! *groan*

But facts are facts. Theoden's death scene in the book is better than anything ever seen on Big Brother. Opinions reflect truth.

[Eruanna]

As much as I love the books, I am also a huge fan of the films. Perhaps because I do not expect every word of the page to be literally translated to the screen.
As to charges that certain characters would never say 'such and such', perhaps this is true of some, but I fail to see why Galadriel would not try to make a humble, doubting little Hobbit feel better about himself and his appointed task, by speaking to him in plainer and kinder terms.
In the interview with Bernard Hill on the ee TT, he says that he himself asked PJ if he could say the line; "No parent should have to bury their child." The line had a personal resonance for someone he knew and he was pleased when PJ agreed. As a parent myself, I found the line (and his acting) very moving and was certainly not about to leap on his lapse of grammar.

The films may indeed have been 'dumbed down' but in my opinion only slightly. Peter Jackson and his team did a wonderful job in filming what many had said were unfilmable books, far better than I had ever imagined.

Give that man an Oscar...oh, they did :cool:

[Lalaith]

I abase myself humbly to those who accuse me of nitpicking about Theoden's line at the tomb. They are absolutely right - it is nitpicking. (Although it wasn't the grammatical subtlities of "their" or "its" or "his/her" that bothered me)
But I also still maintain that this line, while full of truth and resonance to us, in the 21st century - and my especial respect and sympathy to those of my fellow Downers for whom it has personal meaning - is still not the right thing for a king of Rohan to say. He is the king of a people who would have seen so many of their children die of disease, their young men die in battle, and so on. What I was trying to get at, by talking about this line to illustrate my point, is that it seemed to me one of those moments, if not perhaps the most obvious one, that was shoehorned in for the sake of Relevance To A Modern Audience.
But do you want to make a classic, timeless piece of art, or something that might, in 20 years time, feel too much 'of its time' to be anything other than a dated if charming period piece? I'm not a snob about film, I think it can be art in the same way as literature, music or painting. But if you spend too much time listening to the focus groups about how it's going to play to the 15-17 year olds of Armpit, Arkansas in December 2003, then you're going to lose a lot in the process.
There were many moments in the movie trilogy when I felt moved, in the way that I do by great art, and I pay tribute to the creators of the films for their achievement. The trilogy is a masterpiece, I think, but nonetheless a flawed masterpiece.

[davem]

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:


Heren Istarion. Do you feel there is justification for the changes made to characters in the films?

I have a love/hate relationship with Jackson's films. I love the look and feel of the films and the exquisite detail put into the production. For the most part, I also enjoyed the earnestness and integrity with which the actors portrayed their characters; Jackson's attitude of approaching the films as if they were shooting history rather than fantasy contributes to the things that make me happy about the films. On the "hate" side of the equation I have to place the scriptwriting and the film editing (i.e., the manipulation of the storyline). I am most appalled by the way some characters have been shifted off plumb and torqued to serve a dramatic purpose that has little to do with Tolkien's story.

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

I also highly dislike the misuse (and deliberate misreading) of Faramir. I really don't buy the excuses the scriptwriters have given for this change, and feel compelled to point out that it's important for Faramir to mirror Aragorn in his ability to withstand the lure of the ring and to see the greater vision of where Middle-earth is headed. Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. Denethor is yet another problem. In the books, he is stern, with the potential to become a tyrant, but he's a genuinely noble, capable leader for much of his stewardship. Tolkien says he's the closest the line of Stewards has come in many years to the Númenóreans of old. It's Denethor's belief that he has the High Númenórean ability (supra-human strength of will) to challenge Sauron through use of the palantír that erodes his leadership into madness. In the films he is just a crazy old pig of a despot who hates his second son for no apparent reason. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

And Elrond… eh, don't get me started. Hugo Weaving certainly looks the part and acts with dignity, but the scriptwriters have turned him into a cranky, frowning, angry old Elf who shows no love at all toward his foster son Aragorn. I think the Hobbits were better served than Men and Elves by the scripts. But the films certainly are beautiful to look at, and the music is rapturous for most of the ride.

(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmanole/PettyInterview.html)

[Lalaith]

I enjoyed reading that, thank you davem. And I agree with her....and I also have to agree with this quote from the interview:
Do you feel that Tolkien's humanity and world concerns come across in Peter Jackson's film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings?

That is perhaps where Jackson's films most closely resemble Tolkien's great story
I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Some comments by Anne C Petty in this with Herenistarion (no, not him)interview seem relevant here:




(Whole interview: http://www.herenistarion.org/parmanole/PettyInterview.html)

Wow! Thanks davem, great interview. That's my thinking exactly. http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/35.gif

[Eruanna]

Originally quoted by Davem:

I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

And yet one of the most sympathetic characters in the books, Faramir, is perhaps the worst written in the films. His characterisation is one of my few 'niggles'.

I saw this quote by Professor Tolkien and thought it was quite ironic, considering how much emphasis some place on the sanctity of his writing:

"A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, but there he came walking through the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."

[Ainaserkewen]

I’ve always had a certain mentality about Blockbuster movies. When I say Blockbuster I mean massively advertised, many theater-ed, multi-cultural, hugely popular movies...like Lord of the Rings. The way I view such movies is that they are entertainment. They are made for the “silver screen” as to be enjoyed by all that chose to see them. They entertain you with emotions, ideas, characters, plots, visual effects et cetera, and there is no reason to believe that if you pay to see a movie, that you will get anything more out of it. To me, that is a good blockbuster. In comparison, there are other movies and forms of story-telling art that are meant to contain more. Those types of stories are not made to make money or to be popular, simply to exist as what they are and what they were intended to be.

"more strong female presence is required to make a marketable film"
Marketable is exactly it. Blockbusters are meant to make money and if they happen to have elements in them that would turn some audience members, then what’s the harm in correcting those elements?

Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible. No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I really think we are getting dumber as a culture.
I tried to think of an argument to this statement but depressingly, I can’t think of a good one. As a species we have become more advanced, more civilised, and more complicated than ever recently, but at the same time the value of intelligence and philosophy and downright thinking has decreased. This may just be my teenaged mind talking, I welcome arguments to this particular opinion of mine.

Perhaps I am strange in being able to separate the films from the books and enjoy them both without letting the one impair my enjoyment of the other. No, that is how such things are meant to be viewed. Blockbuster movies are meant to be entertainment, if you thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was entertaining, then it was a good movie. The books however, are on a different and deeper playing field where much more is expected of them. People are far more choosy about the books they read and eventually enjoy than the movies they like and see. The only books that defy this explanation at Harry Potter, but that’s a completely different argument.

I abase myself humbly to those who accuse me of nitpicking about Theoden's line at the tomb. They are absolutely right - it is nitpicking.
I would think that the “nitpicking” is a compliment. If it truly was a terrible drought of movies then we wouldn’t like to complain so much would we?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.


Yes this is a problem. Besides the fact it's one of the things I missed very much from the books, it also fails to explain why so many men are willing to follow this man, this ranger, who’s shown as not much more then being good with a sword. There’s not really any majesty to him like there is in the books. He doesn’t want to be the king, in sharp contrast to the books, where it mentions Aragorn seeming to grow taller when he reviles himself from time to time he seemed “Tall as the sea-kings of old, he stood above all that were near; ancient of days he seemed and yet in the flower of manhood; and wisdom sat upon his brow, and strength and healing were in his hands, and a light was about him.” it’s just something I would have liked to see.

Sorry I don’t have much time to make this post very good.

[tar-ancalime]

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve. :(

In my original post, perhaps I was too hotheaded about the grammar and not emphatic enough about what really bothers me: as other people have pointed out, the tone and style of the dialogue is not consistent through the films, even within the lines of individual characters. To my ear, this line of Theoden's is a modern linguistic insertion (as well as a modern sentiment, as Lalaith rightly points out) into a film that, while outside of any historical chronology, is definitely not set in the modern day. For me, this line is just as clunky and out of place as "Game over" or "That's because my axe is embedded in his spinal cord" or Gandalf's "on our tail" line, for exactly the same reason.

Also, I really do love these films--I wouldn't know them well enough to pick out the (relatively few) lines that bother me if I hadn't seen them multiple times, right? And Theodred's funeral is one of my favorite scenes of all the films, so perhaps that's why this one tiny linguistic nit sticks out to me as ripe for the picking.

[InklingElf]

I thought the movies were beautifuly made. While the standards of modernity often tweeks the device of appeal (such actors as Bloom etc.) in book-based movies I think it is safe to say that there is really no point in complaining about the little things...

OK I admit - that Legolas scene with the surf/shield board jig was a tad bit too macho but OH the cinematography. As a whole the movies are a piece of art and I admire Jackson for his visual genius - keeping in mind to slightly adjust some aesthetic aspect of the text -> movie to engross younger audiences - and namely people who have not read any of the books.

I don't think anyone could do a better job than Mr. PJ though

As Lalaith said before I'm not a snob about film, I think it can be art in the same way as literature, music or painting. But if you spend too much time listening to the focus groups about how it's going to play to the 15-17 year olds of Armpit, Arkansas in December 2003, then you're going to lose a lot in the process.

[davem]

No, they really don’t. I could bring up hundreds of screen adaptations recent and old that are not only a reflection of the original author of the books their based on, but more so a reflection of the people who made the movie. Some people go see movies that are made by their favourite directors or screen writers, or Bob Anderson (I look for the movies he helped with now). Specifically, it’s the director’s style that will become more important to the audience, after all, it’s their work to make the movie, not the author’s.

I'd still defend the 'moral obligation' point. Certainly they don't have any legal obligation to respect an author's views/moral position, but I think there should be respect among artists for each other's work. They've put Tolkien's name on these movies & made numerous references to him in interviews & thanked him when they've recieved their awards, etc, so as far as I'm concerned they taken that moral responsibility onto themselves.

Adapting a work of literature into a movie, rather than coming up with your own story, does impose certain moral obligations of respect for the original artist & their work. As Petty has pointed out in the interview, they have misrepresented characters like Aragorn, Faramir & Denethor, & rather than making them more 'real' & psychologically complex have actually reduced them to Hollywood stereotypes. They've done this purely to produce 'popular' movies which would make money. They have dumbed down the story & watered down the meaning. I keep quoting from a review in Mallorn, I know, but I think the point stands: 'Jackson clearly thinks Lord of the Rings is an action movie in book form.' But its not. Neither should it been seen as a 'first draft screenplay', to be improved upon in order to make it more 'accessible'. For one thing, if Tolkien himself had thought that way we'd either have no LotR at all, or we'd have got a very bland, shallow, 'Dungeons & Dragons' style fantasy which would have been a nine days wonder in the mid fifties & then disappeared forever.

The Downs, all the other Tolkien sites, & even the movies themselves, exist because Tolkien spent time & effort producing a profound, complex, moving & beautiful tale. His motivation was not 'popularity' or cash, but art.

In short, if his motivations had been the same as PJ & New Line then there wouldn't have been anything for them to make a movie of because by now The Lord of the Rings would only be remembered as a failed sequel to The Hobbit.

There are many things in the movies I do like - Theodred's Funeral being one - but overall I think they fail to be what they should & could have been...

[Lalwendë]

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that. I thought I would extract and look at one aspect of the films which fails in comparison with the books, and that is the whole New Faramir episode.

I still fail to work out what the changes mean in terms of the revised plot as they simply do not fit into the narrative. If New Faramir has indeed been enraptured by the Ring, and he is taking it to Minas Tirith then what is the moment of realisation that he has done wrong? Is it when the Ringwraith appears above Osgiliath? Surely if he has indeed been enraptured then he is going to fight this Ringwraith in order to keep the Ring? And why does Frodo offer it up to the Ringwraith when he has been so successful in hiding it throughout? Why does the Ringwraith then not report back to Sauron on the whereabouts of the Ring, thus changing the eventual outcome of the story? These are just some of the puzzled questions that people who have not read the books have asked me.

I wondered why Jackson decided to alter this and I found this (http://www.greencine.com/article?1=1&action=view&articleID=62&pageID=104) interview with himself and Boyens. His reasons for the changes are simply not justifiable. He says of New Faramir:

we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules.

But this does not follow on from the storytelling he has been doing. Frodo has already offered the Ring to various characters who have all recoiled in horror at the very suggestion that they take the Ring, so Faramir too should reject the Ring, if he is indeed a ‘good’ person on the same level as Aragorn or Gandalf. Instead, this episode detracts from the good nature of Faramir, as it makes him appear to have doubts, and ultimately, it ruins the whole plot line as it simply does not make sense. I shall be cynical here and wonder if the real reason behind the change was to get better value from the money spent on the Osgiliath set and the Fell Beast FX.

Jackson is a great film-maker, but neither he nor anyone else on his team comes close to Tolkien as a storyteller. LotR is not as simple a tale as your average bestselling novel, it has layers and complexities beyond imagining, and it’s risky to remove too many layers as eventually you will pull out the wrong one. It really does make me want to smack my head when I think of how easily he could have let the story alone and not created these plot holes, as the films are great renditions of Middle Earth. Did he make these alterations through over-confidence or was it due to financial reasons? Will we ever know? :rolleyes:

[the phantom]

I skimmed the thread and I see a lot of people who think Jackson somehow made the films more relevant and accessible. First, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to change something awesome. Second, I think if the movies would've been done without adding silly little lines and making every character weak and flawed that the movie would've been far more enjoyable.

Besides, the visuals and such alone were good enough to fill up the theater. The movie could've been about a Dwarf boy band and quite a few people still would've filled the seats because the scenery, sound, and action sequences were great. I seriously doubt making the movie true to the book would've hampered attendance.

Plus, Jackson did not make the movie more accessible.

I recently watched all three movies with a few of my friends. None of them had ever watched the movies before (they hadn't read the books either).

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?
(answer- same as before)
5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Theoden try to get all those guys to help him before?
(answer- same)
6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?
(answer- same)

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

And of course, I also mentioned at the end that Faramir and Aragorn weren't really that weak and Frodo didn't really send Sam home (and a few other little things). My friends said "Well, why the heck did they change it? It would've been better that way."

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

I love what Davem said-
this desire to be 'relevant & accessible'. I don't think this played much of a part in Tolkien's thinking. He told the story in the way that felt 'right' & hoped readers would respond
That's the way the movies should've been done. It wouldn't have hurt sales and the movie would've been better.

PJ's movies are some of the best ever, but they could've been better. He took them down from what they could've been pretty much every time he changed something from the book.

If PJ really wanted to make the movie more accessible he would've-
1) combined Sauron and Saruman
2) trimmed the Fellowship to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, and Gandalf
3) replaced Faramir with Boromir (and have him try to take the Ring in Ithilien)
4) leave out Arwen and have Aragorn end up with Eowyn
5) have Gandalf beat the Balrog and not die
6) leave out the Ents
7) make Sauron a bad elf and Gandalf an old man (so there's no maia-caused confusion)
8) leave out Celeborn (some people think the book did anyway)
9) have the characters continually get out a map and point to where they are
10) have the characters talk in third person (so we hear their names more often)
11) leave out the bit with the Ring

[The Saucepan Man]

Fascinating thread. And I’m beginning to get a sense of just why some people are disappointed, irritated or just downright angry over the films in some of the comments that have been made:


… my feeling has always been that if they didn't want to be as faithful as possible to Tolkien's work they should have written their own story & filmed that. Once you choose to adapt an author's work you have a moral obligation to be as faithful as possible.

Is this that they simply are not perfect or that they do not live up to my expectations given that LotR is something of a sacred text to me? A bit of both, I think …

Tolkien created a masterpeice. PJ a bastardized 'hit' … PJ took something refined, morally uplifting, challenging, linguistically subtle and powerful and did something very different and very hollywood with it.I get the feeling that, as far as many here are concerned, Lalwendë is spot on with her description of LotR as a “sacred text”. The book is, of course important to all of us here and that is clearly what is behind our tendency to analyse the films down to the nth degree. But to some, it has clearly taken on a greater significance to the extent that they feel protective of it and react negatively towards any attempt to reproduce it in a form which they do not believe lives up to Tolkien’s high standards and ideals. I do not criticise this approach, and I think we all share it to some degree or other. I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made, particularly in TTT. But, although LotR is a book close to my heart (and has been ever since I first read it many years ago) and one in which I can find ideas and themes applicable to my life, it is not, to me, a “sacred text” in the same way as I think many here regard it. And so my reaction to the films is far less pronounced than others. I can accept them for what they are rather than view them as an imperfect rendition of an invaluable masterpiece.

If you don’t agree, just ask yourself whether you would feel as strongly about a film adaptation of another classic novel, one which you don’t have particularly strong feelings for? Would you see it as a source of irritation? A bastardisation? A failure of a moral duty? Or would it not really bother you, on the basis that the original novel is still there for its aficionados to enjoy? I know what my reaction would be.

And so to that awful phrase, “dumbing down”. What does it mean?


But this is the very essence of dumbing down, that we should automatically assume that some people would be unwilling or unable to grasp, appreciate and enjoy more high-falutin' arts and entertainment.My main problem with the phrase is that it assumes, by the very nature of the words used, that those for whom things are “dumbed down” are indeed dumb. But I reject that assumption, in the field of arts at least. I do think that the phrase is applicable in the case of news, where it is assumed (perhaps correctly) that news must be simplified in order to be made accessible to everyone. To my mind, if people are not interested in having the news presented to them objectively and in its entirety, then they are dumb. I see the simplification, yes the “dumbing down”, of news as dangerous as it carries with it the risk of misinformation and manipulation.

But it’s different in the field of arts (and I use this term in its broadest sense). There is no danger in presenting people with art (whether it be films, books, theatre, visual art or television) in a format which appeals most strongly to them and with which they therefore feel most comfortable. And people who do not enjoy “high falutin’” art are not necessarily “dumber” than those who do. They simply have different tastes. I am a great fan of many aspects of pop culture. I prefer pop music to classical music. I am a great fan of reality programmes (or was, until they started to wear a bit thin). But I would not regard myself as dumb (no comments please ;) ).


To me, to dumb down is to render complex things into simplistic things. And all too often, dumbing down consists of removing that which is considered challenging or difficult. It in effect denies people the chance to decide for themselves. To me it does not refer to something which is in its essence different to the 'high-brow', but to media/cultural products which have been altered.But it seems to me that this is an artificial distinction. If one adapts or translates a work of art in order to meet a (perceived) demand, then one is essentially creating a new work of art. And if it is necessary (or perceived as necessary) to simplify it or make it less challenging in order to meet that demand, because that is what its intended audience wants, then I don’t see a problem with that. But it does not follow that the intended audience is in any way dumb, and so I regard the expression “dumbing down” as entirely inappropriate in this context.


I think my working class 'chip' is coming out now; too many years spent under the assumption I am not intelligent enough to grapple with 'big words' has made me a keen defender of our right to learn and use those 'big words'.Well perhaps I am revealing my middle-class liberal credentials when I say that I thoroughly agree that everyone should have the right to learn and use those “big words”, but that I don’t believe that it is something which should be forced on them. If, despite the accessibility of The Guardian or The Times, they still want to read The Sun, then that’s fine with me. If, despite the availability of Dickens, Orwell and Austen, they still want to read Archer and Collins, then so be it. If, despite there being some arty French film on the other channel, I still want to watch Big Brother, then that is my right.

Clearly, one of the objectives of the films was to appeal to as many people as possible. I do not believe that this was Jackson’s primary motivation, nor the primary motivation of most of those involved in their production. But it was clearly a major consideration, particularly for the studio and those backing the films. I accept that it was not Tolkien’s motivation in writing the book, and I accept that the book has ended up having broad appeal nevertheless. But self-evidently, the films would never have been made, at least not in a form that captured Middle-earth so wonderfully from a visual perspective, had commercial considerations not come into it. And because such considerations did come into it, they had to appeal - and therefore be made relevant and accessible to - as wide an audience as possible. Is that wrong? Does that mean that they should never have been made? Does that make them somehow immoral? I don’t think so for simple reason that they are meeting a demand and, in so doing, bringing pleasure to millions (and, I might add, doing no harm to anyone or anything, least of all Tolkien’s reputation). If they were not, then they would not be so successful.


The films were dumbed-down; even those who do not like the expression still concede this when we consider the usual accepted definition of the term. Well, I said “If that is "dumbing down", then yes the films were dumbed down”, but I hope that it will be clear from what I have said above that I regard that expression as inappropriate in this context. Yes, it was made more relevant and accessible for modern audiences. Yes, Legolas’ boyish good-looks and acrobatic antics were included to appeal to particular sections of the audience. Yes, the language was simplified and updated. Yes, the characters were changed with the intention of making them more appealing and/or credible to modern audiences (whether you agree or disagree that they succeeded, that was their intention). But I do not believe that anyone who would have been disinclined to see the films as a result of the absence of any one or more of these factors is any more dumb than someone who found them irritating, unnecessary and/or gratuitous. I would not therefore say that they were “dumbed down”, but rather that they were simplified and updated and their appeal was broadened. As I have said above, I do not see anything wrong in that. Whatever may have been lost in the translation from book to screen is still there in the book.

So did this process of “simplifying, updating and broadening the appeal of” the films make them:
any better; or
any more popular or successful
than they might otherwise have been?

The first question is an easy one. Whether or not they were better is a subjective one, depending on the tastes of the individual. Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.


If the films had retained the more complex language and concepts then they would not have repelled anybody. Case in point, the well known BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice did not shy away from Austen's wonderful, yet to us somewhat archaic, dialogue and it was an immense success. Tarantino films are linguistically and symbolically complex but this does not prevent hordes of youths from adoring those films, and likewise, the Matrix trilogy got extremely thorny at times, but there was enough action and 'cool' stuff going on to keep the audiences coming through the doors. There is more than enough action in LotR to grip a non-reading audience and so there was simply no need to denegrate so much of the beautiful language from the books.We can never really know for sure if the films would have been more successful if they had remained more faithful to, and retained more of the original language of, the book. My own sense is that they would have been successful, but less so. They would have been successful in the way that adaptations of the likes of Jane Austen are successful: respectably so but nothing spectacular. Certainly nothing on the scale of the LotR trilogy. A good thing? Perhaps, although they might then never have been made. And even if they had been, many who might otherwise have seen the films would not have seen them. And that would have been a shame for them, particularly as a proportion of such viewers will have discovered the book through the films.

As for Tarantino’s films and the Matrix trilogy, well I would hardly describe them as “high brow”. They are examples of pop culture. And, again, none of these enjoyed the critical or popular success of the LotR trilogy. And, personally, I found the pseudo-intellectual philosophising of the second of the Matrix films so off-putting that I couldn’t be bothered with the third (my opinion, I know).

I should add (in references to the phantom’s point) that individual experiences provide little evidence of a film’s broad popularity (and therefore, relevance and accessibility). Critics’ reviews, awards and, most important of all, audience figures, provide much better evidence. And it seems to me that, on the basis of that evidence, it cannot be denied that they have succeeded in gaining mass appeal. Indeed, the only criticism of the films that I have ever read in media reviews of the films is that they were too long and should have ended with Aragorn’s coronation. Imagine what a furore there would have been here if Frodo had not ended up sailing West! :eek:

Finally (do I hear heavy sighs of relief ;) ), with regard to the changes made to the script - and Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh should take most of the credit/criticism (depending on your perspective) here:


The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that.I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better. But that would be asking a lot. It is inevitable, in adapting a book of the complexity and length of LotR to film (even 12 hours’ worth of film), that elements of the story, often quite lengthy and important ones, will have to be left out. I think that, had they been able to achieve this without the (to my mind limited) number of inconsistencies that are present in the films, it would have been an amazing feat. As to the specific example you raise, I do not see film Faramir as succumbing to the Ring. He does not want it for himself, but to prove himself to his father. The fact that he takes the Hobbits by force to Osgiliath and subsequently decides to let them go free is little different to the series of events in the book, when he takes them to force to Henneth Annun and then decides to let them go free. It just takes place over a longer period and wider geography. The incident with Frodo and the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

But, given the changes that had to be made, a substantial degree of re-writing was necessary. And, as I have said, they were attempting to re-write the lines of a masterful story-teller and linguistic expert extraordinaire. How many of us could have done Tolkien’s lines justice, retained a (broadly) coherent script, and made it appealing to a wide range of the film-going public? In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that the adapted screenplay Oscar was well-deserved.

And quite clearly, to my mind, there are aspects of Tolkien’s writing that would seem strange to modern day sensibilities. It seems to me that Theoden’s line at his son’s burial is a case in point.


But I also still maintain that this line, while full of truth and resonance to us, in the 21st century - and my especial respect and sympathy to those of my fellow Downers for whom it has personal meaning - is still not the right thing for a king of Rohan to say.I agree entirely. But wouldn’t it seem strange to modern audiences, and wouldn’t it alienate Theoden to a degree in their eyes, if he did not grieve over the loss of his son in this way? One might ask why modern readers don’t react in this way to the book. I don’t doubt that there are readers who find it peculiar that Theoden hardly grieves for his son. But I also think that it is easier convincingly to portray an entire culture, one quite alien to our own in many ways, in print than it is to do so on celluloid.

[Lalaith]

Here, out of interest, is an authentic bit of 10th century parental grief, which I thought was quite appropriate to Theoden:

But strength to cope
I could not muster,
so me seemed,
with my son's slayer:
soon will it be seen by all
how helpless
the hoary warrior.

(excerpt from the long poem Sonatorrek, or Loss of Sons, by the Viking poet Egill Skallagrimsson)

[the phantom]

I should add (in references to the phantom’s point) that individual experiences provide little evidence of a film’s popularity (and therefore, relevance and accessibility). Critics’ reviews, awards and, most important of all, audience figures, provide much better evidence.
You do realize I was never trying to say that the movie would've been more popular? My whole point was that had they been faithful to the book it would've done next to nothing to popularity. It would've done next to nothing to awards and critics.

Almost every last thing that was good about the movie (what made it popular) was all Tolkien. The experiences of my friends watching the movie were included to demonstrate that much of what Jackson added got in the way.

Making the movie "right" would've cleared up the PJ problems, made us happier, and likely not done a thing to popularity.

And also, considering that every person I have watched the film with has been confused by at least one of Jackson's add-ons, I think that my "individual experience" does matter. My individual experience is a testament to PJ not making the movie easier to understand.

And if he didn't make it easier to understand then how was he making it more accessible for the masses? Yes, Saucepan Man, it was very popular and accessible, but you don't seem to get that it does not mean the same thing as more popular and accessible.

(Plus, if "individual experience" doesn't matter then why the heck are we posting? Why are we giving opinions on anything? We should just say "LOTR sold a lot of tickets and won a lot of awards so we can't say anything about it. We can't talk about making changes. It was obviously popular so there's no way we can make it any better.")

[The Saucepan Man]

You do realize I was never trying to say that the movie would've been more popular?Of course I do. I think we can both agree that, as they stand, the films achieved mass broad appeal. We cannot know whether the films would have been as successful or more successful without the changes that were made with the intention of making them more accessible, but my feeling is that, your experience notwithstanding, they would not have been.


My whole point was that had they been faithful to the book it would've done next to nothing to popularity. It would've done next to nothing to awards and critics.I disagree but, as I said, we can only speculate.


I think that my "individual experience" does matter.Of course it matters. I am not saying that it is not relevant to the discussion. I am simply saying that, on an evidential basis, it doesn't convince me that these films would have been as successful had they remained more faithful to, or retained more of the language of, the book. But, when I look at the critical and box-office success of the films and I consider that Jackson and co were clearly intending to make the films more relevant and successful, I tend to think that they succeeded in doing so.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

The books, as I see them, are intricately constructed, and to remove crucial elements of the story risks failure. Jackson effectively rewrote parts of the story, and he did fail at that. I thought I would extract and look at one aspect of the films which fails in comparison with the books, and that is the whole New Faramir episode.

I still fail to work out what the changes mean in terms of the revised plot as they simply do not fit into the narrative. If New Faramir has indeed been enraptured by the Ring, and he is taking it to Minas Tirith then what is the moment of realization that he has done wrong? Is it when the Ringwraith appears above Osgiliath? Surely if he has indeed been enraptured then he is going to fight this Ringwraith in order to keep the Ring? And why does Frodo offer it up to the Ringwraith when he has been so successful in hiding it throughout? Why does the Ringwraith then not report back to Sauron on the whereabouts of the Ring, thus changing the eventual outcome of the story? These are just some of the puzzled questions that people who have not read the books have asked me.

I wondered why Jackson decided to alter this and I found this (http://www.greencine.com/article?1=1&action=view&articleID=62&pageID=104) interview with himself and Boyens. His reasons for the changes are simply not justifiable. He says of New Faramir:

[QUOTE=Lalwendë]we've spent a lot of time in the last film and in this one to establish this ring as incredibly powerful. Then to suddenly come to a character that says, "Oh, I'm not interested in that," to suddenly go against everything that we've established ourselves is sort of going against our own rules.

That’s easy to see how they would think that way after making Aragorn expound about his “weakness” Faramir had almost full Númenorean blood (Boromir and Denethor did not) this is funny in context with Elrond saying “the blood of Númenor is almost spent” as if it were a bad thing, but if we believe Aragorn’s whole weakness act then maybe that a good thing.


But this does not follow on from the storytelling he has been doing. Frodo has already offered the Ring to various characters who have all recoiled in horror at the very suggestion that they take the Ring, so Faramir too should reject the Ring, if he is indeed a ‘good’ person on the same level as Aragorn or Gandalf. Instead, this episode detracts from the good nature of Faramir, as it makes him appear to have doubts, and ultimately, it ruins the whole plot line as it simply does not make sense. I shall be cynical here and wonder if the real reason behind the change was to get better value from the money spent on the Osgiliath set and the Fell Beast FX.

Jackson is a great film-maker, but neither he nor anyone else on his team comes close to Tolkien as a storyteller. LotR is not as simple a tale as your average bestselling novel, it has layers and complexities beyond imagining, and it’s risky to remove too many layers as eventually you will pull out the wrong one. It really does make me want to smack my head when I think of how easily he could have let the story alone and not created these plot holes, as the films are great renditions of Middle Earth. Did he make these alterations through over-confidence or was it due to financial reasons? Will we ever know? :rolleyes:

Yeah that’s the thing. The Lord of the Rings is so tightly woven together that if you change to many things then you make all those plot holes. I mean I can appreciate left out Tom Bombadil, and shortened the council of Elrond; those are things that can be done for the films sake.

[Lalaith]

Oh Beleg, Book-Denethor *did* have almost pure Numenorean blood. The movie people decided for reasons best known to themselves to have Gandalf say that Denethor was just like Boromir. In the book Gandalf says the opposite - he was more like Faramir, albeit corrupted. Was this a change for the sake of dumbing down, or for some other reason? Who knows....

[Formendacil]

Faramir had almost full Númenorean blood (Boromir and Denethor did not).

How is this? Faramir and Boromir had the same parents. One of which was Denethor. Boromir's ancestry is the same as Faramir's.

I get what you're saying about Faramir having received a much purer strain of Numenorian traits than his brother, but it would be wrong to say that Faramir is more Numenorian-like than their father.

Denethor was the most Numenorian-esque Steward in generations. It says so quite clearly in the books. It also says that Faramir takes after Denethor in this respect. Of course, they have totally different personal values, but that isn't a matter of blood...

*NOTE: I am, of course, referring to the real, book, characters, in keeping with the replied-to posts. In the movie, the fact that Denethor, Boromir, and Faramir are of Numenorian descent isn't even acknowledged, much less the fact that Denethor and Faramir had inherited many of its strengths.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

I skimmed the thread and I see a lot of people who think Jackson somehow made the films more relevant and accessible. First, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to change something awesome. Second, I think if the movies would've been done without adding silly little lines and making every character weak and flawed that the movie would've been far more enjoyable.

I think so too, if PJ and Co had left more of the actual story intact then they would have been much more accessible. Things like “Arwen is dying” don’t really make any sense at all. Like you say and I said early on in this thread, the movies would have been better with less change.


Besides, the visuals and such alone were good enough to fill up the theater. The movie could've been about a Dwarf boy band and quite a few people still would've filled the seats because the scenery, sound, and action sequences were great. I seriously doubt making the movie true to the book would've hampered attendance.

Plus, Jackson did not make the movie more accessible.

I recently watched all three movies with a few of my friends. None of them had ever watched the movies before (they hadn't read the books either).

I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-

1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)
2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)

3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?
(answer- that wasn't in the book, it was added, so I have no clue)

That bugged me to no end. Here is Gandalf, a Maia facing some half dead wizard who busts his staff, where as with Saruman who hits him with a fire ball and at that time still had power as great as Gandalf’s new power can not do anything to him. Wuz up wit dat? http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/sad/36.gif

4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?
(answer- same as before)
5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Théoden try to get all those guys to help him before?
(answer- same)
6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?
(answer- same)

And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."

And of course, I also mentioned at the end that Faramir and Aragorn weren't really that weak and Frodo didn't really send Sam home (and a few other little things). My friends said "Well, why the heck did they change it? It would've been better that way."

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

I love what Davem said-

That's the way the movies should've been done. It wouldn't have hurt sales and the movie would've been better.

PJ's movies are some of the best ever, but they could've been better. He took them down from what they could've been pretty much every time he changed something from the book.

If PJ really wanted to make the movie more accessible he would've-
1) combined Sauron and Saruman
2) trimmed the Fellowship to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, and Gandalf
3) replaced Faramir with Boromir (and have him try to take the Ring in Ithilien)
4) leave out Arwen and have Aragorn end up with Eowyn
5) have Gandalf beat the Balrog and not die
6) leave out the Ents
7) make Sauron a bad elf and Gandalf an old man (so there's no maia-caused confusion)
8) leave out Celeborn (some people think the book did anyway)
9) have the characters continually get out a map and point to where they are
10) have the characters talk in third person (so we hear their names more often)
11) leave out the bit with the Ring

Wow…. LOL!!!!

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Oh Beleg, Book-Denethor *did* have almost pure Numenorean blood. The movie people decided for reasons best known to themselves to have Gandalf say that Denethor was just like Boromir. In the book Gandalf says the opposite - he was more like Faramir, albeit corrupted. Was this a change for the sake of dumbing down, or for some other reason? Who knows....

How is this? Faramir and Boromir had the same parents. One of which was Denethor. Boromir's ancestry is the same as Faramir's.

I get what you're saying about Faramir having received a much purer strain of Numenorian traits than his brother, but it would be wrong to say that Faramir is more Numenorian-like than their father.

Denethor was the most Numenorian-esque Steward in generations. It says so quite clearly in the books. It also says that Faramir takes after Denethor in this respect. Of course, they have totally different personal values, but that isn't a matter of blood...

*NOTE: I am, of course, referring to the real, book, characters, in keeping with the replied-to posts. In the movie, the fact that Denethor, Boromir, and Faramir are of Numenorian descent isn't even acknowledged, much less the fact that Denethor and Faramir had inherited many of its strengths.

I am looking for that part in the book right now, I'm pretty sure it says that.

And here's something.

Denethor might well have approved of the learning of his younger son, but was angered by the way Faramir interpreted what he learned (with help in that interpretation by Gandalf, as Denethor correctly suspected). For Faramir discovered a different philosophy used by the old Kings and lived by that rather than the way his father did, an indirect way of calling his father wrong. Yet that same ancient philosophy may have been a part of the reason men and beasts both obeyed Faramir's commands. He believed in being completely fair even to trespassing strangers who would have been summarily executed by others, as in the case of Frodo and Sam. Faramir took the time to learn "why" and to act on compassion, rather than go strictly by the letter of the law.
Faramir also loved music. This, added to his interest in lore, made him seem less a warrior to others, yet it was not so. Rather he made battle with purpose, knowing exactly what he was doing.
Both Denethor and Faramir could see into the hearts of men, yet treated that knowledge differently. Denethor felt scorn; Faramir felt pity.

[Ainaserkewen]

Originally posted by Davem
I'd still defend the 'moral obligation' point. Certainly they don't have any legal obligation to respect an author's views/moral position, but I think there should be respect among artists for each other's work. They've put Tolkien's name on these movies & made numerous references to him in interviews & thanked him when they've recieved their awards, etc, so as far as I'm concerned they taken that moral responsibility onto themselves. I think one needs to be more specific about what "respect the author" means. This thread was created to discuss the possible "dumbing down" of the movie for fans, and in a sense also being watered down as someone said earlier. This this that is a better explanation of what has happened to our beloved movies. I think I took your point too literally when I spoke of respect, I believe that the Director has no obligation to respect (and follow through with) the direction and decisions that lay in the books. I mean that the Director doesn't have to do everything in the book simply because it is respect for the author. Oh course however, Mr. Jackson respects Prof. Tolkien, he wouldn't have had these movies if he didn't. Everyone working on the films had a passionate love affair with the Lord of the Rings books, that was clear in the making of the movies. I think that's nice. However, because the movies are a wholly different and new way of expressing the general story, changes had to be made. That is evident in other examples too.

The follow, though it may not seem so but is a relevant example:
I saw "Queen of the Damned" recently without reading the books first. I though the plot was obviously cut short and, as some say, stripped of the moral and spiritual undertones of the original print. I didn't like the plot, I thought it was kind of dumbed down so that more people would understand Madam Rice's complex world. But I loved the movie. Why? Because though it faulted big time in the story department, it was pure art and can I say "Eye Candy" everywhere else. It was a wonderfully made movie with all the components of good entertainment. That's the point, isn't it? For the record, I did go on to read the books because I liked the movie so much, similar to how I came to read Lord of the Rings.

Now, how was that relevant? I just found out yesterday that Stuart Townsend, The Vampire Lestat, was the original Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings. I didn't know that I thought that was kind of neat, though after Lestat, I don't think I would have liked seeing him as Aragorn.

The Downs, all the other Tolkien sites, & even the movies themselves, exist because Tolkien spent time & effort producing a profound, complex, moving & beautiful tale. His motivation was not 'popularity' or cash, but art. Oh I agree, but how many blockbuster movies, my dear Davem, have you seen that would also measure up to the art that books can be? When I went into the theatre for LOTR the first time, I did not expect art, and not many people did, I expected to be entertained, and I was...that's why I'm here.

So what's my overall point to this? The movies were "dumbed down" or watered down for various reasons: Money, popularity, pride, Director's understanding and style and stuff that just didn't work. But why do we need exact version of the books we already love? I think we can all agree that when we left the theatre, we were entertained, not because of the exactness of the movie, but because it was well made with differences of style and opinion. That's what makes things interesting in the first place.

[Lalwendë]

I do not see film Faramir as succumbing to the Ring. He does not want it for himself, but to prove himself to his father. The fact that he takes the Hobbits by force to Osgiliath and subsequently decides to let them go free is little different to the series of events in the book, when he takes them to force to Henneth Annun and then decides to let them go free. It just takes place over a longer period and wider geography. The incident with Frodo and the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

Yet to have New Faramir wish to take the Ring to his father does not work either. The way that Denethor is portrayed in the films makes him come across as the kind of father that Faramir would if anything wish to defy and distance himself from. Real Denethor is a noble man who a son could be proud of, who has lately gone 'bad' as he has fallen under a bad influence. Yet New Denethor just comes across as a negative, bad-tempered man who would never have such an influence over a son he so clearly despised. Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it". This is funny, as if the scriptwriting team indeed intended to update and make more relevant Tolkien's words then they have failed in this aim. Tolkien actually had this right in the first place when his own Faramir hoped to win back the love and respect of a father who had clearly once showed him love and respect; the modern audience just see a horrible man who they would tell where to get off (or something to that effect ;) ). The whole Faramir episode would only have worked if Denethor had been presented as a man worthy of such sacrifice.

To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.

The Nazgul incident might have been intended to show the effect of the Ring on Frodo, but not only did it come across as confusing and 'break the rules' that have been set in place (whereby all along we have been told that the Nazgul's 'every thought is bent on getting the Ring'), but it also made Frodo look like a mere victim yet again.

If you don’t agree, just ask yourself whether you would feel as strongly about a film adaptation of another classic novel, one which you don’t have particularly strong feelings for? Would you see it as a source of irritation? A bastardisation? A failure of a moral duty? Or would it not really bother you, on the basis that the original novel is still there for its aficionados to enjoy?

I can think of one adaptation which offended me, and that was the version of Possession, which failed miserably. It actually does bother me a lot that someone might see this as a terrible film and assume the book is the same. And remakes of classic films have bothered me intensely. The rather famous composer of the musical version of Whistle Down The Wind ought to be shot at dawn for what he did to eradicate the simple joy of the classic film. But this all boils down to whether the 'new version' or 'adaptation' sets out to be definitive or not. My reasons for getting up in arms about LotR are that some of the changes simply weren't necessary.

And people who do not enjoy “high falutin’” art are not necessarily “dumber” than those who do. They simply have different tastes. I am a great fan of many aspects of pop culture.

I totally agree with this. I hate ballet, in fact dance in all its forms bores me to tears. But I think that there is a very fine line to be trod as regards possibly denying people the chance to see if they do like the high brow. I remember someone once reacting very peculiarly because I mentioned Goethe's Faust in a conversation and realised that they had assumed due to my accent that I would never have contemplated reading such a thing. But that's my chip frying itself up again. ;)

The movies are NOT more accessible or relevant. They're like the books but with extra muddling and a side order of watered down lines.

My final thought (for now, as I have domestic matters to attend to) is that I agree with what the phantom says (shock! ;) ). I do not see how the changes made the movies more accessible, as everything in the books is incredibly potent today, just as it was when they were written and published. Why else would we all be here hotly debating them right now? Those characters are archetypes. We do not need to 'update' King Arthur or Robin Hood, why do we need to update Aragorn or Frodo or Faramir?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Hey I'd just like to make a quick request to one of the Mods to change the name of this thread to Dumbing it down. I just think it sounds better and more to the point.

Thanks.

[Neithan]

I have to agree with Phantom on this one, PJ's changes, many of which were uneccesary, added nothing to the story but "refrigerator moments" ( that is, things in the story that don't make sense that you realize later). I don't think that the language made the films any more popular, to the contrary they just seemed out of place. If they wanted to make the films "accessable" then why not do them entirely in modern language, rather than switching back and forth. People don't love these movies because of anything PJ added (those of us who hate his additions still love the movies), they love them because of the parts that are true to Tolkien's story.

As to the "dumbing down" of the stories I agree that they were but I don't think that the people who like things "dumbed down" are necessarily less intelligent. After all Saucepan is obviously anything but dumb but he said he likes pop music! :eek: Instead I tend to look at it as meaning the movies in themselves were "dumber" (that is, they do not stimulate us intellectually). You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter :D) is the intellecual equivilant of Mozart. To me the difference between the books and the movies is the difference between hearing great classical music from an orchestra and hearing the cell phone ringer version.

As for Theoden's line, the problem I had with it is that it is a cliche. I have heard that same line used in so many other movies and shows. We know losing a child is horrible we are not idiots, all that was needed was maybe showing him grieving. If you are going have him say something about the pain of losing a child you should at least come up with something original, and it wouldn't heart if it was appropriate for the times either.

Even so I love the movies.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The story has been simplified in the transition from book to film. This was inevitable.

I think a major idea emanating from this thread is the nature and extent of the simplifications. Some of us have been arguing that the filmmakers went too far, and assumed that the film audience would not like the film as much if it were more faithful to the story.

Saucepan, please realise that I feel for you, fending off us ferocious dogs single-handedly like you are! ;) However, a point I would like to send to you is this: I realise that the films have been immensely successful, but should mass opinion really be the barometer of quality here?

I - like many others - lament the lack of what could have been. You know I love the films, it's just that even someone such as myself knows that they could have been so much better. And I am not sure that there are excellent reasons for why that scenario could not have been played out.

[davem]

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources:

Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. .. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Yes, I'm requoting what I quoted yesterday, because I think it sums up where the moviemakers went wrong. Its not only Tolkien's invented world that is strange & unique, but in many ways its also his characters. These beings, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, are not 'just like us'. They are not characters we are meant to 'identify' with. What the writers have done is take a 'legendary' figure like Aragorn, a being with supra-human wisdom, strength of character & a high destiny, & traduce him into an angst-ridden 'new man'. All the characters in the movie have to a greater or lesser degree lost their uniqueness, & have become 'cliches'. I'm not impressed by the movie characters because I've seen them in a thousand & one other movies. These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.

All the depth, the strangeness, the 'queerness', of Middle earth has been sacrificed & replaced 'hollywood standard' 'characters'. Yes, there are moments when something of the real Middle earth & its denizens shines through, when the light of another world briefly illumines us from the screen, but not nearly as often or as brightly as it should.

Mae lammen, (Well spoken) davem. That’s exactly it, in their attempt to make the characters into something that people can identify with, they lose the real meaning. These characters are like Beowulf, and so many other heroes, they are powerful, they are more then human, more then the norm, they are people that lead, that men will follow because they are more then just someone that Joe-shmo can relate to they are not stereotypes. They are based on an old ideal that the great will lead and men will follow them because of that. But not just because they just powerful but because they are good they have wisdom and the many other things that men will look for. Aragorn is not weak, he is not just a man, he is a King and the men will follow their king. It was stated that in the paths of the dead that the men only stayed because of their love for Aragorn, and his will alone that held them fast to follow him through.

This sadly, never quite comes through in the movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Saucepan, please realise that I feel for you, fending off us ferocious dogs single-handedly like you are!Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate. ;)

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?


However, a point I would like to send to you is this: I realise that the films have been immensely successful, but should mass opinion really be the barometer of quality here?Fair point. No, I don’t think that it should necessarily be a measure of quality. But, to my mind, quality has always been a very subjective thing. My own personal opinion is that these films are extremely high quality in comparison with other films in the same and similar genres, but I value the book more. However, I do think that mass appeal is an appropriate measure when we are considering whether it was right to make changes to the story and characters or not. Films such as LotR have to be have mass appeal or they do not get made. And the film-makers clearly felt that they had to make changes in order to give the films that broad appeal.

Which does raise an issue that has clouded the discussion somewhat so far (and this may have been my fault for suggesting that the changes were necessary to make the film “relevant and accessible”). Not all of the changes were made in order to achieve that end. Many of them, including some of those discussed here, were made in order to fit them within the 3½ to 4 hours’ of screen time available for each film. This, for example was why The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs were excluded. Such changes and omissions were necessary, but they will inevitably have had knock-on effects in a story as tightly-wrought and complex as the one that Tolkien was telling in LotR. Without the Barrow Downs and the discovery of the Barrow Blades, for example, it is unclear why Merry’s sword has the power to wound the Witch-King. An explanation could have been given but it would have taken up precious time, and it does not really impair the films in any significant way. To my mind, a far more grievous omission (perhaps because Merry and Pippin are two of my favourite characters) is A Conspiracy Unmasked. Merry and Pippin simply bump into Frodo and Sam in Farmer Maggot‘s Field, and that’s it. They are off on a perilous Quest with them without even stopping to cancel the papers. But, again, I can understand the omission and their loyalty and friendship to Frodo is put across well enough not to make it a major issue.

Other changes were made because the film-makers wanted to bring across particular themes, such as the weakness of Men and the power of the Ring. Again, they have knock-on effects, but any film-maker will want to concentrate on particular themes to give the film greater cohesion, and what they choose will depend upon their individual interpretation. And yet more changes were made because the way that the story is told in the book would not have worked on film. In my view, this explains the concurrent, rather than sequential, telling of the tales of the War of the Ring (on the one hand) and the journey of Frodo and Sam (on the other), the movement of Shelob to the third film and the absence of the Scouring of the Shire.

I accept that none of these changes necessarily make the films any more or less popular. They are simply a function of the film-making process. I defy anyone to go away and produce a workable screenplay from the book for three 3½ to 4 hour films and come away without a bunch of gaping plot-holes.

But what we are really concerned with here is the changes that were made in order to make the films more “relevant and accessible”. Those that were intended to give it that mass appeal. These changes include Legolas’ stunts, the lengthening of the action sequences (which restricted the time available for other aspects of the books), the heavy use of special effects, the modern phraseology, the rationalisation of certain characters (Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Imrahil, Beregond etc), the increased role of other characters (such as Arwen), Gimli’s wise-cracks, and those moments that tended to provoke cheers amongst film audiences (such as Gandalf whacking Denethor). And I do firmly believe that all of these aspects of the films did go towards widening their appeal. We may not like some, or even all, of them (perhaps because they impinge on that “sacred text”), but for many others these moments were among the highlights of the film. Legolas’ shield-surfing is not to my taste, but I have seen people say (on this forum and elsewhere) that this was one of their favourite moments. I can well imagine word spreading of a good-looking Elf who did amazing stunts, thereby piquing the interest of those to whom such things would (quite understandably) appeal. Similarly, the humour introduced by Gimli’s wise-cracks, unsubtle though they were, and Merry/Pippin’s antics were of a nature that will have broad appeal without being unduly offensive (except perhaps to devoted fans of the book ;) ). And modern idioms such as “Let’s hunt some Orc” and “You and whose army”, while not to my taste (well, I actually quite liked the latter one), will appeal to many people more readily than some of Tolkien‘s more archaic (for want of a better word) language and make the films more relevant to them.


If they wanted to make the films "accessible" then why not do them entirely in modern language, rather than switching back and forth.Well, it was inevitable that the changes made to the story (due to time constraints, the process of adaptation to film etc) would require a major re-write job. As I have said previously, there are few writers who could credibly match Tolkien‘s style and maintain the broad appeal that he succeeded (almost unwittingly) in achieving. In light of that, isn’t it better that they used Tolkien’s lines where they felt that they were able to rather than not using them at all? Funnily enough, Tolkien himself has been criticised for using different writing styles in the earlier and later chapters of the book (the homely, familiar style used in the Shire and the journey to Rivendell in contrast with the epic style used on the plains of Rohan and in the Halls of Gondor) by those who find that these contrasting styles grate on them. I have never found this to be a problem, but then there are few lines in the film which really grate on me either.

And so we come to the character changes. Again, it seems to me that many of the changes made in this regard were intended to garner that mass appeal. So, Aragorn’s indecision over his destiny (which is there in the book, albeit fleetingly) is played up. He is made more “human” and less “lofty”. Similarly with Frodo and Faramir. The extraordinary resistance of the latter to the Ring is downplayed because the film-makers thought that it would lack credibility with audiences without greater screen-time being devoted to his development. I agree that these characters lose something in the reduction/exclusion of their mythical qualities. But I do also believe that, for many people, they become more credible characters as a result. I know that words such as “character arc” and “humanising” cause great distaste on this forum, and I agree that the changes made, to some extent, “Hollywood-ised” the characters, but it also increased their broad appeal.


These characters wander through every episode of a million soap operas across the globe every day, with their surgically enhanced 'beauty', constantly changing back story & their meaningless platitudes.Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.


Time and again I have people ask why Faramir did not just tell his father "where to stick it".Actually, I have the same thoughts when I read the book. I recall that, when I first read it, I got very cross with Denethor for his treatment of Faramir, and also with Faramir for not standing up to his father. And I have to say that (perhaps for this reason) I found Faramir’s desire in the films to prove himself to his father, particularly after his brother’s death, very convincing and rather touching. And there are real life precedents of children yearning for the love of cruel and uncaring parents and doing all manner of things to gain that love.


To have done the Faramir sections properly would not have taken up any longer than they did when changed.I think that they would have done. Faramir is not one of the principal characters. To develop his character to the extent whereby his attitude towards the Ring, as depicted in the book, would have seemed credible would, I believe, have taken up screen-time that simply was not available. Similarly, to have developed Denethor’s character sufficiently to portray him in the way he is portrayed in the book and to allow the audience to sympathise with a man who ends up trying to kill his own son would have taken time. The film-makers did not have the luxury of being able to devote the time to developing a relatively minor character such as Denethor. Believe me, I don’t like what they did to the poor guy. But I can understand why they did it.

So, all in all, I remain firmly convinced that the changes made to broaden the appeal of the films had just that effect. Those who were drawn to the films by these aspects may well go away and read the books and find that they prefer them. But, without such changes, they might never have gone to see the films in the first place, and they might then have ended up never reading the book.

And it seems to me that there are few of these changes (the ones intended to broaden the films’ appeal) that will have had the effect of confusing film audiences. On the contrary, to have included the book characters who were omitted or to have had Aragorn marry a character at the end of the trilogy who we had only met once before, briefly, in the first film, would only have served to cause confusion. To the extent that plot-holes and inconsistencies were introduced, they were largely a result of the changes made to fit the films into the time available and adapt them to the screen and, to my mind, this was an inevitable consequence of the adaptation to film of a story as finely-wrought and complex as that which Tolkien tells in LotR. That gets us back to the question of whether the films should have been made, to which I would answer a resounding “Yes!”.

Finally:


Saucepan is obviously anything but dumb but he said he likes pop music! Instead I tend to look at it as meaning the movies in themselves were "dumber" (that is, they do not stimulate us intellectually). You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter)I should make clear that, by “pop music”, I meant popular music in general, as distinct from classical music. I am not a Britney Spears (or Metallica) fan (not that there is anything wrong with liking either), but I must say that, to my ear, the strains of Waterloo Sunset are far more pleasurable than many pieces of classical music. :smokin:

[Neurion]

Don’t worry, it seems to happen most times I post on a thread about the films, so I’m getting used to it. And I have never been one to shy away from an argu … er … healthy debate. ;)

Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?Because my friend, they could have been so much better.

[The Saucepan Man]

Because my friend, they could have been so much better.Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?

Then again, it's no skin off my nose if you would prefer not to enjoy them. :p ;)

[Neurion]

Could they? Would they have been made? And, in any event, they are what they are. Why not simply enjoy them?I enjoy most of them, up to RotK, but for the multifarious reasons mentioned above my enjoyment of the films is frustrated by the hasty and inexplicable nature of the increasingly gratuitious deviations from Tolkien's actual story.

[Neithan]

Could they? Would they have been made?
OK so maybe Jackson didn't really have a choice, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I want to see the movies and recognize Middle Earth as I know it from the books. I feel the same way as if Jackson were taking real history and distorting it to entertain people, often I find myself thinking but that's not how it really happened.

But I would note that soap operas are extremely popular.
So what? If Jackson had actually reduced LotR to the level of soap operas then this would be a different conversation, and he would have earned my undieing hatred.

As far as Arwen goes I think that the scenes with her are completely unecessary. All that was needed was to mention that she was Aragorn's bride to be and there would be no confusion. Then you would free up more time for other things.

There was a lot more I wanted to say but I have already spentway more time on this forum today than is wise considering all the homework I have to do. It's going to be another long night.

[Aiwendil]

After hesitating over it for some time, I think I will give in to the temptation and ramble about my views on the changes.

Why I think many of Jackson's changes were mistaken

For some time, I was perplexed by Jackson's alterations to the story - not perplexed at the fact that he had made alterations but perplexed at the nature of those alterations. I think that my confusion arose because I initially bought the oft-used line "there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book, and that's why so many changes are necessary."

Now it's true that there isn't time in a movie to include everything in the book. And some things certainly were left out, quite reasonably, I think, due to these time constraints. The whole Tom Bombadil episode, for example, is something that would either have added a half hour to the picture or have used up time that would have been better spent elsewhere.

But when one thinks about it, this explanation fails for most of the significant changes. In fact, many of those changes add events to the story and thus take up more time than would the story unembellished. For example, the whole element of the warg attack en route to Helm's Deep.

What accounts for the majority of the changes, then? The suggestion that started this thread is a good candidate: Jackson has "dumbed down" the story in order to make it more accessible. Or, if you like, he has altered the style of the story to bring it more into line with current Hollywood convention. This accounts, I think, for many of the jarringly poor lines of dialogue.

But I think that there is a third reason, one that perhaps accounts for most of the plot changes. Or perhaps it's not really a distinct reason but rather a facet of the "current Hollywood style" explanation. That is: I think that Jackson was quite over-concerned with maintaining tension and suspense. I would go as far as to say that this unhealthy obsession is a problem throughout Hollywood these days, at least when it comes to action/adventure/fantasy/science fiction movies. Directors (as well as producers and writers) are morbidly afraid that a single second of the movie will be declared boring by someone in the audience. So they try to load as much suspense as they can into every frame. The result, curiously enough, is often that the suspense fails, for two reasons. First, because its effect wears off and it eventually becomes tiresome; second, and more interestingly, because in trying to invest every moment with suspense, the director loses control of the more powerful element of long term suspense.

Consider some of the changes that add significantly to the length of the story. In Balin's tomb, instead of the troll sticking its arm and leg through the door, it comes all the way through and battles the Fellowship in a long action set piece. Clearly, the goal was to make the encounter more exciting; but it's cheap excitement. It is a battle, nothing more; it adds nothing to the overall progress of the story and does nothing to enhance the excitement or suspense in the movie beyond the confines of that particular scene. Or: the stairs begin to fall apart as the Fellowship flees Moria. Maybe the sequence is exciting and suspenseful in itself; but again it uses up a non-trivial bit of time and it is unneeded. What these and similar additions have in common is that they add suspense or action to non-critical moments. The business with the stairs, for example, is not needed because, quite simply, the stairs aren't the point; removing this and similar incidents would streamline the film, increase the relative significance of the truly important moments, and result in a more focused picture. That's why I can better understand additions made to increase the apparent significance of the Ring; even if I ultimately disagree with those additions, at least they attempt to emphasize an important element of the story rather than an unimportant one.

Why I was disappointed with the films

Davem argues that Jackson had a moral obligation to be faithful to the book. The Saucepan Man argues that there is nothing wrong with altering the story for the sake of accesibility, or conformity to Hollywood's style, or whatever you want to call it. I suppose my view is somewhere in between. I don't think I would say that there is any moral responsibility involved. Yet I do take issue with Jackson's changes - for the simple reason that I, personally, was disappointed with the movies as a result of these changes.

So, as a defender of the movies might ask me, why was I disappointed? What right do I have to complain about the movies, which have after all done nothing to hurt me, left all my copies of the book perfectly intact, and in fact provided me with some enjoyment? Well, I'm disappointed not because the movies were actively harmful (which they were not) but simply because they were not as good as they could have been. No doubt our hypothetical interlocuter would seize on my use of the word "good", asking me "Good in whose opinion?" Well, in my opinion, of course; it's the only one I've got.

So, while the altered scene in Balin's tomb did not harm me, I cannot help but to imagine how much I would have enjoyed seeing the scene as Tolkien wrote it on the screen. It would have been great to see the climactic scene at Mt. Doom the way it was written. It would have been sublime to see the Witch-king facing Gandalf at the gate of Minas Tirith and to hear the cock's crow taken up by the horns of Rohan. And Jackson could have done it. Here was an opportunity that will not come again for a long time, if at all. It's all very well and good to say that Jackson had the right to popularize the work, even to dumb it down - but I'm not concerned about whether he had the right; what bothers me, quite frankly, is that I did not like the resulting movies so very much - and that I could have loved them, had they been not so very different.

That sounds selfish, no doubt - and it is. After all, we go and see movies for selfish reasons - because we want to enjoy them.

Why I nonetheless own all the extended editions and have voraciously consumed the special features

I think that in many ways Jackson failed with these movies. I think he dumbed them down. I did not enjoy them as much as I might have. But I enjoyed them. I say this because I wonder whether this is a common phenomenon or whether I am the only one. Are there others who lament the popularization of the story and yet agree that in other ways, the films were quite good?

Why the whole enterprise was doomed from the beginning

Even when I consider the hypothetical perfect LotR movie - the one that Jackson could have made but didn't - I conclude that the book would be far superior. This reminds me of what Hitchcock said when Truffaut asked him if he would ever consider making a film version of Crime and Punishment (which does have a somewhat Hitchcockian story). He said that he would never make such a movie, nor a movie based on any literary masterpiece. Why? Because a literary masterpiece is already a masterpiece. It already exists in something like a perfect form. If its perfect medium is literature, then cinema is not its perfect medium. So a cinematic version will never improve upon the story. Hitchcock instead made movies based on imperfect books - books that contained interesting ideas but ideas that, he thought, could be better utilized in cinema. The more I think about this argument, the more sense it makes to me.

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact!

[Neurion]

Edit: Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of words - one sentence, in fact! I don't know a proper saying for such an occasion in my native American tongue, so I'll steal a British one.

Ho hum.LOL. Strangely enough, I hate making short posts like that and I quite envy the long, well thought-out and intelligent post you just made.

Keep up the good work.

[lindil]

SpM:Mind you, I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are? Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.

I would rather be able to completely segregate Denethor and 'Denethor' but alas, few things in this world are pure...

I think that the more a person has ritulaized or made the M-E archetypes one's own, as any community does with a myth, the more any 'tampering' is felt as a negative. For those to whom LotR was 'a great story', the movies may well be ' a great movie' or even a fantastic one [my wiife loved ROtK but may well never read the books :rolleyes: and is thus a perfect example of th 'pure PJ fan' her appreciation has no books to contend with.

But for those to whom the Legendarium has taken the palce of myth, if not sacred writ, as it has admittedly for me, they seem to have rather less pure enjoymnent of the movies. Big generalizations but...

Of course, there is no right or wrong response to the movies, but it is fascinating to try and understand why we feel what we do.

my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.

But I still enjoy coming here to serve back to PJ exactly what I experienced :smokin:.

[ohtatyaro]

I LOVE the list :D

additional entry:

12. Leave out Eagles - no bird that big can fly! (or replace them with some flying machine 'wise elves' cotrived :D)

[HerenIstarion]

Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories ... [so] my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies

Sometimes I do feel likewise, sometimes I can muster enough mental resource to segregate two sets of characters completely. Cf. Two Frodos (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1784), excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel :)

But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach

Ah, but outright Like/Not Like is a bit simplistic, ain't it? It has to be a little more complex than that, so, BUT comes into play. Let me present you with an analogy:

I like my friend ***. I would not apply a term friend to him , if I liked him not, eh? He's handsome and clever, generous and funny, good playing mate when it comes down to bowling or billiard et cetera et cetera. But he's a bit talkative at times, and maybe tiresome too when in pursuit of his favourite subject. He's perfect, but for one flow. Now, and analogy is crooked, as neither I, nor any living man (but for himself) wield the power to eliminate that flow (that is, feature is a flow from my point of view anyways), and I whether like him 'as he is' or do not like him at all. But I may be inclined to say at times: *** would be a great person if only he could be less prolix.

Or, another analogy - imagine yours truly and his chosen in a haute style restaurant. We are served a dinner of our dream, with all proper things and stuff, four types of forks and knives, gentle candlelight, perfect band and the kind of service which helps you forgive and forget. Got a picture? Now, imagine spinach (that b*****d of a plant always apt to try the trick) stuck in yours truly's teeth. Imagine furthermore desparete, even hunted looks for toothpick-stand on behalf of yours truly, and disenchantment one feels as soon it is clear no toothpick-stand is present, and it is an alternative of finger-into-your-mouth-when-you-think-no-one-looks-but-in-fact-half-the-world-is-giggling-at-you technique or nervous tongue-action for the rest of the evening. (Of course, there is always a possibility to ask for one, but that's not the point here)

The fact being, I would not have complained about missing toothpicks in a snack-bar round the corner, and talkativenss would not bother me if *** were outright mean, not a grand person I know him to be.

Almost-perfect thing is more of a pest (or, 'almost' part of it is a pest), than the humble mass consumption product. You don't expect much of the latter, but when former falls short (and within an inch! - just a little less alteration, and it would have been nailed!) - well, it's not a nice feeling. Have you heard people nitpicking about Banshee cartoon details? Exactly for the films being so good, we can't help complaining, as it seems to us they might have been even better.

Hence the 'but' sticking in the middle of sentences starting with 'I love the films...'

[The Saucepan Man]

The latest posts provide some of the best answers that I have seen to my eternal question (and I find myself wondering why I always seem to agree with Aiwendil, even when we are discussing something that we disagree on :confused: ).


Well, it's happened again. I've wasted a good deal of time (that would have been far better spent on some homework that happens to be due tomorrow) composing a most verbose ramble only to find that in the intervening time, someone else (namely Neurion) has made exactly my point in a shockingly small number of wordsNot at all. I find it very interesting to gain some insight into why it is that people feel the way that they do about these films (as opposed to simply the specific things that they dislike about them, most of which I have heard now about a hundred times each).

I do, of course, agree that the films could have been better. Flippantly, I might ask whether there is anything that cannot be improved on in some way, however minor (yes, including the book). But I too would have loved to have seen many of the scenes filmed just the way that Tolkien wrote them. My point is that a film which adheres as closely as possible to the book (within the constraints of the film medium) can and will probably never be made. Yes, another production team might have done things slightly different. They might have excluded more of the additional scenes and included more of the original scenes and lines. But any film-maker is going to approach it from his or her interpretation of what will work best and, in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.

When I first saw the films, TTT particularly, I did feel pretty disappointed with some of the changes that had been made. But, having now seen them a few times each, I just sit back and enjoy them. I take the view that they are what they are and, since I find them enjoyable, I might as well not let my initial disappointment spoil that enjoyment. That all sounds terribly analytical, but it is not really a conscious approach at all. It is simply the way that I have come to feel about the films.


But when one thinks about it, this explanation fails for most of the significant changes. In fact, many of those changes add events to the story and thus take up more time than would the story unembellished.True enough. But audiences have come to expect thrilling action sequences throughout "blockbuster" films and so it is inevitable that they will be written in where they are not present already. Again, I firmly believe that the LotR films would not have been so successful if the action sequences had (as they are in the books) been fewer and further between. People have different expectations from films than they do from books. Books are there to be savoured, to take one's time over, whereas films are far more immediate. That's a massive generalisation, I know, but it applies when we are comparing the techniques used to write a tale such as LotR with the techniques used in making what is intended to be a highly successful blockbuster film.

I know that people will say that they should not have been made as blockbusters, but I really don't think that they would have been made in any other way. They would have been left unfilmed (which, though an appealing prospect, no doubt, to some, would have denied countless others of the pleasure that they derived from them).


But I think that there is a third reason, one that perhaps accounts for most of the plot changes. Or perhaps it's not really a distinct reason but rather a facet of the "current Hollywood style" explanation. That is: I think that Jackson was quite over-concerned with maintaining tension and suspense.Yes, I think that this does fall within the category of broadening the films' appeal. I do agree that the films might have worked with less outright action and more tension building. I often find people staring blankly at me when I say that my favourite of the Alien films was the first one. Most people seem to prefer the action-heavy second film in the series. But it is precisely because most of the first film is taken up by lengthy periods of suspense-building and has suprisingly few moments of full-throttle action that I find it superior. That said, I find the two scenes that you give as specific examples (the Cave Troll attack and the crumbling stair-block) to be incredibly exciting and enjoyable sequences.

We blithely refer here to the films being "Hollywood-ised", but this style of film did not just come about randomly. It arose to fulfil a demand. Film studios have sophisticated ways of discovering what it is that their target audiences want. They don't always get it right, but they are usually pretty accurate. They have found that people want lots of action in their blockbusters, and that's what the LotR films give them. But I would say that, in my view, these films are infinately superior and put across a far more uplifting message, than the average (or even above average) blockbuster film. In this regard, I would put them on a par with the Star Wars films (the first three) and the first of the Indiana Jones films, all of which have a special place in my heart.


I wonder whether this is a common phenomenon or whether I am the only one. Are there others who lament the popularization of the story and yet agree that in other ways, the films were quite good?I would say that you are in the majority of those who have also read the book. As I have said, I was initially disappointed with aspects of the films, and I do still sometimes wonder at what might (but probably never would) have been. But mostly I just enjoy them for what they are.


Because a literary masterpiece is already a masterpiece. It already exists in something like a perfect form. If its perfect medium is literature, then cinema is not its perfect medium. So a cinematic version will never improve upon the story.I do not disagree. And I can well understand why a man like Hitchcock thought it a good reason for him to make such films. But I do not think that it is a valid reason for the films not to be made at all. If they are made well enough (which I think the LotR films are), then they will bring pleasure and enjoyment to people and might lead them to read the original literary masterpiece. I think that is reason enough to justify their production.


Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart.Thanks lindil for providing further insight into what I call the "sacred text" approach. I fully understand your reaction, even though I do not share it.


my personal solution seems to have been too stop watching the movies.A sensible approach to adopt, I would say, given the way that you feel about them.


Cf. Two Frodos , excellent thread by Child of Seventh Age. I see you haven't posted there SpM, and the 'dogs' may prove somewhat less ferocious in that kennel Hehe. The dogs don't worry me. And they woudn't get any exercise if I wasn't here for them to bark at. :D

I have read and enjoyed that thread, HI, and I agreed with much of what was said. But I didn't feel that there was much more that I could add that had not been said already. I can't recall whether Helen has posted there, but I rather like her approach of keeping the two Frodos separate and appreciating the different qualities of each.


Let me present you with an analogyYou do surprise me! ;)

As with the films, I would overlook the friend's minor flaws and simply enjoy his company. On the other hand, the spinach would bug the heck out of me (far more so than the changes to the films), so the analogy doesn't really work for me.

[Lalwendë]

I do find myself once more reduced to a state of confusion. I can understand those who are angered by the films because they view the book as a “sacred text” that should not have been tinkered with in the way that it was. But most people here seem to adopt the “I loved the films BUT …” approach. That I don’t understand. If you loved the films, why spoil your enjoyment by picking them apart? Why not enjoy them for what they are?

It's a fair question, and I am one of those people who really enjoys the films yet still criticises. It's something I have given thought to, however.

It may be that I simply love the books to such an extent and have loved them for so long, that it would be impossible to match up to the experience of reading them. I dreaded the films to a certain extent, as LotR is so precious (sorry!) to me and I only heard about them being made some three or four months before FotR arrived in the cinemas. I was excited, and yet I was filled with fear that they would be dreadful. When I finally saw FotR my fears were dispelled, yet I still found aspects of the film raised my hackles a little. I think it was the best of all three films, and the most true to the books (despite the omission of the Old Forest, Tom and the Wight). I knew I would be critical, as time and again I had seen films of much loved books, virtually all of which failed to meet my expectations.

Some of the changes made for the films were, and still are, incomprehensible to me. At first my main gripe was with the character of Arwen. Now I have come to the conclusion that it was acceptable to include elements of the love story, as they are in the text anyway, just hidden away in the appendices. It is not altering the storyline to show how the story of Arwen and Aragorn unfolds. But I still object to the action sequences, particularly the scene at the Ford as this denigrates the struggle and bravery of Frodo. In addition, it alters the character of Arwen in my mind, as she ought to be presented as the protected Elf maiden rather than a "She-Elf" who is allowed to ride out and out herself in danger. Now I can see why this may have been done: to cushion Jackson from the same accusations of sexism that Tolkien himself suffered. But it does not improve the film.

In the same way, Gimli was turned from a droll yet noble Dwarf into a bumbling belching buffoon. Yes, this gave some laughs, but again it was a denigration of a character. I now fear what any film of The Hobbit will be like, lest it sounds reminiscent of the QEII leaving port with all the bodily noises that Dwarfs seem to have been linked to. This was a shame as the performance given was good when the actor was not required to act basely - and I'm not prissy about that kind of thing, but it doesn't 'fit' to have a character eructating at a King.

Then there was Aragorn. One view of Aragorn in RotK that I've been asked about is "why didn't they make him into an inspirational leader figure who all the men wanted to follow?". Well, that's how Aragorn truly is, but just not in the films. It seems that Jackson picked up on his occasional moments of doubt and ran with them in an attempt to create Angst-a-gorn.

And the primary reason I get frustrated with the films is the alterations in plot which are inexplicable. This is a finely crafted plot and to alter it is incredibly risky. As I've already said, the messing about with Faramir was a ridiculously dangerous thing to do. I still cannot see why this change was made. It leaves a huge plot hole, and he may not be one of the Fellowship, but he is still an important character. It might have been better to leave him out altogether than to mess about in this way.

Maybe the sequence is exciting and suspenseful in itself; but again it uses up a non-trivial bit of time and it is unneeded. What these and similar additions have in common is that they add suspense or action to non-critical moments.

Aiwendil sums it up nicely. Perhaps some of the necessary yet seemingly "boring" scenes or exposition were omitted in order to include more "action". It is incredibly frustrating to think that certain parts of the plot were altered for inexplicable reasons, as these changes seem to have only resulted in greater inconsistency and incoherence.

Now about these changes being necessary to increase the popularity of the films. Who is all this action going to appeal to? I would say it would appeal to young men of course. And who are often stereotyped as typical avid readers of Tolkien? Well, a lot of young men, again. There was already plenty of action in the books, I would argue that there did not need to be additional action.

Then there is the question of language. A few of the new lines were amusing, yet others are glaringly obvious as poor writing. And when people pull out examples of their favourite lines in the films, they are invariably those written by Tolkien in the first place. Also, the themes and the characters are timeless and there is no reason to be updating these whatsoever.

So what did I like about the changes? There are a few, surprisingly. I thought that moving the episode with Shelob on to the final film was justified from a viewpoint of narrative, as it gave more 'story' for Frodo, Sam and Gollum in the final film and it did not alter the plot. As said above, bringing Arwen's love story into the main plot did not affect it and was acceptable. And some amusing new lines were written for the Hobbits; surely this was easier as their idiom is not quite so different to our own.

I think the films are quite beautiful to watch, the music is splendid and the acting superb. I like the way that so many little 'details' were brought in, particularly in the art/design ideas. I like the films a heck of a lot. But I still don't like that script. There are points where I feel like cringing, and others where I start wondering where my books are, as some parts just don't make any sense.

[The Saucepan Man]

On this moral duty question, it occurred to me that it would be somewhat unfair to impose restictions on the manner in which the film rights may be exercised by a purchaser of those rights that:
were not contemplated at the time he purchased the rights; and
were not therefore taken into account in calculating the amount to be paid to the person selling those rights.
Quite apart from the fact that such restrictions would be unenforceable at law, it seems to me to be morally wrong to try to assert restrictions on the use of the rights when the author has been paid for those rights on the basis that such restrictions do not apply.

[Formendacil]

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I like the movies, but....

The truth is that like SpM, I understood and appreciated the plot changes made to the story. While I mourned the losses, I was able to take them in stride because I appreciate that you can't fit a book that takes something like 7 1/2 hours to read out loud into a 3 hour movie (that would be the Fellowship).

Therefore, I was able (with a great deal of sighing and groaning) to appreciate the loss of "A Conspiracy Unmasked", Glorfindel in general, Halbarad and Co., and things along those lines.

But here's where PJ screwed up where my fandom was concerned: the LITTLE things. I can understand and even come close to approving the big changes, but the little ones elude me. Why does Aragorn's crown not fit the description of the one in the book? Why does Arwen have a CURVED sword? Why is so much of the new lines written in Modern American instead of Middle English? These sorts of things could have been changed to remain consistent with the original version without any extra cost. The losses would have been nonexistent, the benefits would have been greater consistency and greater approval from the fans (those of us who met Frodo and Aragorn, etc, before PJ made stars of them).

On the subject of Gimli, surely it would have been possible to make him humourous without making him so... crude. Gimli's humour has no sophistication.

As for Merry and Pippin... Why make them carbon copies of each other? Protests to the contrary, they were pretty much identical characters. Why not let Pippin do all the comic stunts, and let Merry develop a character of his own?

And then there's Aragorn.... I have to wonder at times why they even bothered making him "accessable". Why not just make him more or less super-cool like Legolas? Oh wait! People today don't think that high lineage, wisdom, and a supernatural aura aren't cool.

Basically, my points are that PJ screwed up in the little things. The big changes HAD to be made. The little ones are another matter entirely.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, so the conversation has been about how the film attempts to be more "accessible" -- but just what is being accessed.

I've got to say right from the outset that I am a wholehearted fan of the films, both as films and as adaptations of the story. I think that they succeed in every respect. Sure, the characters and events got changed, plot elements were rearranged, relationships altered, but the thematic concerns of the story came through loud and clear. The movies celebrate friendship, and self-sacrifice, and the perservation of the natural world, and humility, and pity, and duy and honour and bravery; they deride cruelty and disregard for nature, they abhor the unthinking application of force and power, they postulate that the only response to tyranny and self-aggrandizing power is resistance: bloodless resistance, if possible, but armed if unavoidable. In the book and in the movie the central conflict is the same (Power vs free will) and in the end both resolve that conflict in the same remarkable manner: a miracle happens and the Powerful Object is destroyed rather than used. The Men of the West kneel and pay homage to Hobbits. The Towers are thrown down and evil defeats itself. When I put these really important similarities up against an alteration in the order of events, or more screen time for Arwen, or even the wholesale rewriting of Faramir and Denethor -- well, those kinds of changes seem relatively unimportant to me.

Greaty to PJ's credit he was always very clear that he was making "a version" of LotR and not the definitive translation of it to screen (which he knew as well as Tolkien was impossible). Another word that's been getting a lot of play in the thread is "successful" -- are the films successful? Well, certainly they were with audiences, but I also think they were entirely successful with their intended aim: they preserved and presented the ideals and themes of the story in a completely different medium.

I like to think about the films as 'covers' of the story, like in music. With all really good covers, the differences between the original and the cover version are what make it a good cover. The music is kind of the same, but there are more differences than similiarities really: shifts in tone and tune, key, pace, melody even. But the words are always the same -- the message is still there even though the song, and thus our experience of it, is entirely different. My favourite examples are "Stand By Me" and "My Way". Whereas the original SbM is a slick 50's pop song about boy and girl togetherness, Lennon's cover is full of an angst, and anger, that makes the song far more social and even despairing, I think. Both versions of the song are about the need for togetherness and relationship in difficult times, though. "My Way" was famously covered by Sid Vicious in such a way that they satirically ironised the song -- so it is possible to mangle the original but only by changing the words. Sid did deliberate violence to the intent of the song.

PJ and crew did not do anything of the kind to the core values and vision of LotR. They changed all the props and stays of story telling, and adapted them to the screen so that those core values and vision could be maintained and made accessible to a movie going audience. Moral? Yer darn right that PJ and crew had a moral obligation to Tolkien to maintain his vision -- and they did, by maintaining Tolkien's moral vision!

[Neurion]

Fordim, the essential message could have been propagated just as well had PJ and co. made a trilogy of films set in Han Dynasty China.

What is missing from the filmic adaptations in many instances are the many individual episodes that stick in your mind and make the story, and characters so endearing. Lord of the Rings isn't just small-person-takes-evil-Ring-to-Land-of-Shadow-and-drops-it-into-volcano, it's Gimli capering about when he hears the message Galdriel has sent him, Aragorn leading on the levies of Gondor with the Rangers at his side and the Star of Elendil on his brow, Barliman Butterbur musing over the unprecedented excellence of his beer, Gimli dwelling on the beauty of Aglarond, the three banners of Gondor, Rohan and Dol Amroth waving in the wind, sable, green and blue.

In many ways, certainly visually, I love the films and am deeply indebted to Peter Jackson, yet there are needless flaws that rankle.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Lord of the Rings isn't just small-person-takes-evil-Ring-to-Land-of-Shadow-and-drops-it-into-volcano, it's Gimli capering about when he hears the message Galdriel has sent him, Aragorn leading on the levies of Gondor with the Rangers at his side and the Star of Elendil on his brow, Barliman Butterbur musing over the unprecedented excellence of his beer, Gimli dwelling on the beauty of Aglarond, the three banners of Gondor, Rohan and Dol Amroth waving in the wind, sable, green and blue.

Actually, LotR is none of those things to me -- I am sure that it is to you, and for that we should both be grateful for it is personal to each of us. There are moments in the text that I have taken to heart in the way that you have apparently taken to these, but these moments are utterly indvidual and variable. Some of my favourite aspects of the story made it into the film, others did not. What's more, the film has given me new moments (like the charge of the Rohirrim -- I still can barely breathe as they rush forward crying out "death! death! death!".

And while I agree that LotR "isn't just small-person-takes-evil-Ring-to-Land-of-Shadow-and-drops-it-into-volcano", I would argue that this is precisely what it is for everybody who cherishes it, either in book or movie form. We may disagree on our favourite bits or views (I, for one, have no real qualms over the lemming like wargs, but I think that Minas Tirith was far too dirty and ragged about the edges) but the one thing that it is for everyone is that story you have just retold. Of course, it's much much more than that: a lot of that "more" is personal and idiosyncratic (wargs, tone of language, look and feel of scenes, how characters are 'supposed' to be) but not all of it. Much of that "more" is thematic and this is the "more" that I think PJ and crew have successfully adapted to the screen.

I think that there's a violent sense of outrage when something we feel propriety rights over seems threatened. I know what a balrog is supposed to look like, and so when PJ gets that "right" I am unruffled. But when he shows Bree to be a drunken, ramshakle town of brigands, which is just "wrong" I am ruffled. But I am sure that if I could actually look into the mind or imagination of any other reader I would find an infinite number of other such wrongnesses. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that Saucepan Man, for example, has got balrogs totally incorrect; I know that davem couldn't pick Galadriel out of a one-person lineup, and that HerenIstarion is lamentably incorrect about the type of accent charateristic of the Shire. But I know equally, and more importantly, that we all agree on the core value of the tale, and that we share (albeit not always in perfect accord! ;) ) a similiar sense of the story's moral vision. The only difference between any of us and PJ is that he was the lucky son of a so-and-so who actually got to put his own personal vision of the story on film!

[the phantom]

who actually got to put his own personal vision of the story on film!
Most of the complaints have nothing to do with PJ's "vision" (or personal interpretation) of the story.

If PJ thinks that elves have pointy ears and you don't agree, or if he thinks that Faramir is 6'4" but you think he's 6'6"- that would be where his "vision of the story" would come into play.

But what about having Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? You could read the entire book upside down and backwards and there's still no possible way you could view or interpret the story like that.

Such errors are not errors of interpretation- they are errors of lunacy that succeed only in confusing viewers and lowering the quality of the tale.

[The Saucepan Man]

But what about having Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? ... Such errors are not errors of interpretation- they are errors of lunacy that succeed only in confusing viewers and lowering the quality of the tale.How was it confusing to have Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath? He had come across stangers in the wilderness. They might be spies of Sauron. Safest course is to escort them to Minas Tirith. Then he discovers that Frodo is carrying the Ring. So, at the same time as discharging his duty, he gets to bring his father something that he desperately wants. Seems pretty clear to me.

If anyone didn't get that, they really did need the films dumbing down.

[the phantom]

My main point was that many of PJ's changes were not matters of interpretation, and the Faramir incident was my absolute proof of that. You can't deny that point. I didn't mention that particular incident with the confusion aspect in mind. I've already listed several PJ additions that were confusing to viewers in this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=375152&postcount=47) post.

But since you brought it up :p the Faramir/Osgiliath episode also adds something confusing to the story. It introduces the infamous "Nazgul moment", which you must admit was horrible planning.

The Nazgul finds the hobbit with the Ring right outside Mordor and yet we're to believe that this information never gets to Sauron??

During this scene my friend exclaimed, "Oh no! Sauron knows where the Ring is now!"

But based on later events in the movie, Sauron obviously didn't know. It's as if PJ threw in the scene with absolutely no thought about the repercussions.

Every event has (or should have) an effect on the rest of the story. In other words, if Aragorn were to get his armed chopped off in the first film, that event should cause him to appear without an arm for the rest of the movie. If you add something, you must follow that change through to the end and make sure that the rest of the story reflects the addition you made. That is the danger in putting in things that did not actually happen.

[Lyta_Underhill]

You may like pop music for example, but you can not claim that Britany Spears(or even a real band like Metallica for that matter ) is the intellecual equivilant of Mozart. To me the difference between the books and the movies is the difference between hearing great classical music from an orchestra and hearing the cell phone ringer version. It is interesting that you draw the argument in this sort of paradigm, Neithan. I think there is a subtle play of rarefied to popular that makes its transition with the movie versions of Lord of the Rings and, as Lalwendë stated earlier, disturbs the "sacred text," or perhaps, in my own words, it destroys a personal innocence from the years before the movie, when one's own mental images and insights were not troubled by an "officially sanctioned" visual version of same.

It is interesting to note that a writer like Edgar Allan Poe was considered a "hack" not so long ago, and even in my own lifetime, the works of H.P. Lovecraft migrated from the dusty, mildewed back shelves of used book stores to the shiny, fresh reprints with glossy covers in the "classics" section of major chain bookstores. Sometimes, it feels better to share a secret and know that it is somehow uniquely yours, or to meet a few underground "like-minded souls," who have been touched by the realm of Middle Earth in a different, but deeply thought-out way with a process as profound as your own. Once upon a time, when you said "Frodo Lives," there was an esoteric meaning, a sort of secret society understanding that is lost when something bubbles into the mainstream. You are just as likely to hear, "I love Lord of the Rings. That elf is hot!" and know that your sacred text has been vulgarized by its popularization. I try to resist reacting negatively to such a line when I encounter it in real life and when asked my opinion, I simply say something like, "Sure, I liked Legolas. He was humble, unassuming and always helpful, if a little silly at times." *pause for confused looks* They don't even want to ask why I like Frodo.... :rolleyes: My 12 year old cousin loves me because I give hour long responses to questions like "What is that ring Aragorn is wearing?" Now he knows who Finrod Felagund is and who he's related to, etc. etc. ! :D (Aw, he's probably forgotten by now--if I keep it up, I'll eventually get him to read the books just to find out for himself!)

lindil: Because what they are, enters my porus mind and fight's with the stories that I know better than the texts of my own Faith and I have read many year before I converted, and a minature battle ensues, which thusly disturbs my heart. (Before I begin, I must say it is good to see your posts again, lindil! ) Indeed, I think this somehow illustrates my point, and in some ways validates both sides, because it is the very incompleteness and broad strokes of PJ's vision that leaves so much of Middle Earth open and still free for roaming. In some ways, this is a human tendency to equate a partially conceived vision with a fleshed out possible whole vision, thus marred by the partial deviations in the pastiche. Personally, I assume all the business with Tom Bombadil happened offscreen and the fact that I'm familiar with the books makes it easy for me to forgive the holes in the story such as this. It is a little harder to forgive Faramir and Denethor, but somehow, I manage to tell myself that these mockups are simply reflections without the substance present in the books, like a painting that suggests something larger but must present itself with a broad brush. I personally thought that the addition of the one scene of Faramir telling Denethor that he had sent Frodo and Sam along on their quest instead of bringing the Ring to Minas Tirith was the one really positive EE addition to Faramir's character, precisely because it illustrates the fact that Faramir does have a sensibility beyond mere one step advantage, a modern yearning for acceptance and, most of all, it proves Faramir can think for himself. It would have pleased me even more if they had drawn a direct connection between Faramir's decision and his familiarity with Gandalf's teachings. (Or perhaps if Boromir had pointed up a diametrically opposite opinion earlier to contrast the two with respect to the battle of Might vs. Lore, with Gandalf as its focal point. ) But I ramble, don't I?

While I'm at it, I will say that I thought Theoden's line ("No parent should have to bury their child," ) was, as Neithan points out, a cliche, a modern one, a "movie of the week" line. I thought "that I should live to see the last days of my house," to be poignant enough, personally. It is understated, with great implications, seeing Theoden's position as it stands then.

I figure this post has gone on long enough, but also that I'm entitled to a somewhat long post, having not posted for some days....been wrapped up in a book about chaos. Thus, I flipped a coin to decide whether or not to post this stream of consciousness and it came up "no post," so I decided to defy it and post anyway. Talk about a strange attractor! heh heh...Actually it was davem who gave me the thought, as he posted something somewhere and added this bit of info just to let us know that if the deterministic flow in his local area was a bit different, we might not have seen his post! (Or he might have ended up doing exactly what I am doing now!) Tallyho all!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Lalwendë]

I've got to say right from the outset that I am a wholehearted fan of the films, both as films and as adaptations of the story. I think that they succeed in every respect. Sure, the characters and events got changed, plot elements were rearranged, relationships altered, but the thematic concerns of the story came through loud and clear.

but I also think they were entirely successful with their intended aim: they preserved and presented the ideals and themes of the story in a completely different medium.

PJ and crew did not do anything of the kind to the core values and vision of LotR. They changed all the props and stays of story telling, and adapted them to the screen so that those core values and vision could be maintained and made accessible to a movie going audience. Moral? Yer darn right that PJ and crew had a moral obligation to Tolkien to maintain his vision -- and they did, by maintaining Tolkien's moral vision!


I am a wholehearted fan of the films, but as films. They are in no way perfect adaptations. Jackson committed a fundamental error and that is to alter the story. They don’t succeed in every respect. What is a story without its plot? What happens to a story if the plot changes? It is a different story. And who carries a story along? The characters within the story. If events in the plot are changed then the characters will be changed because their experience will be altered. And if characters are changed, then we would expect them to react to plot events differently.

Theme is what can only come through once plot and character have been established, as they are the central core of a story. Theme only happens once it has something to attach itself to. Theme is only what we see in a story, much in the same way we only see things in a mirror if they are there to be reflected in the first place.

The thematic concerns were skewed and altered because the plot and characters were altered. If somebody made a version of Jane Eyre and had Jane be beautiful and Rochester still in love with his wife in the attic, then the whole story would be fundamentally different. If theme is all that ultimately matters then why not set the story in modern times? With new characters? And a different plot? But the theme will also fail if the plot and the characters cannot hold it all up.

Frodo was altered. Instead of being shown as the brave figure who willingly takes on a burden and does not shirk from fear, he is presented as a frightened boy who has been victimised. He does not counter attack the Nazgul at Weathertop, he merely takes the blade, and thus becomes a victim. This ultimately also detracts from the moment when Merry and Eowyn take on the Witch King, as we have already seen that such a figure can indeed be 'taken on' by those brave enough to do so. Hence Frodo fails in another of his strengths, his ability to inspire others to bravery. And another one of the branches on Tolkien's tree is chopped down. He is taken to Rivendell by Arwen, he does not raise the waters of the Bruinen by himself, which would have shown his incipient goodness of spirit. Galadriel patronises him, everyone has to protect him. Frodo’s achievement is demeaned by this. Film Frodo is not always a popular figure, and I have heard many say that they did not like him, that he was 'a wimp'. That makes me recoil in horror, as Frodo is nothing like 'a wimp'. How exactly then, does this rewriting appeal to a broader audience? Shouldn't Frodo have been made even tougher if anything? Now that would have made sense according to Jackson's arguments.

Aragorn is not given Anduril at the right time. Instead of being a Man who is impelled to carry out his destiny whether he likes it or not, he becomes a Man who seems to have a choice in whether to carry out his destiny. Instead of coming out of the north as a kingly figure who causes amazement and inspires Men, he comes out of the north as an uncertain figure and Jackson struggles to make us believe that he is a Man who can inspire other Men to great deeds. As others have said, at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, it looks as though the victory is entirely due to the Army of the Dead. This again demeans the bravery of not only Aragorn, but also other Men, including the Rohirrim.

Core values were altered and Tolkien’s moral vision was altered. This is the difference between Tolkien, who was a master of story-telling and Jackson, who is a master of visualisation. If he had not allowed needless alteration of such fundamental aspects such as plot and character then his films would have been even more successful. The main criticism I hear about them is that at times they were confusing, and the confusion always occurs where the storytelling was changed.

I cannot accept that certain changes were made to make the film more accessible. To take a recent example, we had the film of King Arthur where Arturius (sp?) was keenly aware of his duty and thence his manifest destiny. Audiences did not struggle with this, so why would they struggle with the same concept in Aragorn? And why, when we have a brave Frodo already, turn him into someone who comes across as a victim, is often spiteful, and does not inspire those who his changed character was meant to inspire?

How was it confusing to have Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath? He had come across stangers in the wilderness. They might be spies of Sauron. Safest course is to escort them to Minas Tirith. Then he discovers that Frodo is carrying the Ring. So, at the same time as discharging his duty, he gets to bring his father something that he desperately wants. Seems pretty clear to me.

If anyone didn't get that, they really did need the films dumbing down.


This is not clear at all. We see Faramir listening to the pleas of Frodo and Sam to release them, but he does not. Thus Faramir is set up as having something essentially cruel within his character. This then demeans his own sacrifice on the Pelennor Fields. In taking his captives to Osgiliath, in even contemplating giving the Ring to his father, he has shown weakness. We might be led into thinking he is not so far removed from Boromir after all. He has also taken the Hobbits as close to Minas Tirith as it is possible to get without going through the gates and then he releases them, where they could quite easily be recaptured, possibly by another of the soldiers who would wish to ‘prove himself’ to Denethor, following this line of logic. The whole secrecy of their mission, the essence of how they manage to get into Mordor, is taken away. And then of course the Nazgul arrives and as phantom says, right on the edges of Mordor, sees the Ring, yet Sauron does not hear of this? This goes against everything we have been told so far in the films and makes people question the storytelling.

The films are in no measure perfect adaptations, and anyone who just watches the films will fail to grasp much of the story and its themes. In that respect they have failed which is a shame as they are stunning and thoroughly enjoyable; the changes remain inexplicable and they spoil the films, much in the same way as the sudden discovery of a coffee ring on the Mona Lisa would spoil that.

[Bêthberry]

I've been following along silently with this discussion, intrigued at how the same topic can take different shapes with different posters. But finallyI feel compelled to join in with an historical observation.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that people complained Tolkien had dumbed down his sources of inspiration.

;) ;) :D

And, yes, Viriginia, there is a point here about interpretation.

[The Saucepan Man]

Indeed, Bêthberry, a point that had occurred to me. And even now many academics and literary critics look down on LotR as "childish" or "boy's own" fantasy rather than a masterpiece of story-telling. And his books still get relegated to the sci-fi/fantasy section rather than the classic literature section in most book shops.

But let me nail this “confusion” issue.

First, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath:


This is not clear at all. We see Faramir listening to the pleas of Frodo and Sam to release them, but he does not. Thus Faramir is set up as having something essentially cruel within his character.I accept that the Faramir presented on screen is a different character to the Faramir in the book. Whether or not a particular character change was justified and how we respond to it is subjective. You think that it is wrong to portray Faramir as having any weakness. I think that it actually makes him more credible and appealing (in the context of the film). Opinions on that will differ. But it’s not something that is going to cause confusion with audiences. They just get a different perspective.


But since you brought it up the Faramir/Osgiliath episode also adds something confusing to the story. It introduces the infamous "Nazgul moment", which you must admit was horrible planning.I said earlier that I thought the Nazgul incident could have been handled better. I have no problem with Frodo (film Frodo, that is) trying to offer up the Ring. The intention here is to provide a trigger for Faramir’s realisation that the Ring is dangerous and should not be brought to Minas Tirith. Together with Sam’s words, this is what prompts him to let them go. Osgiliath is actually closer to their destination that Henneth Annun, so he’s hardly doing them a disservice and he stocks them up with provisions. The problem lies with the fact that, the Nazgul having seen the Ring, Osgiliath should have been swarming with them within minutes. I would have preferred to see Faramir shoot the Nazgul’s Fell Beast, which would explain how Sam and Frodo were able to get away.


I had to stop the film on more than one occasion to answer questions. Here's a few that were asked-OK then. I shall address each one.


1) It looks like that girl was making the river flood but then she looked surprised when the flood came. What's up with that?
Of course she was surprised. She wasn’t expecting it. If she had been, it would have made her look weaker. They are on the threshold of Rivendell. It doesn’t take much wit to work out (with a little patience) that the flood was invoked by either Elrond or Gandalf, who we subsequently learn is there, or both (as in the book). I can’t recall, but it may even have been explained in the following scene with Gandalf and Frodo. (Lalwendë, in the book it was Elrond and Gandalf that created the flood, not Frodo.)


2) How come everyone's scared of those guys in black when that Elf girl wasn't and stood up to them?Because she’s an Elf perhaps? (I can’t remember whether the films explain that she is a Half-Elf, but it doesn’t need to be explained for film purposes.)


3) How was Aragorn able to take on five of those black guys on that hill including their leader but Gandalf gets his staff broken and about gets killed by him?Flippant answer: In terms of when the films were released, these incidents were two years apart, so does it really matter? If you think that it does, well it is made clear that the Nazgul can be driven off by fire by virtue of the fact that Aragorn does just that. They withdraw to resume the chase at a more opportune moment. That much is clear (and mirrors what happens in the book). I don’t really care for the Witch King breaking Gandalf’s staff, but it can be explained. To my mind, the film quite clearly suggests (in the scene in Minas Morgul) that the Witch King’s power is increased prior to the attack on Minas Tirith (and I think that there is book justification for this). Even though he is still not as powerful as Gandalf the White, it is clear that, in Tolkien’s works generally, sheer power is not necessarily the determining factor in any hostile encounter. It is not difficult to imagine that the Witch King was able to seize the initiative and momentarily get the better of Gandalf.


4) Saruman knew what Frodo was doing with the ring, and since Saruman was always in contact with Sauron how could Sauron have not known?Who says Saruman was always in contact with Sauron? Who says Sauron wanted anything to do with Saruman once he had been defeated? There are any number of reasons why Saruman would not be able to communicate this to Sauron. Perhaps Jackson is relying a little bit on audiences using their imagination rather than treating them like dummies. ;)


5) Why were there only 300 men in Rohan to fight Saruman and defend Helm's Deep and then they instantly gather several thousand horseman to ride to Minas Tirith? Why didn't Theoden try to get all those guys to help him before?Not much different from the book, except the number of defenders at Helm’s Deep is smaller. As in the book, the full force of Rohan could not be gathered without a full muster. This is clearly explained in the film.


6) So the Witch King is easy to kill? You just poke a knife at his leg and he'll kneel down in front of you for a couple minutes and wait to be stabbed in the face? How'd he live so long?Not much different from the book, save for the absence of the barrow blade. Since it seems to be generally accepted that it was right to leave out Tom Bombadil, and therefore the Barrow-Downs, how do you suggest this could have been included? Personally, I would have preferred some indication that Merry had a magical blade, but this would have involved further additional material. In any event, it is explicable on the basis that Merry got a sneak attack in on him. And it took another blow to kill him. That doesn’t make him easy to kill.


And here's some random comments that were made-
1) Legolas: "A diversion!" My friends: "Duh! We're not that dumb."
2) Friend: "That elf-guy is mean." Me: "Tolkien said Elrond was 'as kind as summer', so he really wasn't that mean."
3) Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." My friends: "Ha, that was cheezy."The first is a line designed to clarify. It may not have been necessary for everyone, but it will have helped explain what was happening to others. The second involves a change in character. Not confusing, just different. The third is a rendering of a concept on which Tolkien was very keen: that even the most humble can “show their mettle” and prevail. And it doesn’t seem too badly written to me. As I have already said, there are few screenplay writers who could have come up with lines to match Tolkien’s original dialogue.


If he had not allowed needless alteration of such fundamental aspects such as plot and character then his films would have been even more successful. Whether you agree with them or not, Jackson and co clearly did not feel that the changes were needless, otherwise they would not have made them. And they obviously felt that they were needed in order to make the films more successful. The films were stunningly successful, and so it is difficult (to my mind at least) to fault their the logic. Your theory, on the other hand, is untested. :p ;)


The main criticism I hear about them is that at times they were confusing, and the confusion always occurs where the storytelling was changed.I don’t doubt you. But it is entirely different from my experience. The only criticisms of the changes that I have seen are those made by people who had read the book beforehand. I read a good many newspaper reviews of the films at the time that they were released, and not one of them criticised them for being confusing or unclear. The only significant criticism that I can recall, in fact, is that the last film was too long and should have ended with Aragorn’s coronation. Which matches up to my own experience. The feeling that the film had gone beyond its natural conclusion was palpable in some quarters of the cinema where I watched it. Imagine if they had included the Scouring of the Shire (one of my favourite chapters, I might add).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The decision to have Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath is an excellent excample of what I'm on about. It is a major change in the plot, and necessitates a major change in an important character, but it is a necessary change in order to preserve the import of that moment in its translation from text to film. In the story, Faramir has a counsel and they sit down and talk for a long time about what to do with Frodo and Sam. The drama of the scene is there, but it exists in the dialogue, and in the comparison/parallel that the scene enacts between itself and the earlier conversation between Aragorn and Eomer, as well as with reference to Boromir and his betrayal. In the book, it is the final movement in a long and intricately worked out/structured conversation. Were the film to have replicated this exactly -- well, boring is a word that comes to mind (20 minutes of talking heads). And simply cutting it down in length doesn't help, as that renders it shatteringly anticlimactic:

Faramir: You have the One Ring that destroyed my brother!

Frodo: Yes.

Faramir: Very well. Off you go.

CUT TO: Battle of Helms Deep. Then, End Credits.

Such a version of the tale would do the story a terrible disservice by suggesting that the "real" action of any importance or peril is the war going on in the west and not Frodo's journey. The decision to have Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath dramatises (that is: makes it suitable for presentation as a drama, not more 'dramatic') a struggle that exists in the book in textual form, as words that people speak to each other.

Not only does the film preserve the importance of this struggle, and maintain its importance as equivalent to the military conflict elsewhere, it also allows the film to demonstrate how fully Faramir is the 'good' reflection of image of Boromir.

This is what I mean when I say that the films did a wonderful job of translation: the sense of Faramir as the better-Boromir, and of the terrible peril that Frodo passes through, these are maintained. As with all acts of translation, something is lost: the possiblity of direct and perfect translation is a dream only -- "je ne sais pas" is not the same as "I dunno". But the sense comes through loud and clear. And I do see PJ et al as translating and not interpreting -- interpretation is still left to the audience.

One More Thing: going to Osgiliath in the second film makes good narrative sense in at least two ways: first, it gives viewers a much better sense of the geography of the scene for the third film, and it introduces the realm of Gondor is an effective way so that it does not just emerge like a surprise in the third film.

Oh, and the Nazgul seeing the Ring in Osgiliath also makes sense in terms of later events. In the film, Gandalf does not know where Sauron will strike, so this must be a matter of some doubt. The fact that Sauron goes full bore after Minas Tirith makes sense if he has a report of a Halfling with the One in Osgiliath, under guard by the Men of Gondor. . .

(Shelob was wrong though: they should have made her more maia-like and not just a big spider.)

[Lalwendë]

About Faramir (again... ;) )

But it’s not something that is going to cause confusion with audiences. They just get a different perspective

The changed character does cause confusion, as in his new role, Faramir is not entirely a 'good' person, and when the question is raised as to why he does not defy his cruel father, then this becomes justified. A man with such a personality might be expected to be more naturally suspicious and questioning and therefore more likely to defy a father who asks him to give up his own life. New Faramir would not have the sense of duty to the notion of a once noble father.

The problem lies with the fact that, the Nazgul having seen the Ring, Osgiliath should have been swarming with them within minutes.

With the Fell Beast in Osgiliath seeing the Ring, not only ought Osgiliath to have been swarming with Nazgul in minutes, but in addition the whole of Ithilien, and I would not give odds on the chances of Frodo getting away at all, let alone getting into Mordor through a poorly guarded approach.

Of course she was surprised. She wasn’t expecting it. If she had been, it would have made her look weaker. They are on the threshold of Rivendell. It doesn’t take much wit to work out (with a little patience) that the flood was invoked by either Elrond or Gandalf, who we subsequently learn is there, or both (as in the book). I can’t recall, but it may even have been explained in the following scene with Gandalf and Frodo. (Lalwendë, in the book it was Elrond and Gandalf that created the flood, not Frodo.)

I actually thought that the look of surprise on Arwen's face was more due to Liv Tyler's 'acting' :eek: . But she does look as though she is 'invoking' something, so it's obvious where this confusion comes into play. there is little suggestion there that it is anyone other than she who has 'invoked' the flood. And yes, it is not Frodo who literally invokes the flood in the book, but it is his presence of mind which calls upon his guardians to help him; he does not sit there defenceless, he musters his own mental strength for a last fight.

The criticisms I have heard are from many non-readers, most of whom are fairly sharp-eyed and -eared, and well accustomed to following the 'logic' inherent in the sci-fi and fantasy genre, whether in films, books or on TV. These are the kind of people who Jackson was without a doubt trying to attract to his films, and unfortunately, the kind of people who are highly likely to spot illogical plot moves.

EDIT to pick up on something Fordim says:

Now, surely if Jackson was trying to leave elements of the film 'open to interpretation' then he was not making them more accessible? To leave plot areas open to interpretation would make the film more difficult to understand, and this would surely repel the 'popular audience'? I think where he leaves things 'open to interpretation' it is more likely he couldn't see a way to tie up the loose ends. I think that the explanation that they wanted to show some more of Gondor before RotK came out would possibly cut some ice in terms of an explanation, but it isn't the spin that Jackson put on it. After all, if you are a film director who has just spent hundreds of millions on making a film and then there is a plot hole it has to defended in some way. And whether they wanted to make the most of the 'cool' special effects or simply to show some of Gondor in advance of RotK we will never know as Jackson puts other reasons forward which don't wash.

[davem]

Quick response.

Of course she was surprised. She wasn’t expecting it. If she had been, it would have made her look weaker. They are on the threshold of Rivendell. It doesn’t take much wit to work out (with a little patience) that the flood was invoked by either Elrond or Gandalf, who we subsequently learn is there, or both (as in the book). I can’t recall, but it may even have been explained in the following scene with Gandalf and Frodo. (Lalwendë, in the book it was Elrond and Gandalf that created the flood, not Frodo.)

If you read the translation of her words at the ford its clear she was (or should have been) expecting it to happen:

Nîn o Chithaeglir

lasto beth daer;

Rimmo nîn Bruinen

dan in Ulaer!



('Waters of the Misty Mountains

listen to the great word;

flow waters of Loudwater

against the Ringwraiths!')

Arwen is invoking the Bruinen to attack the Nazgul, so she has been given Elrond's power over the river.

(You can find translations of the elvish in the movies at http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/movie_fotr.htm)

[Essex]

re Faramir's dialouge with the hobbits.In the book, it is the final movement in a long and intricately worked out/structured conversation. Were the film to have replicated this exactly -- well, boring is a word that comes to mind (20 minutes of talking heads). And simply cutting it down in length doesn't help, as that renders it shatteringly anticlimacticI totally agree. It's a pity we could not show Faramir's superb interrogation techniques. the way he leads the hobbits (sam in particular) into a false sense of security and thus tricks Sam into giving away their secret is a superbly written piece of the book. This was brought somewhat into the bbc radio version, but I don't think it would have worked on screen.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Depends if you like a little bit of good dialogue and acting in your films.

[Essex]

Very funny, Eomer. Word for word, just like the Council of Elrond, it would not have worked in this adaptation of the movie. It would have taken too long.

I would pay to watch a mini series version of the book, word for word as much as possible, with the Faramir scenes one of the highlights for me. But this would not work as a Major Film, as it would have to be, like the narrated full version available on CD, at least 54 hours long. Films are not made this way.

The only film that to me was written verbatim from the book was the excellent Shawshank Redemption from the novella Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King. This film version cut some corners yes, but a lot of the dialougue and scenes from the book were in the film. But this was a novella, not a 1000+ page book that LOTR is.......

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Another novella which is rendered largely word for word is "A Christmas Carol" :p

However, I don't think any of us are calling for a word for word dramatic readthrough. Just a slightly less skewed major film.

[radagastly]

The world is changed.I feel it in the water.
I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.

or:

When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificance, ther was much talk and excitement in Hibbiton.

Just a warning, this is a bit of a rant!

I have silently watched this thread with much interest, trying not to post because I had already seen it in the Dumbing Down the Books (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=514&page=4&pp=40&highlight=Dumbing+books) thread, subsequently closed by the esteemed Barrow Wight because of assorted personal vehemence about this topic (at least, I assume that's the reason-i.e. it became too heated and personal.)

In all of this, no one has mentioned the use of the prologue, a very tricksy device.

The first quote above is followed by twenty minutes (the producers stopwatch, not mine), of film depicting the Battle of the 'Last Alliance', including Gil-Galad and Aiglos, as well as Elendil's death and the severing of the Ring from Sauron's hand ( (Never mind that the BOOK indicates that Sauron was already dead when Isildur cut the ring from his hand. Even that's debatable.) and the death of Isildur. The fact in this is that as much debate as there is about "Wimpy" movie-Frodo compared to "Brave" book-Frodo or Arwen the courageous she-elf or the demure and unattainable princess of Imladris, no one seems to question the beginning of each telling of this story. Now, any financially successful author (and certainly any good editor) will tell you that a strong opening is essential to a successful project. Yet, no one seems to wonder that these two tellings of this story start almost three thousand years apart from each other.

Now, please don't think that I'm completely satisfied with the film as it is. There are many flaws, mostly when it diverges from Tolkien's thoughtful plot. I was also disappointed when the characters were radically changed from what Tolkien envisioned. I wonder, why is it that no one questions Peter Jackson's use of such an extensive prologue when Tolkien found no need for such a device? Even Bakshi summarized 'The Hobbit' with a prologue of sorts in his animated version some years ago. I have very little memory of the Bakshi version, except that the Black Riders were very frightening, and that he used a lot of 'live action' animation (Filming Live actors and then animating over top the negatives of that film).

So, what was wrong with Tolkien's opening of the story, his attack, as it were, that film-makers seem to avoid it? Why do they feel the need to 'explain' the Ring before we even encounter the main characters? Even in most films, we meet the main characters before we are confronted with the crux of the story. This is even more frequent in novels. So, why change from one device to another?

The answer lies in two DIFFERENT art forms. Film is not the same as literature! It's a different form of art. Tolkien had paragraphs or even chapters available to him to expound on characterization or plot details that were simply not available to Jackson. Even Jackson admitted that Tolkien's books, as written, were not filmable. This is absolutely true. Imagine "The Council of Elrond" filmed straight through. Fran and Peter origanally wrote it that way. The New Line producers said "no." It was nearly twenty minutes of talking with no action at all. TWENTY MINUTES! So, why would they put up with twenty minutes of prologue, when it was not present in Tolkien's book?

Because a good film exists visually. At it's best, a good film can have the sound turned off, completely silent, and still hold up. It doesn't need words. It shouldn't need words. It's about the pictures. Novels are all about words. That's more of a difference than most people seem to realize. One cannot worship in a painting of a cathedral, no matter how inspiring. You can worship before it, but you cannot enter in. You cannot touch the stone-work or smell the candles. Even if the picture can move and change as it does on film. It's still just a static picture until the next picture is edited in. It doesn't need dialogue. It's all about the visual images and how they are edited. And this editing plays on the psychology of the audience. Film-makers know this. It's their job to know how people will receive and interpret it, based on how they edit it and what specific images they are editing.

Getting to specifics, do most people realize that up until Elijah Wood's second to last day of filming, (and Andy Serkis's very last day!) the scene at Sammath Naur had Frodo pushing Gollum over the edge into the lava, after his finger was bitten off, just to get rid of the Ring? They (the film-makers) changed it at the last minute to be more like Tolkien's version of how it was portrayed. They decided it would simply not do to have a film about the internal struggle between Good and Evil end with a triumphant act of Murder. (and it probably would have elicited cheers from the audience, if they had left it with what they had already filmed.) Given another few years, they probably would have changed everything they altered to fit Tolkien, but that just wasn't practical.

One of the problems people seem to have with the film stems from the fact that Peter Jackson is also an artist, as was J. R. R. Tolkien. But they are artists working in two different media.

And as for "Moral Obligation," I think that when you are spending three hundred million dollars of someone else's money, you have a moral obligation to bring as much as your own artistry into the project as you can. P.J. went to the hospital out of sheer stress during the filming of this movie. He has been a fan of Tolkien since Junior High School (or New Zealand's equivilant) and wanted desperately to make these films. How much obligation would one expect him to morally expend?

There are many specific complaints addressed in this thread, most of which I frankly agree with. I wanted a braver, older Frodo. I wanted a nobler Aragorn and Faramir, especially Aragorn. I wanted a less gratuitous, more moral tale with more talking and less action. I got some of the talking back in the Extended Edition (the real version of the films), but not as much as I craved.

All in all, though, they are good movies. When Bakshi's version came out, they were the best filming of this story yet attempted. Granted, they were, at that time, the ONLY version of this story yet attempted on film, but it was nice to know that someone would even attempt it at all. Twenty-odd years later, P.J.'s effort is a vast improvement, with some flaws. The next attempt, probably twenty-some odd years from now, will succeed even more.

It is, I think, possible to film this story with considerably more loyalty to the way Tolkien portrayed it, and make a better film in the process. I can't prove that. I have only my faith in Tolkien's genius to say that. But so far, it's the best we have, and it's a lot. It's visually stunning (Thank you New Zealand, John Howe and Alan Lee!) and it's (mostly) loyal to Tolkien's themes. It's possible that some of the subtler themes that Tolkien conveyed escaped P. J.'s mind (Frodo's and Sam's relationship comes immediatly to mind, though there are others), or that he was aware of them (far more likely, considering how much time he spent on this project, and his world-wide search for experts) and chose to ignore them in order to make a good film in the space he had, but that is something we will never know.

What I want to know is, what's wrong with starting the story with Bilbo's birthday party? Is the exposition of the Ring that difficult to fit into the text on film as opposed to in a book?

The world is changed.

Of course it has. How could it not?

[Essex]

However, I don't think any of us are calling for a word for word dramatic readthrough. Just a slightly less skewed major film.You'd be surprised, Sophia. You think that the majority of ranters on these threads want just a 'slightly less skewed major film?' That's putting it very lightly!

Radagastly, excellent post. (I suppose I'd better learn how to do this reputation type thing and send you one :) )

[The Only Real Estel]

Of course she was surprised. She wasn’t expecting it. If she had been, it would have made her look weaker.

That isn't the way that it came across to me. From Arwen's chanting I got the impression that it was Arwen who 'called up' the flood (in the movie of course). And now that davem has posted the translation of what she was saying I am further convinced of it.

It doesn’t take much wit to work out (with a little patience) that the flood was invoked by either Elrond or Gandalf, who we subsequently learn is there, or both (as in the book). I can’t recall, but it may even have been explained in the following scene with Gandalf and Frodo

I don't think that someone who has never read the books would draw that connection. Because Gandalf did not explain it to Frodo later (as he did in the books), we are never specifically told who called up the flood and therefore assume it was Arwen (because of her chanting). We are introduced shortly to Master Elrond, apparently an Elf who has healing powers, despite his scary eyebrows. But we don't quickly decide that he must've called up the flood. By using our basic powers of deduction we discover that he is apparently the Master of Rivendell, and that he can't chair a committee meeting very well. And that is about all that we learn about him, other than through our friend the phantom, who tells us he's really as 'kind as summer' (we could swear he meant as 'kind as sunburn'). And TTT and RotK don't reveal anything either, other than he's not a very positive guy. Though no doubt the question of who called up that flood in FotR isn't on our minds while we watch the next two movies in the trilogy.

What I want to know is, what's wrong with starting the story with Bilbo's birthday party?

Because Jackson doesn't have a lot of time later to explain about the Ring. Tolkien could afford to gradually expound on the Ring by explaining little bits here and little bits there; but for PJ the best way to go was with the introduction he chose. I think that if you have the opportunity to simplify the history of the Ring, the Last Alliance, Isildur's Betrayal, Gollum's finding of the Ring, and subsequently Bilbo's finding of the Ring, leaving basically no real questions about the story that you are about to present--and doing this all in only twenty minutes (or one twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth of your films)--you go for it every time.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, a word-for-word Council of Elrond would not have worked on screen. And maybe the omission of Fatty Bolger was a pretty good idea too...

But the Frodo/Faramir interaction, let's have some intelligence for that part. They added in a bunch of action that was pretty boring compared with the Battle at Helm's Deep. That's where you put in the good acting and the dialogue, as a sensible contrast to the major battle.

Instead, when they wanted to take a break from the battle, they cut to the comedy Ents and Hobbits. These were the least admired scenes from critics, which I find understandable if harsh.

But I think I lost my point. Sorry. It's a bemusing thread, verily.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

So, why would they put up with twenty minutes of prologue, when it was not present in Tolkien's book?

I always saw the prologue of FOTR as an attempt to portray some of the history given in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past" without resorting to the lengthy conversation occuring between Frodo and Gandalf that's been known to turn some readers off as well, by its length and depth. A little more of that history comes in during the prologue of ROTK, showing the history of Gollum.

Now perhaps I'm not as much of a purist as I always thought, but I see no problems in taking a conversationally described history and showing it from a different viewpoint. It's when the history is changed substantially that I begin to get irked. For instance, I would have preferred to see Gil-galad and Elendil slay Sauron and Isildur come in later. It negates the heroism of Elendil and Gil-galad to have Sauron kill them first and then have Isildur come in later and clean up. However, it's a minor point as far as plotline of the larger films is concerned, and that's probably why you haven't heard much complaining about it.

Sophia

[The Saucepan Man]

That isn't the way that it came across to me. From Arwen's chanting I got the impression that it was Arwen who 'called up' the flood (in the movie of course). And now that davem has posted the translation of what she was saying I am further convinced of it.Well the audience can't be expected to translate Arwen's words without subtitles. It is clear, however, from what has been said that the intention was that Arwen was calling up the flood. The question, therefore, is does that come across on screen. It is quite a while since I last watched FotR (I seem to watch these films a lot less than those who seem to like them less than me ;) ), so I cannot really recall. My earlier comments were made from an imperfect recollection. But it seems from what has been said that it does come across that she is responsible for the flood, but that a look of surprise crossing her face may introduce an element of confusion. I'll have to watch it again, but might that be interpreted as a slight catch of breath at the power she has brought forth?

And in any event do people who have not read the book really analyse these things that closely and get bothered by such minor issues?

[Lalwendë]

But it seems from what has been said that it does come across that she is responsible for the flood, but that a look of surprise crossing her face may introduce an element of confusion. I'll have to watch it again, but might that be interpreted as a slight catch of breath at the power she has brought forth?

I've just finished an Extended Editions 'Rings marathon' :eek: so the Arwen/flood episode is fresh in the mind. Well, she definitely does call up the flood, but I take back my comments on her acting ;) as what it actually appears that she is doing is looking over her shoulder as the torrent comes thundering round the bend and thinking "oops, I'd better move up this river bank a bit".

It was watching Two Towers that the script alterations came through most intrusively and I got the impression that the script writing had got a little out of hand and the team were unable to pinpoint where they wanted to go with it. There was an immense section of action in the middle of the film that did not seem to have a concrete purpose, going from the Warg attack right through to Aragorn getting to Helm's Deep. I feel this could have been tightened up considerably, but mainly as it seemes to take up a lot of time when other scenes were being 'cut', so that's my opinion.

Watching the Faramir sections again, I still cannot see how the changes fit to the storyline. And the time it took up was lengthy, so keeping to the books would not have taken any longer, not would it have been dull. I thought that a more suitable change, if there had to have been one, might have been to have Faramir realise that his brother's death was due to the ring and have this as his moment of realisation.

The other thing which came across was with the changes to Aragorn. I got the distinct impression that he was being drawn as a leader for a world which values the idea of a 'meritocracy', that a leader would have to 'earn his stripes' rather than have the divine right of a king. Thus the changes to Aragorn had some political implications to my mind. These could have been due to Jackson's own particular views on leadership or due to him thinking a modern audience would not 'like' the idea of divine right, but if it is the latter then that sits peculiarly as there is at the same time the contrasting image of Theoden, who does display 'divine right' at the same time as being an active military leader, so he shows that this can be done.

And yes, I did enjoy it thoroughly.

[The Saucepan Man]

The other thing which came across was with the changes to Aragorn. I got the distinct impression that he was being drawn as a leader for a world which values the idea of a 'meritocracy', that a leader would have to 'earn his stripes' rather than have the divine right of a king.Although, reading LotR along with the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion, it does seem to me that book Aragorn has a number of trials and tribulations to face before he becomes one who is truly worthy to be king. He is by no means the flawless character that I had previously thought. I have in mind such things as his mistake in letting the Fellowship be carried along by the flow, into real danger, on the Anduin, his despair at Boromir's death and subsequent need to build up his confidence in his own abilities, and his over-confidence before the doors of the Golden Hall. The last lesson, in particular, is important for, had he not shown humility in his reluctance to enter Minas Tirith, it is possible that his claim might have been rejected, Divine Right or no.

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.


And yes, I did enjoy it thoroughly.Glad to hear it! :)

[Boromir88]

I don't see a problem with Faramir in TTT. Whether he gives it up in Hennuth Annun or Osgiliath, I don't think makes a difference. He still WILLINGLY gave up the ring did he not? TTT EE even goes to show why Faramir chose those actions. I don't see how it weakens Faramir at all, he still willingly gave up the ring (which is a hard thing to do if you're a man, especially the son of a crazy father, and the brother of the person who tried to take the ring). I think the whole Ringwraith spotting Frodo with the Ring should be thrown out, but I don't see a big problem with Faramir taking the ring to Osgiliath, if anything it adds suspense.

This thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11447) may be of some interest.

[davem]

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.

I think maybe this sums up my problem with the movies (& I also, & co-incidentally ;), have just finished watching all three EE's through) - Jackson & the writers' tendency to take things from the book which Tolkien mentions in passing, or of which he makes a very subtle use & repeatedly belt the audience over the head them with till we're pleasing with him to 'STOP!, because we get it already!'

Its the way every little thing has to be hammered home, just in case some 13 year old in the audience may have missed it that makes the movies such a wearying experience at times.

Having said that, I have to be honest & say that I don't feel as negative about the movies as I did, now that I've had the chance to see them right through as Jackson intended.

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.

[Boromir88]

Jackson & the writers' tendency to take things from the book which Tolkien mentions in passing, or of which he makes a very subtle use & repeatedly belt the audience over the head them with till we're pleasing with him to 'STOP!, because we get it already!'
Very true, somethings he beats into our head, and others, I don't think he gives a lot of explaining which leaves a lot of non-book readers puzzling what the heck is going on? Like the famous questions...

"Why didn't Gandalf summon the eagles sooner?" (From ROTK it definitely appears as if Gandalf summons them).

or...

"Why did Frodo leave?"
"Why didn't Sauron guard Mount Doom better?"

I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.
My favorite experience would be...someone (who will remain unnamed) totally oblivious to the basic plotlines. For example, this particular person though Sauron sent the 10,000 army to Helm's Deep, and was totally oblivious to who Saruman was. Then had the nerve of saying "I don't think I'm more clever then the screenwriters, just more clever then the book."

[Lalwendë]

So, although these flaws in Aragorn's character are portrayed differently, and played up, in the film, they are nevertheless there to a degree in book Aragorn.

I totally agree about Aragorn's flaws in the books. And I think they have captured these on film, but what I did not like was his doubt over his destiny. Book Aragorn is sure of himself in his 'destination' even if he is not sure which path will take him there; he knows and accepts his role. Film Aragorn cannot accept this until RotK. The two Aragorns are very different men in that respect. Book Aragorn has the divine right while film Aragorn feels he must prove his right. Both have to show by deeds that they deserve the right.

And in any event do people who have not read the book really analyse these things that closely and get bothered by such minor issues?

Oh they do! I used to work with someone who did exactly that. Every tiny point from the films was turned over and inside out, yet no reference was made to the books! ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Book Aragorn is sure of himself in his 'destination' even if he is not sure which path will take him there; he knows and accepts his role. Film Aragorn cannot accept this until RotK. The two Aragorns are very different men in that respect.Agreed. I suppose it comes down to whether people like their film heroes to have that element of doubt in themselves and their destiny. Rightly or wrongly, the film-makers thought that audiences would react better to an Aragorn who was unsure of his destiny. I can sympathise with that, given their understandable reluctance to address his "Divine Right" as a man of pure Numenorean blood (as opposed to simply the heir of a Man who was once king of Gondor). There was scant time to deal with the whole Numenorean heritage thing, and it might have put off some people. Far better (they presumably thought) to have someone who is both the heir to the throne and who, during the events of the film, proves himself worthy of it (to himself and others).


Oh they do! I used to work with someone who did exactly that. Every tiny point from the films was turned over and inside out, yet no reference was made to the books!Well then, the films must have produced quite strong feelings in them for them to have bothered spending the time to do that. ;)

[Neurion]

In refernce to Radaghastly's post, I just want to say that a good example of how I dislike some of the divergences from Tolkien's original story is in the portrayal of Isildur.

In Unfinished Tales, it's quite obvious that the Ring has (as of yet) exerted no corrupting influence over Isildur, besides simply motivating him to keep it, and, in fact, when he dies he is marching back to take up the rule of Arnor after spending several years instructing his nephew Meneldur in the ways of ruling wisely. Not the behaviour characteristic of a power-hungry tyrant, IMO.

When the battle between his bodyguard and the orcs runs ill he does not simply run off, but is urged by his son to try and escape to Imladris, at which point, Isildur comments that he now understands why the elves wanted the Ring destroyed.

Jackson, Boyens and Walsh do not seem to understand the character at all. It might be argued that it was neccessary to reduce Isildur's filmic personna to such simplistic dimensions because of time constraints, but Jackson's seemingly-humorous comment that they got Harry Sinclair to play Isildur because he was the most corrupt actor they could think of would seem to speak against such a conclusion.

In the the conceptual Prologue in the EE appendices, Isildur's response to Elrond's demand that he destroy the Ring is a confused "Why?", much more in keeping with the character's personality and motivations in the book. In the film though, he simply sneers "No", and then is next seen riding through a forest, looking as though he's heading off to finish up where Ar-Pharazon left off.

All in all, a rather dismaying portrayal one of the noblest of the old Numenoreans.

[Aiwendil]

The Forum Ate My Post

Looks like a post I made last Thursday didn't get through - strange. Anyway, I feel it's worth at least just summing up some of the points I made there, even if the thread has moved on a bit.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Yes, another production team might have done things slightly different. They might have excluded more of the additional scenes and included more of the original scenes and lines. But any film-maker is going to approach it from his or her interpretation of what will work best and, in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.


This is true, but I don't think we should underestimate the degree to which a particular director's (or producer's or writer's) style comes through in a film. Had another director done these movies, I don't doubt that they would be quite different - and I don't mean just in terms of alterations from the book. Jackson, for example, based much of the visual style of Middle-earth on the work of John Howe and Alan Lee; one could easily imagine another director favoring the Hildebrandt brothers, for example. Another director would have emphasized points that Jackson ignored and ignored points Jackson emphasized. A lot of directors would have done worse. But I think that a few would have done better - and there are a number of specific decisions made by Jackson that I think were mistakes that were not inevitable, and that could just as easily not have been made.

Formendacil puts this point well:
But here's where PJ screwed up where my fandom was concerned: the LITTLE things. I can understand and even come close to approving the big changes, but the little ones elude me. Why does Aragorn's crown not fit the description of the one in the book? Why does Arwen have a CURVED sword?

Giving Elves curved blades, for example, is something that was surely not necessitated by the desire to conform to the modern Hollywood style. Now I don't doubt that Jackson had a reason for it; but he could very easily have done it the "right" way. This is what bothers me more than anything, and I think that my dissatisfaction with the many of the more major changes, if perhaps less justified, stems from the same source.

And all this remains a valid complaint, I think, even if one grants that it was right and proper for Jackson to go for stylistic conformity to other modern blockbusters - and many would, of course, question this. The Saucepan Man argues that:

We blithely refer here to the films being "Hollywood-ised", but this style of film did not just come about randomly. It arose to fulfil a demand. Film studios have sophisticated ways of discovering what it is that their target audiences want. They don't always get it right, but they are usually pretty accurate. They have found that people want lots of action in their blockbusters, and that's what the LotR films give them.

In other words, it was inevitable that the LotR movies would be "Hollywood-ised". Now I don't disagree. But I can lament a state of affairs even if it is an inevitable one. I am one of those who is not particularly well-pleased with the average modern Hollywood movie - most of my favorite films are from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. Now I don't expect film-makers to turn down fortunes in potential profit, ignore current trends, and make movies that pander to my taste. But that doesn't mean I have to like, or pretend to like, what they produce.

An analogy that just popped into my head: despite the fact that increased urbanization and development are inevitable, especially in the New Jersey/Pennsylvania/New York area where I live, I am still dismayed and angered whenever I find that some particular patch of woods that I once knew has turned into an office complex.

So I would claim that:

1. Even granting Hollywood-ization, a tighter, more focused, more faithful adaptation could have been made.

2. An even greater trilogy of films could have been made by a director who refused to adopt certain aspects of the modern style.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by SpM: in the case of a film that is unlikely ever to be made other than as an action-heavy blockbuster, this will involve significant changes to conform with that approach and gain mass appeal.
That's what the teens like to see, and as davem said in a previous post...
I still wish his target audience had been literate adults rather than illiterate teens.
I enjoyed the battle scenes in the movies, I think PJ goes to show the length of these battles very well. Tolkien writes very little on the actual battles, but Helm's Deep lasts the night, Minas Tirith and Pelennor are both one day long. Eventhough, Tolkien doesn't into pages and pages of "battle scenes" it has to be shown the screen differently. You have to show the true length of the battles, not meaning making it unbelievably long, but making viewers see the fact that this is a BIG battles.

I'm reminded by the movie of Troy, with the quote..."This is going to be the biggest battle the world has ever seen..." Very similar case to Minas Tirith and Pelennor. These are the biggest battles of the third age. As a director you have to show that, you can't just make a small 20 minute fight sequence, and then put up a corny subtitle "one day later."

Aiwendil:
most of my favorite films are from the '50s, '60s, and '70s.
Same here, I love Hitchcock movies...North by Northwest, Vertigo, Strangers on a Train, not to mention all the great movies Scorsese and DeNiro did together. I do get irked when people call LOTR "the greatest movie ever," but have never seen some of the classic, groundbreaking movies of the time, also better directed. These movies were much different. Take North by Northwest, and many other Hitchcock (as well as earlier directors' films)...Now adays, it's like the director takes the audiences intellegence so low, he/she has to show someone getting stabbed and blood seeping out of everywhere (sorry for the picture). Hitchcock didn't show the physical murders, but people still understood, and it actually made the movie a lot better. You would hear a gunshot, or maybe a body fall, or maybe just the impression on someone's face...

1. Even granting Hollywood-ization, a tighter, more focused, more faithful adaptation could have been made.
Number one I agree, but would it have brought in the crowds? I still think so, the hype for the movie was so big, people would still go see it. It may not have been quite as popular once people saw the movie, but the point is these movies were hyped, many Tolkienists like ourselves wanted to see Tolkien's work adapted on screen, so I say it still wouldh ave brought in the crowds.

2. An even greater trilogy of films could have been made by a director who refused to adopt certain aspects of the modern style.
This goes back to my Metareferences and Intertextuality, the belief that everything that's written now adays, or produced is never COMPLETELY original. The idea that everything that has been created is a rip off of someone else's work. This isn't to say that "Tolkien stole ideas from so and so..." or "Jackson..daddadada..." It's just, when creating a movie (or book), we are influenced by previous things that we've read or seen. The author, or people making the movie, will intentionally (or unconsciously) rewrite what has already been done, just give it some different characters, or maybe instead of destroying a ring, some future author writes a story about destroying a superpowerful microchip.

Number 2, you might be right, if you put the right guy on the job I wouldn't doubt it, but hey if it aint broke why fix it? There are times when I look at PJ as a director and say, wow that is great stuff, and he has shown that he can be a GREAT (yes I said it) director. Then times when he just has to show meaningless gore and death to make the teens go "yay!"

[Essex]

I thought that a more suitable change, if there had to have been one, might have been to have Faramir realise that his brother's death was due to the ring and have this as his moment of realisation.

At least we have Sam say this in the film, and to me it does finally help lead to Faramir's Epiphany

[HerenIstarion]

the belief that everything that's written now adays, or produced is never COMPLETELY original

Sound idea, I daresay. Find support in the words of the Man himself (excerpt from Mythopoeia, poem addressed at C.S.Lewis)

The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact.
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made.

emphasis mine

[Mister Underhill]

Just a quick note on something I've observed all over the Movies forum -- the idea that LotR needs to be "made accessible" to find an audience. Don't 100 million-plus copies and fifty years of enduring popularity prove that LotR is accessible, even without Dwarf-tossing jokes and an ignoble Faramir? I like a mentality that buys a book because of its success and popularity, then decides that it won't be accessible unless lots of changes are made.

There is a certain patronizing attitude in the assumption that modern audiences won't get it or will grow bored without an action sequence every five pages and a few belches here and there to funny it up. Yet I don't get the sense that PJ is often intentionally patronizing; rather, I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.

[davem]

There is a certain patronizing attitude in the assumption that modern audiences won't get it or will grow bored without an action sequence every five pages and a few belches here and there to funny it up. Yet I don't get the sense that PJ is often intentionally patronizing; rather, I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.

The other day I watched all three movies back-to-back, & some new thoughts occurred.

I brought this up in the CbC chapter but maybe its also relevant here. What I also find lacking in the movies is mercy. In the movie Gandalf seeks out Saruman for their final confrontation only because he believes Saruman has information which would assist in defeating Sauron. Frodo seeks to help Gollum only because he needs to believe Gollum can 'come back' ie his motivation is selfish - he's worried about himself, & wants to be sure he himself can 'come back'.

Perhaps the thing that really bothers me about these movies, now I think about it, is the much more 'hard-nosed' & cynical attitude the 'good' characters display towards their foes. No-one seems to act selflessly, out of simple compassion & a desire to show mercy - even if that puts them at risk.

Perhaps modern audiences are not 'dumbed down' but simply more selfish & uncaring. I wonder whether if Frodo & Gandalf had been shown as wishing to save Gollum & Saruman audiences would have seen them as being 'weak'.

I also wonder whether one reason the Scouring was left out was that audiences simply wouldn't have understood Frodo's behaviour. Certainly it seems that it was felt necessary to show Frodo struggling over the Ring with Gollum at the Sammath Naur - he has to fight at the end. Would Frodo's offer of mercy to Saruman at the end have been acceptible to a modern audience?

In modern movies it seems 'villains' must be shown as being undeserving of mercy, as 'deserving' all they get. When I read of Saruman's death in the book I get an overwhelming feeling that it is ugly, sordid & 'wrong' that a being once so 'high' should die like that, in those circumstances. Watching his death in the movie I get the feeling Jackson wants me to cheer over the fact that the 'bad guy' has got his comeuppance (sp?).

So, the absence of mercy, & of any sense of tragedy in the death of the 'enemies' - perhaps that is what really bothers me about the movies. I don't know if that constitutes a 'dumbing down' or a 'hardening up' of Tolkien's tale but either way it feels 'wrong'...

[Boromir88]

I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.
Yes, Mr. Underhill, that's why I have a problem with people thinking Jackson is some great director. LOTR is by far his best movie I think, then Heavenly Creatures is supposedly good but I haven't seen it, everything else is just junk. I'm waiting to see which Jackson shows up for King Kong. If I can see that Jackson has broken away from his old directing days, then we'll see what happens. Jackson I think has good potential, but that's just it, potential.

Watching his death in the movie I get the feeling Jackson wants me to cheer over the fact that the 'bad guy' has got his comeuppance (sp?).
That irks me a little. When people praise Legolas for killing Grima, the awful baddie, that helped Saruman. The same case with Denethor, he wasn't shown to be very kind. People cracking up laughing, when Gandalf whacks him in the face a couple times. I can understand making the steward look bad, because in his own ways he was. However, the no-mannered, cherry spatting, punching bag is another example of PJ just taking things too far, and slamming an idea down our throat.

[Bêthberry]

Yet I don't get the sense that PJ is often intentionally patronizing; rather, I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.


So, the absence of mercy, & of any sense of tragedy in the death of the 'enemies' - perhaps that is what really bothers me about the movies. I don't know if that constitutes a 'dumbing down' or a 'hardening up' of Tolkien's tale but either way it feels 'wrong'...

Both of these statements might together, I think, explain why I am disssatisfied with the movies as movies. PJ's imagination is watered by two sources: Tolkien and Lucas. Yet rather than out of this creative ferment producing new vintage wine, he produces some vinegar.

Take, for example, the skateboarding scene in Helm's Deep. Or the dwarf tossing comment. In Star Wars that kind of bragadocchio reflects upon the characters. Han Solo's "That's great kid. Now, don't get cocky" works as a humorous interjection into the battle because it says something about both Han's and Luke's characters. The line reads like the effort of those fighting to lessen the impact and force of ... The Force, if you will. It is part of their battle strategy. At Helm's Deep, the skateboarding and dwarf tossing are mere additions for the sake of humour. And both the tragedy of the battle and the dignity of the characters are lost.

The same thing when Aragorn's horse nuzzles him awake from the dream of Arwen. Haha, sure, funny, but how does that develop Aragorn's character or depict this supposedly iconic love and romance? It doesn't. It is just a but of cheap humour thrown in.

Similarly, for me, is Gandalf's arrival atop Shadowtax and the great rearing shot of the horse. Roy Rogers to the rescue? The cowboy motif fits Han Solo because that is how he is presented throughout the ST trilogy: he is a gunslinger in space. But Gandalf is not. He has, from the beginning, been a wizard and interjecting a cowboy image late in the game takes artistic skill which the director does not have.

This discussion could turn into a version of the Canonicity argument: the Director, the film, the audience, but I don't think it is so much a question of 'dumbing down' for the audience. Rather, I think it is a question, as Mr. Underhill suggests, of PJ's nature as a filmmaker. This is his interpretation of how to bring Tolkien to the screen. Yet he fails to appreciate the mythic or moral stature of LotR and his fails to understand how Lucas uses humour in ST. Thus, we have diminished charactertisations and misplaced comedy and changes which don't ring true as a movie.


Knights in battle have a different tone than cowboys in space. PJ could not amalgamate the two into a unified, coherent filmic vision. Too many semes show. (And, yes, I do mean 'semes' ) ;)

[Lalwendë]

In examples such as Saruman's death you can see how the subtleties of the original text were lost during the adaptation, how intricately woven the tale in the books is compared to the merely surface level of the tale in the films. To have included the Scouring of the Shire might not have made sense in terms of film narrative and length, in adding another ending to confuse those poor audiences, but the events in the book are necessary to finishing the tale off satisfactorily. They not only show exactly what the Hobbits were getting themselves into bother for, but they show how 'the mighty are fallen'. Instead of Saruman being killed in a showdown of epic proportions, he is brought low and humble and this is not only more satisfying but more subtle and meaningful.

But having now watched the trilogy end to end, it is in Two Towers that the vision of Jackson most goes awry. Fellowship was carefully crafted, and the omissions/alterations are not so noticeable, and RotK benefitted from the movement towards the inevitable conclusion. But I got the distinct impression that the scriptwriting team found Two Towers to be dull in some way and therefore in need of 'rewriting'. Much new material was inserted which did not work very well, and the structure disintegrated somewhat. I was suspicious that the writers wanted a way to include Arwen in the film but could not think of a concrete storyline, and that the producers may have been telling Jackson that they wanted to see more use being made out of the effects. The changes may have ultimately been made less with the audience in mind and more with the banks in mind.

[Formendacil]

That irks me a little. When people praise Legolas for killing Grima, the awful baddie, that helped Saruman.

The thought came to me reading this that when I read the book, I feel sorry for Wormtongue. I couldn't stand to be around him, but I feel sorry for him when the company meets him on their way to Rivendell, and he has to continue following Saruman and receiving his abuse. Horrible as it was, I pitied Grima when Saruman tells us he killed Lotho. I can understand Gandalf's contempt for him, certainly, but I can also see how he might have wanted to throw the palantir at Saruman, and not Gandalf.

But in the movie, that was lost, I felt no pity for Grima. He became more one-dimensional. He became just an ugly traitor. He lost all elements of being a victim. We feel that he gets what he deserves at the end.

[davem]

On the subject of 'mercy' I wonder if that's why Faramir's character was changed. My own feeling is that Faramir's decision to release Frodo was based as much as anything on compassion, pity & mercy. Jackson & the writers seem to have missed this completely. The result is that they have had to 'rationalise' the character, & ended up tying themselves up in knots in the process. The movie Faramir simply doesn't work. He comes across as brutal & cowardly in the Henneth Annun scenes - holding a sword to the throat of an unarmed, frightened, confused & deeply distressed prisoner, & standing by (but refusing to look), while his men brutally torture Gollum. In later scenes he comes across as weak & despairing, throwing his life away for no other reason than he wants daddy to love him.

Faramir can only work at all as Tolkien wrote him, & with his primary motivations his idealism, compassion & high ideals. If these things are removed in a desire to make him more 'believable' he actually becomes unnecessary to the plot, & to an extent drags it down to a more mundane, even a more sordid place.

Still, it is, as I said, a movie for our times - more cynical & brutal times perhaps. Jackson wants to end his story with a 'happy ever after' but he seems to believe that that can be achieved simply by force of arms & a willingness on the part of individuals to sacrifice themselves. What he leaves out of the equation is the selfless compassion & mercy for the undeserving which are so central to the book & to Tolkien's overall message.

These movies don't teach us anything, they just confirm our predjudices about the 'enemy'. What they fail to convey is idea of the Long Defeat. This is one of Tolkien's most important ideas in LotR. Its actually a morally liberating idea - if one cannot achieve ultimate victory in this world by one's own actions, one is freed up to behave in a morally right way, through the knowledge that ultimate victory is not dependent on one's own actions but on something greater. Without that knowledge there can be no trust, & without trust there can be no mercy.

Hence, like Saruman, the writers ended up caught in a cleft stick of their own cutting, & cannot tell Tolkien's tale - they must tell their own. I just don't think its as good....

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

These movies don't teach us anything, they just confirm our predjudices about the 'enemy'. What they fail to convey is idea of the Long Defeat. This is one of Tolkien's most important ideas in LotR. Its actually a morally liberating idea - if one cannot achieve ultimate victory in this world by one's own actions, one is freed up to behave in a morally right way, through the knowledge that ultimate victory is not dependent on one's own actions but on something greater. Without that knowledge there can be no trust, & without trust there can be no mercy.

Thanks for that observation, davem, if for no other reason than that it made clear to me something that I had felt missing in the films but couldn't quite pin down. Jackson's version makes it seem as though evil has been eliminated from Middle-Earth entirely and that everyone is going to live happily ever after, and that feeling is something distictly missing from the book. The mythic feel of the story is diminished.

I'm sure this falls under the category of "eliminated for the sake of marketable movie," and probably rightly so, as any lingering feeling of incompleteness in a modern film usually indicates a forthcoming sequel (God forbid!).

[Aiwendil]

Davem:
I agree with nearly all of what you say. I therefore hesitate to pick upon a minor point, especially one that's tangential to the topic, but I can't help myself. You say:

My own feeling is that Faramir's decision to release Frodo was based as much as anything on compassion, pity & mercy.

I don't doubt that Faramir (book Faramir, anyway) felt compassion and pity for Frodo, but I can't see that this was the reason for his decision. My impression has always been, rather, that Faramir understood, far better than Boromir, the reality of the situation. Regardless of how he felt toward Frodo, he knew that to bring the Ring to Minas Tirith would result in disaster; he knew that in Frodo's errand lay the only real hope.

So I don't think that Jackson's change can be explained simply as a result of Jackson's failure to understand the elements of compassion and mercy in the book. Even failing to understand those aspects, he could still have had Faramir act rationally. But for the sake of that constant tension with which he is obsessed, he felt it necessary to alter the character's perfectly reasonable behavior.

[Boromir88]

I don't doubt that Faramir (book Faramir, anyway) felt compassion and pity for Frodo, but I can't see that this was the reason for his decision. My impression has always been, rather, that Faramir understood, far better than Boromir, the reality of the situation. Regardless of how he felt toward Frodo, he knew that to bring the Ring to Minas Tirith would result in disaster; he knew that in Frodo's errand lay the only real hope.
There are a number of reasons I think behind Faramir's decision. Probably the compassion, he cared more about lore than Boromir, Numenorean blood was "purer" in him, he knew it would end in disaster, but another thing that I've always thought (and grant it it is a weak connection), but the biggest reason (I believe) Faramir let Frodo go was....he learned from Boromir's mistake. In the appendices, the Stewards:
It did not seem possible to Faramir that any one in Gondor could rival Boromir, heir of Denethor, Captain of the White Tower; and of like mind was Boromir.
To Faramir, he thought nobody in Gondor could match his brother, he thought that Boromir was the best in Gondor. Recognizing that Boromir died, because he tried to take the ring, and was "swayed by it," I think Faramir thought, "hey if Boromir, the best in Gondor, fell because of the Ring, I won't be any match for it." So, in essense he learned from his brother's mistake, which I take as a big contributing factor to why Faramir so easily let Frodo go.

[Essex]

Davem, I'm struggling to come to terms with your pointI wonder whether if Frodo & Gandalf had been shown as wishing to save Gollum & Saruman audiences would have seen them as being 'weak'. But I believe they DID show that they wanted to 'save' Gollum.

The film has at least two areas where Gandalf shows mercy towards gollum showing to me that he wants to perhaps 'save' him as you put it. Gandalf discusses Gollum with Frodo in Moria, explaining that Bilbo himself showed pity towards the creature, insinuating that Frodo might do the same. And he brought 3 Eagles with him to Mount Doom didn't he? One for Frodo, one for Sam. And one for Gollum.

Frodo shows pity for Gollum in various parts of the film. For example, there's pity when he is speaking alone with Gollum in the Dead Marshes, and most notably after Gollum has betrayed him to Shelob (where Frodo stops beating up on Gollum and says he has to destroy the Ring for both of them). Doesn't this show that Frodo also wants to 'save' Gollum?

PS Faramir showing compassion, pity & mercy to Frodo? Yeah, by sending him to what he thought was an almost certain death! ;)

[Ainaserkewen]

By Fordim Hedgethistle post #88
Faramir: You have the One Ring that destroyed my brother!

Frodo: Yes.

Faramir: Very well. Off you go.

CUT TO: Battle of Helms Deep. Then, End Credits.

I loved this entire post; it just made so much sense. It would be so lazy, mean and ignorant to just explain away all of the changes that were made to the films as being “misunderstandings of the Director”, “poor acting”, “Dumbing Down”, or “deliberate changes due to financial winnings.” Though examples are evident as with all blockbuster movies. When your analysing situation changes for example, with Faramir, it is unthinkable that any director would expect his fans to get over such a drastic change if there wasn’t a good, logical reason for it.

Fordim was right by saying that the scene which is quoted above would have been boring to both book fans and none. Obviously not everything on paper can be made visual. That’s why it was written down in the first place. The scene has to “work” visually, and though some movies can gracefully get away with 20 minutes of dialog between to sitting characters, Lord of the Rings was a fast paced polar opposite to such films. Many of the huge changes in the movies I’m sure actually have very good reasons for being changed. I’m also sure that if you ever sat down with the production team that some so loath that they’d be able to tell you all about their reasons, how they used trial and error and it came out the way it did. I was impressed that this wasn’t a cut and paste job movie, no one can argue that it was cheaply or lazily made. There were few short cuts, that was Mr. Jackson’s pride.

[Neurion]

Fordim was right by saying that the scene which is quoted above would have been boring to both book fans and none.

It would have been boring had it been as you quoted. :rolleyes:

[davem]

My own feeling is that book Faramir was more aware of Frodo's 'mission' & its 'divinely ordained' nature. Faramir is one of the most spiritually aware characters in the book. It seems to me that he realised that Frodo had been 'appointed' to perform the task of bringing the Ring to the fire, & in that sense his releasing & aiding of Frodo in that task, rather than taking him as a prisoner to Minas Tirith, was an act of 'compassion'. He was making Frodo's inevitable task as easy as possible. He puts compassion before duty, & takes a great risk in doing so. In fact he is putting all he cares for at risk in order to help Frodo as he does.

The story of LotR is not simply about destroying the Ring of Power, its about Frodo's struggle to destroy the Ring. The task has been appointed to him. Only Frodo can bring the Ring to the Fire. That's what he's was born to do. In that sense he is a Galahad figure. Only Galahad may achive the Grail because that was the reason he was born.

Whether movie Frodo wants to 'save' movie Gollum is another question. Yes we see Frodo showing concern for him, & hear Gandalf saying he is deserving of pity, but these are all things taken from the book. What the writers of the movie do is introduce another reason: he tells Sam 'I have to believe he can come back.'. This immediately makes his behaviour & treatment of Gollum selfish. Movie Frodo is effectively attempting to save himself.

This is the difference between what the writers import into their movie & what they introduce. What they introduce are their own explanations for, or 'commentary'on, Tolkien's story. Yes, they give Gandalf's words to Frodo about pity, & 'not striking without need' & Frodo's words on first encountering Gollum ('Now that I see him I do pity him.'), but when they attempt to 'explain' Frodo's motivation to the audience they make it selfish.

[Lalwendë]

My own feeling is that book Faramir was more aware of Frodo's 'mission' & its 'divinely ordained' nature. Faramir is one of the most spiritually aware characters in the book. It seems to me that he realised that Frodo had been 'appointed' to perform the task of bringing the Ring to the fire, & in that sense his releasing & aiding of Frodo in that task, rather than taking him as a prisoner to Minas Tirith, was an act of 'compassion'. He was making Frodo's inevitable task as easy as possible. He puts compassion before duty, & takes a great risk in doing so. In fact he is putting all he cares for at risk in order to help Frodo as he does.

Just what I've been trying to articulate all along! Faramir in the films is presented as a ranger figure, a soldier, while in the books he is more of a scholar - he certainly displays an understanding of lore. In the films he expresses the wish that he had spent more time at his studies, implying that he did not spend much time at this task. He and Boromir are carefully crafted contrasts. The words Gimli uses to compare Saruman and Gandalf: "like and yet not like", could equally be applied to the two Gondorian brothers. The films did not contrast them enough, or certainly not skilfully enough. It was as though Faramir as seen in the books was deemed a little too sensitive for a film audience, which is not a pleasant thought.

When your analysing situation changes for example, with Faramir, it is unthinkable that any director would expect his fans to get over such a drastic change if there wasn’t a good, logical reason for it.

But I cannot find a good or logical reason for the changes beyond the stated ones that they thought these scenes might be 'boring'. I can't accept this as a valid reason, as the scenes need not have been 'boring' at all. They were getting towards something good when they had Faramir explaining how he saw the funeral boat of his brother on the Anduin, and then this was not sustained. instead we saw Faramir's men behaving brutally and Faramir himself acting out of character. Properly done, we could have seen some good dialogue, some added interrogation and a little suspense to add drama, seeing as this was a film, yes, but maintaining the integrity of the character by having him see Frodo and Sam off in the wild, and in so doing maintaining their secrecy.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Wow! This topic is a lot hotter then I thought it would be. :eek:

http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/13.gifhttp://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/18.gifhttp://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/10.gif http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/35.gif

[davem]

The impression I get from the books is that Boromir & Faramir almost symbolise the two aspects of Aragorn's character. Boromir is his 'warrior' side, the side that seeks to achieve his destiny & rule Gondor & Arnor, while Faramir is his 'spiritual' side.

Its interesting how in the book its only when Boromir dies that Aragorn starts to manifest signs of Kingship - Legolas sees a 'crown' of flame on his brow, etc. The 'Boromir' side of Aragorn seems to have died along with its human 'manifestation'. At this point Faramir appears, almost symbolising the side of Aragorn which will become dominant - his true 'royalty'.

It seems to me that the screenwriters prefer the 'Boromir' side. Aragorn throughout is presented as far more like Boromir & movie Boromir is presented in a far more sympathetic light than book Boromir. They actually make Faramir a kind of 'lesser' Boromir, a Boromir 'wannabee', rather than a character in his own right. Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother.

As I said, in the book, its like Boromir & Faramir are 'mirrors' of Aragorn's own inner state. Boromir would be an adequate steward for Aragorn as we first meet him, but Faramir is the kind of steward he needs by the end of his 'journey' because Aragorn is on a 'spiritual' path just as much as Frodo, who also has his two 'mirrors' - Smeagol & Sam...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A quick note: I've been working through the commentaries for the EE of RotK and there was one very interesting nugget from Phillipa Boyens. When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out.

I have to admit that this got me to thinking -- how much would I really want to see a completely faithful adaptation of the book. I've already read it, I already know it, I already have visuals in my mind of it. With the changes that are there, I was able to enjoy the films -- as films -- insofar as there was still the possiblity of surprise, suspense and reversal for me. I was on the edge of my seat, because while I knew that things were going to turn out all right in the end, I could never be precisely sure of how this was going to happen.

And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way. The book-Faramir, for example, is a sacrifice that is made meaningful by the final accomplishment of the goal: the eucatastrophe of the film's conclusion.

Ahhhh. . .now there's a question: does the film have the same eucatastrophe of the book or not? That's, I think, where this whole discussion is really headed.

[The Saucepan Man]

Now I don't expect film-makers to turn down fortunes in potential profit, ignore current trends, and make movies that pander to my taste. But that doesn't mean I have to like, or pretend to like, what they produce. I am most certainly not trying to suggest that you should. But I think that it is important, when discussing the merits of the films (as against the book), to try to understand why the film-makers made the decisions (and the changes) that they did. They did not do so out of a capricious desire to outrage fans of the books. Indeed, Arwen’s intended participation at Helm’s Deep was abandoned precisely because they (and the much maligned Liv Tyler) were concerned to take account of the views of the fans.


A lot of directors would have done worse. But I think that a few would have done better - and there are a number of specific decisions made by Jackson that I think were mistakes that were not inevitable, and that could just as easily not have been made.

Yet I don't get the sense that PJ is often intentionally patronizing; rather, I think some of the changes made by him and his partners reflect their limitations as filmmakers.I don’t doubt that the films would have been very different had they been made by another director. Whether any particular director would have made them any better (or indeed worse) is, in my view, very much a subjective issue. For example, I am well aware of the acclaim accorded to Hitchcock as a director, and I can understand why his films are regarded as such classics, but they still don’t do much for me.

And, when it comes down to it, I doubt that there are many other directors with a sufficient combination of skill, flair and interest in and passion for the book to make these films work. Of those who might fall within this category, I would put Jackson fairly near the top of the list, if not at the top.


LOTR is by far his best movie I think, then Heavenly Creatures is supposedly good but I haven't seen it, everything else is just junk.Many would class Heavenly Creatures as his best film. Although it is a long time since I have seen it, I do recall that is an excellent piece of film-making. And it certainly puts paid to the myth that Jackson’s style is necessarily heavy-handed and unsubtle. His earlier films are admittedly (low budget) gore-fests, although Braindead is fun and worth a watch if you’re not too squeamish. Nevertheless, I think that he deliberately chose the style in which he made the LotR films (no doubt in consultation with the studio), for the kinds of reasons that I have already outlined.


These movies don't teach us anything ...Why should they? I regard them as pure entertainment: nothing more and nothing less. Indeed, that is how I have regarded the book throughout much of my life. But the films moreso. Tolkien clearly felt compelled to put across his moral vision in his works. Can we realistically expect Jackson to present that same vision on the big screen? He is not Tolkien. It is not his vision. The best that we can expect is to see his interpretation of that vision, and I think that he did genuinely try to achieve that. But, when it comes down to it, these films were predominantly intended as entertainment.

While I agree with Fordim Hedgethistle that Jackson largely captured the essence of Tolkien’s work, I think it is unrealistic, both for the reasons stated above and due to the constraints of screen time, to expect him to have captured it entirely. As I said, he is not Tolkien. He has own individual beliefs and outlook on life. And he was addressing a predominantly different audience and largely for different purposes.

Finally, as for this “mercy” issue, I am with Essex. The lines addressing this aspect were primarily those written by Tolkien. But Jackson and the other writers would not have included them if they did not feel them important. I was particularly taken with the inclusion, in the Extended Edition of TTT, of Sam’s speech, transposed (appropriately, I feel) to Faramir, on the fallen Southron. I have always liked these lines because they convey a sense of compassion for those Men who have been duped or coerced into fighting under Sauron’s banner. By giving the words to Faramir, one gets the sense that he would offer mercy to his enemies on the field of battle (at least those who are not portrayed - in the books as well as the films - as irredeemably evil).

But, for me, the most important scene in the film, when it comes to the question of mercy, is one that was added. Essex has already mentioned it. It is the scene between Frodo and Gollum following Frodo’s (initial) escape from Shelob. This comes at a stage when it must be clear to (film) Frodo (as it is to the audience) that Gollum has been irretrievably lost to the lure of the Ring. Frodo no longer has any basis for believing that Gollum can be saved. And yet he forgives Gollum and offers him compassion. Frodo could have killed him at this point, but he does not. He is instead fortified in his belief that the Ring must be destroyed. And so the central concept of the Ring being destroyed in consequence of Frodo’s (selfless) mercy is retained.

[Lalwendë]

And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way.

Now there's an interesting point. Suspense. Of course, the books will hold no suspense for us now we've read and re-read them, some of us many more times than we can remember. But now the films also hold no suspense for me, as I've watched them many times over. How far can suspense be held to be a good thing? Once you know the story, the element of suspense is gone.

When I first read the books, I did not know that good would triumph, I did not know what was going to happen along the way, and I was thoroughly gripped by the suspense. Alas, this experience can only be had the once, and it was a long long time ago (thankfully I was somehow aware of this and so took my time in reading the books) and it is all too easy to forget that the books are full of suspense and surprise.

For me, I wasn't too bothered about having suspense in the films as I knew the story. Then they altered the story, perhaps to add suspense, but that sensation was short lived and ultimately I'd rather have the more deep satisfaction of seeing the full extent of the story played out in the film medium. The thing with suspense in a film is that once that thrill is done with, there needs to be substance to keep you watching again and again; thankfully the films do have that substance, but the scenes which were added or altered for purposes of suspense then show up all the more starkly as redundant.

The ironic thing is that the greatest moment of suspense in the whole of the three films for me was the opening credits of FotR, as I sat there worried to death about what they might have done with my favourite book.

Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother.

In the films, Faramir comes across as a character who is very much in the shade of his much more successful brother, while book Faramir is a far more independent man, not successful at the more 'public' acts of bravery which Boromir excels in, but in understanding the tactics of successful covert operations. This ties in with his more intuitive, thoughtful character, and in this light the entirely 'right' thing for him to do would be to understand Frodo's mission and to understand his need for secrecy. This was being successfully conveyed until the moment where his men start to beat up Gollum and he decides to leave for Osgiliath. Until that point there was the potential to rescue the scene, maybe with foreshadowing and hence suspense of what horrors were to come for Frodo and Sam in the pass of Cirith Ungol - as Faramir obviously knows something of it.



Braindead is fun and worth a watch if you’re not too squeamish

And you'll never look at a Flymo in quite the same way ever again... :eek:

[mark12_30]

Skimming, but this popped out:

So, the absence of mercy, & of any sense of tragedy in the death of the 'enemies' - perhaps that is what really bothers me about the movies. I don't know if that constitutes a 'dumbing down' or a 'hardening up' of Tolkien's tale but either way it feels 'wrong'...

I would extend that to a diminishing, absence, or dumbing down of all the virtues; which is an indictment of society as a whole. PJ & co are simply members of virtue-free culture.

That virtue-less culture is not particularly modern. Disinterest in virtue has preceded the downfall of many great cultures.

[The Saucepan Man]

I do not believe that society is any more or less dumb or any more or less virtuous than it has ever have been. We just have different things to be dumb and/or immoral about. ;) :D

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Virtue makes little money.

[The Saucepan Man]

Nice avatar, Eomer. You can't go wrong with Joe Cool. :cool:

However ...


Virtue makes little money.I would disagree with this as a general proposition. Recent studies have suggested that companies with established codes of ethics tend to outperform those that don't. In general, people prefer to work for, and deal with, companies which maintain sound business practices. (Although admittedly, this is something that the business community has been late cottoning on to.)

And I would also disagree as far as the film-making industry is concerned. I think that people do like to watch films that are morally uplifting - that make them feel good about their fellow humans. Indeed, I think that this, in part at least, accounts for the popularity of the LotR films. They may not present Tolkien's moral vision in its entirety. But, in comparison with other films of similar ilk, they do (in my view) put across some very good moral messages.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Oh, I agree, and please don't get me wrong Saucepan. I agree with what you said. I find many parts of the films very uplifting. However, I'm just considering that the portrayal of virtues were not exactly highest on the agenda of Jackson and his crew. I think this led to a simplified and inferior version of Frodo's relationships with Faramir and Gollum. I realise that it was hard work and that the filmmakers did a decent job with it, however I don't think they nailed it. I find that some of us twist and turn in all sorts of ways when trying to defend aspects of the relationships betwixt film characters.

It was inevitable that some of us would easily find flaws within the virtues displayed on film. I don't think the filmmakers consider this to be hugely problematic, though.


P.S. I'll probably post a fairly hefty tale of events in the avatar thread to explain what some may call heresy. ;)

[Lalwendë]

However, I'm just considering that the portrayal of virtues were not exactly highest on the agenda of Jackson and his crew. I think this led to a simplified and inferior version of Frodo's relationships with Faramir and Gollum. I realise that it was hard work and that the filmmakers did a decent job with it, however I don't think they nailed it.

This is right. Jackson did portray some of Tolkien's moral statements, that can't be denied, but they are indeed simplified. Whether this could have been recitifed by not changing so much from the books I honestly could not say, though I think it certainly could have improved the situation, if not kept it to the level on which Tolkien portrays it.

Maybe it is indeed indicative of our society today that spiritual needs and values are subject to the same kind of 'quick fix' that we might demand of our bodily or material needs. Just as many prefer surgery over exercise (or indeed just building self-acceptance) in order to look the way they want, many also do not wish to struggle with metaphysical questions and seek a quick answer in a self-help book or some such. Naturally, the films are a simplified version of LotR so the moral messages/questions will also be simplified. I can't disagree that the films are a whole lot more moral than many other films/TV/games etc., but they aren't half as complex as the books.

Virtue is actually incredibly difficult, and while I have some faith left in the human race and think we'd all secretly like to be better people, it's easier sometimes to have another beer. And if a company is trading on its virtuous nature, then is it any more virtuous? Surely this is another way of marketing services or products? Or am I getting far too cynical?

[davem]

I would extend that to a diminishing, absence, or dumbing down of all the virtues; which is an indictment of society as a whole. PJ & co are simply members of virtue-free culture.

That virtue-less culture is not particularly modern. Disinterest in virtue has preceded the downfall of many great cultures.

I do not believe that society is any more or less dumb or any more or less virtuous than it has ever have been. We just have different things to be dumb and/or immoral about.

I suppose (Shock! Horror!) I side with Helen here. We may have 'different things to be dumb and/or immoral about' but morality & virtue are (or should be) 'eternal' values. The fact that we are confronted by new things/situations is simply a truism. Human beings have always been exposed to 'new' things & unfamiliar situations & always will be. But, as Aragorn points out to Eomer, 'a man must judge as he always has done'- ie, by 'eternal' standards of 'Right' & 'Wrong'. It does seem to me that the movie makers decided that they had best tone down the 'preachiness' of the book, & substitute 'pragmatism' for virtue in order to make the movies 'acceptable' to a 'modern' audience.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

A quick note: I've been working through the commentaries for the EE of RotK and there was one very interesting nugget from Phillipa Boyens. When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out. -Fordim

I'm surprised nobody's screamed in outrage at this. Fine then, I'll do it. This brought me my first flickers of actual irritation, and is the first time I've suspected the filmmakers of intentional tampering (rather than misguided editing).

Why should the book readers be shocked? This is a retelling of a story we already know. We (as established book-lovers) aren't going to see the film to find out what happens. Why should we have to wonder how the movie's going to turn out? Did they not realize that this "wondering" would probably take the form of "wondering which of the writers was on crack when they wrote this scene"?

I am most certainly not trying to suggest that you should. But I think that it is important, when discussing the merits of the films (as against the book), to try to understand why the film-makers made the decisions (and the changes) that they did. They did not do so out of a capricious desire to outrage fans of the books. Indeed, Arwen’s intended participation at Helm’s Deep was abandoned precisely because they (and the much maligned Liv Tyler) were concerned to take account of the views of the fans. -Saucy

Perhaps not outrage, but apparently shock was in the plans.

Sophia

[The Saucepan Man]

It does seem to me that the movie makers decided that they had best tone down the 'preachiness' of the book, & substitute 'pragmatism' for virtue in order to make the movies 'acceptable' to a 'modern' audience.I would agree that the moral message was toned down (and understandably so), but it wasn't substituted. Tolkien doesn't come across as preachy because he had the luxury of many pages in which to develop his themes. Condensing that all down into three films would have come across as "preachy" and it would have put people off. Indeed, it would have put me off.


... and is the first time I've suspected the filmmakers of intentional tampering (rather than misguided editing).Boyens didn't say that this was the reason for the change. She said that this was one of the reasons why she liked it (ie after the event). I suspect, in any event, that the comment was provoked by the more extreme reactions of some of the fans to the films. A kind of retaliation, if you like. But I seriously doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately winding up the book fans.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Though they must have realised that there was absolutely no way in which they could not have irritated at least some people.

[Neurion]

I'm surprised nobody's screamed in outrage at this. Fine then, I'll do it. This brought me my first flickers of actual irritation, and is the first time I've suspected the filmmakers of intentional tampering (rather than misguided editing).Can I help?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRGHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mark12_30]

I suppose (Shock! Horror!) I side with Helen here.

I don't quite know what to say.

[Neurion]

Virtue makes little money.Tolkien wasn't exactly hoping to make it into the New York Times best sellers list when he wrote The Lord of the Rings.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's perhaps one reason why it's so good.

[Neurion]

That's perhaps one reason why it's so good.Exactly.

[Mithalwen]

Obviously this is not something that can be answered with any certainty, but if we could crawl through a wormhole/fall through a timewarp, I wonder if those changes tailored to the perceived mores of the time will seem as strange to future watchers as the Nahum Tate version of " Lear" does to us....

[Lalwendë]

I can't see another version on LotR being made for quite some time, purely because this film version has had so much praise heaped upon it. I am thinking in terms of fifty/sixty years or more before anyone attempts another version. But maybe they will include more of Tolkien's text, and maybe they will stick to the story more. 'Remakes' often do strive to be 'more authentic', and tout themselves as being more true to the original book or to historical fact. Just as we saw the supposedly authentic Bram Stoker's Dracula (which, it turned out, did not stick to the book as it did not include anything of Whitby :( ) we might see the supposedly authentic JRR Tolkien's Lord of The Rings.

This would depend on authenticity holding any value in a future society of course. And many of the most lauded films simply do not get remade e.g. Gone With The Wind. But I can quite easily see people laughing at certain aspects of the films in 20 years' time, as some things will simply have gone out of fashion, such as the modern idioms used in the script. Just as saying "Man, that was outta sight!" would sound funny nowadays, saying "game over" might well be deeply cringeworthy in 20/30 years' time.

[Ruoutorin]

If you are a purist then you have to appreciate the movie version for it's scenery, costumes, and allowing you the opportunity to enter Middle Earth visually. You have to admit Jackson was "on the money" when it came to these things. The story itself was altered to appeal to the masses, and it succeeded immensely. The masses are not made up of superior intellectuals who would be willing to look deep into a story to appreciate its messages. Jackson wanted to make money, as any filmmaker does. While watching the Two Towers I heard many an audience member mumble "when is the fighting gonna start already". They were bored with the background story. The average moviegoer has the attention span of 1 1/2 hours for a film and they want to see action. It would be complete impossible for PJ to have stuck strictly to Tolkien's story and please the average audience. I think he did an acceptable job in his attempt. I used to get mad at the personality change in Faramir, but then I realized that the audience (who had not read the book) probably wants to see Frodo face impossible odds and probably many viewed the Ring going to Osgiliath as more exciting because it's dangerous for the Ring to go to Osgiliath. In summary I learned to forgive Peter Jackson for his alterations and I learned to appreciate the movies for the opportunity to see Middle Earth on film and the details that were amazingly accurate.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Ruo, you are hinting at what may be my main gripe with what happened in the films. The wishes of those who didn't really care about the story were considered, if not on a par, at least nearly as highly as the wishes of those who do care about the story.

And by 'those who care about the story' I include the people who had not read the book and were turned onto the book by the film, and also, I suppose, people of the future, people who have not yet been born; because these are people who will love the story for what it is. I am not at all saying that the book readers should be a closed community. New people will join this community all the time, and that's wonderful.

Why should the person who couldn't care less about Frodo's delicate relationship with Gollum be satisfied by an extra fight scene, just so they can whoop and holler some more?

[Evisse the Blue]

I'm sorry I only had time to skim through the rest of this huge thread and I will only reply to this particular bit which attracted my attention in the EE as well.

I'm surprised nobody's screamed in outrage at this. Fine then, I'll do it. This brought me my first flickers of actual irritation, and is the first time I've suspected the filmmakers of intentional tampering (rather than misguided editing).

Why should the book readers be shocked? This is a retelling of a story we already know. We (as established book-lovers) aren't going to see the film to find out what happens. Why should we have to wonder how the movie's going to turn out? Did they not realize that this "wondering" would probably take the form of "wondering which of the writers was on crack when they wrote this scene"?



Perhaps not outrage, but apparently shock was in the plans.

Sophia
I agree with Sophia. My personal thoughts when I heard this: "They are starting from a wrong premise here, they are evaluating their 'target population' in a wrong way. There is a low degree of probability that the fans of Tolkien books would go to the movies to be shocked and wonder: "Oooooo, I wonder where this is gonna lead! Ah, the suspense, the angst, it's so much fun!" But it is not my expectation to be shocked in any way when I go to see a movie being made after Lord of the Rings. To the contrary, I just want to settle down in my chair and watch it with a smile on my face like I'm replaying some familiar dream that I've had before.

Maybe that's just me.

But I'm sure that most of us agree that if they want to feel shocked and angsty they'd rather see a thriller or a horror show than a fantasy movie based on a Tolkien book.

[TPotSS]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but I read bits and pieces and just have a couple things to say.

Isn't it hilarious that most of the people who are criticizing the movie also really like the movie? I mean, it's one of their favorites and yet they find so much fault with it.

That must mean that most of the movie is awesome, and that these other things aren't enough to take the movie down too much.

But I guess it's probably super frustrating to have something that's really good when, in their minds, it could've/should've been "perfect".

If that's what you believe though (that an exact replication of the book on the screen would've been "perfect"), doesn't that mean you view the book as "perfect"- I mean, like it's the Bible or something?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, I don't think the Bible is perfect...

[TPotSS]

Well, I don't think the Bible is perfect...
Well okay, but I think that you understood perfectly well what I meant by that statement, am I right? If so, then the only reasoning I can see for making that post was simply to antagonize a certain group of members- hardly a good reason for posting. :rolleyes:

But it seems that my post was flawed as well. I had a bit of free time this evening so I read more of this thread, and it seems that the "sacred text" idea has already been brought up. Sorry for being redundant. I'm just a newbie. :p
When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out.
Wow. I can understand purists being angry about that. But you must realize that books and movies are different. Movie and television types (PJ and co) I think are more about shock than your normal author.

When you are reading a book there's never a time when you turn the page and something jumps out at you (unless it's a pop-up book :p ) and there is never a time where an unexpected loud noise scares you. A book cannot shock and surprise in the same way a movie can. A movie can shock and surprise in many ways (and shocks and surprises always get a reaction from the audience, which is what directors are shooting for) therefore movie people are more obsessed with shocking people. It's in their nature.

And as badly as we want a "true" version, just think if PJ had given it to us. Half the threads on every forum wouldn't exist. Someone would start a thread and say "Wow, that movie was good. It was just like the book." and then everyone else would post and say "yeah, that's what I think" and then mods would shut the thread down due to "redundant posts". (a bit of an exaggeration, we could still talk about the acting, visuals, and music- but if everything was exactly like the book than all character discussions and the like could simply be put into the books forum)

Anyway, I loved the movies and though they perhaps would've been more "magical" for me had they stuck to the book, the deviations PJ made leaves the door open for a future director (in 35 years or so?) to make his mark by making a version that sticks to the pages a bit better.

[Evisse the Blue]

When you are reading a book there's never a time when you turn the page and something jumps out at you (unless it's a pop-up book :p ) and there is never a time where an unexpected loud noise scares you. A book cannot shock and surprise in the same way a movie can. A movie can shock and surprise in many ways (and shocks and surprises always get a reaction from the audience, which is what directors are shooting for) therefore movie people are more obsessed with shocking people. It's in their nature.

Still, a book can shock , as well. Not resorting to basic tricks like 'eerie music', a sudden noise, but to choice of wording, building an expectation over the course of many pages, then tearing it down with a carefully placed word or two. Take Harry Potter for instance. :p Granted, it's much more difficult to achieve such a thing in books than in movies for obvious reasons.
But this is a little beside the point.

But I guess it's probably super frustrating to have something that's really good when, in their minds, it could've/should've been "perfect".
This applies very well to me. Not perfect as in 'the Bible is perfect', but perfect as a world where everything falls into place. Yeah, I do believe Tolkien was a genius.

[ohtatyaro]

If you are a purist then you have to appreciate the movie version for it's scenery, costumes...

I have a feeling that images I would have had fo scenery and costumes and all if I only read the books before the movie, would been different :D. I mean, there might not be one to one likeness of what I imagine when someone says 'blue river' and what any of you imagine. I bet.

I dont mean anything in the long run :D. I'm just awed by this heated dbate :D

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

My distaste for religion had nothing to do with that post.

I actually don't know what your earlier statement means. I don't compare The Lord of the Rings to the Bible in any way. I am further baffled by this idea of perfection. The Lord of the Rings is not perfect nor imperfect; it is non-perfect, or rather, perfection has absolutely nothing to do with it.

An exact replication of the book was always a fundamental impossibility, so there could never be a "perfect replication" to be called "perfect". A very good representation would, however, have been very good.

[Aiwendil]

TPotSS wrote:
A book cannot shock and surprise in the same way a movie can. A movie can shock and surprise in many ways

This is true to some extent - however, it misses the point. What we are dealing with in the decision to have Frodo send Sam away is not a shocking visual or auditory moment. An example of the kind of shock you describe is Bilbo's momentary transformation in Fellowship. This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all; it is merely the kind of surprise one experiences on learning (in any way) that such and such a change has been made. And to the portion of the audience that had not read the book, it did not even offer that kind of surprise.

So to say that this "twist" was a cinematic effect at all seems incorrect to me.

[Lalwendë]

This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all; it is merely the kind of surprise one experiences on learning (in any way) that such and such a change has been made. And to the portion of the audience that had not read the book, it did not even offer that kind of surprise.

Indeed. :) I can see why they chose to rewrite like this, as it makes certain psychological motivations easier to understand for a non-reading audience, but that doesn't mean I liked what they did. I thought it was an example of clumsy script writing and rather more obvious than I'd have liked. But again, it is the scriptwriting team's 'justification' which falls down flat. It wasn't going to shock anyone in the right way, just shock keen readers in that the plot had been altered again.

Books do offer shocks and surprises just as much as films do. Why else would thrillers and horror sell by the bucketload? And who hasn't been kept up all night with a real 'page-turner'? Suspense and shocking moments are one of the mainstays of plot, and you find it even in Jane Austen novels - though perhaps I ought to pick on a bad writer for a good example here. ;)

[Formendacil]

Isn't it hilarious that most of the people who are criticizing the movie also really like the movie? I mean, it's one of their favorites and yet they find so much fault with it.

That must mean that most of the movie is awesome, and that these other things aren't enough to take the movie down too much.

Look at it this way:

Pretend you have a kid brother that you love to bits, but he drives you crazy because of Insert Reason here. He does this ALL the time, and never listens when you correct him.

You still love him, you still consider him an important person in your life, but you are exasperated because he could be better, but isn't.

You don't expect perfection, but sometimes you do expect more.

[Lathriel]

I read the WHOLE tread and I applaud Saucepan Man's defense of the movies. I totally agree with everything he said.
The problem with LotR is that it has a huge plot plus a huge package of moral virtues.

Now you also have some obligations to the fans and to the company who gave you all the money.
I mean PJ couldn't have gone of and done whatever he liked just to please the fans because there could have been a greater possibility that the movie could have been a flop which would cause New Line to lose lots of money and they would have to fire people etc.(People who work on set design,visual effects and so on)So he had to change some things.

About the characters being diminished.This is not an uncommon occurence,I have seen it before in other movies and I understand. In a book it is simple, the writer is able to bring the reader inside a character's head. However, with a movie that is more difficult. You can't write down a character's thoughts and long dialogues can get rather boring.

Also portraying Aragorn as a man with a shining star on his forehead sounds beautiful on paper. But it could look sissy or gaudy on screen. Plus how would you explain it without making it confusing or longwinded. Besides when I read the book I would always read over those parts of Aragorn and I always saw his human side. The side which they chose to show in the movies. However, I like it when I am able to connect to the characters because that is part of what makes the book special to me. There is a magical world with magical creatures and yet the people who inhabit it make human mistakes and are almost like us.

As for dumbing it down. I also don't like the phrase it makes us all sound so stupid. Rather it is the process of bringing a book to the screen and then put in things for the fans while also putting in things for a widely varying audience plus keeping in most of the moral messages. That is a daunting task.

As for Faramir. I was upset about the change untill I saw the EE,thought about it for a bit and heard the explanation of the screenwriters. Now I am okay with it and it makes sense to me. It takes a long time for some of the audience members to realize how evil the ring is and if Faramir had just done nothing all the work that the screenwriters did would have been in vain. Really some of my friends just didn't seem to get it. They used to tell me,"Its so stupid. They go through all this trouble for a stupid little ring." I heard these remarks all the time while the 1st and 2nd movie were coming into theatres.

I don't mind the change in Gimli's character because he is actually rather flat in the book as well. Although he is there during most of the LotR there is little you can do with him. So I can see that the screenwriters would give him the job of cracking jokes just as Legolas is left to the task of explaining the obvious for the dim-witted members of the audience.

As for another adaptation of LotR, I think it will be quite some time before it is made.

There was a comment earlier on in this thread saying that the movies might also have been dumbed-down and have more battles added for the teen audience. I find this offencive since I am a teen who watches movies like Amelie (French), The Pianist and A Beautiful Mind. Plus a whole bunch of foreign movies that my dad enjoys and watches all the time. Imagine a teen watching The secret Ballot, an extremely slow Iranian movie. Well...That's me. :D

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I agree about the lack of respect for teens. Let's extend it to everyone; the typical 'movie' audience.

[TPotSS]

This is nothing like that - it is not a cinematic surprise at all
I agree.
So to say that this "twist" was a cinematic effect at all seems incorrect to me.
Me too. That's why I didn't say that. ;)

My point was that people involved with audio/video mediums are more shock obsessed than writers. Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good, so they are motivated to do some things (like change a story line) merely to shock a portion of their audience.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Now yeah I may be generalizing a bit, but it seems like many film types have it in their heads that shock always equals good
I suppose I could agree with that somewhat.

So are you saying we should excuse PJ and his partners because shocking people is in their nature? Even if that is completely true, I don't think that is a good enough excuse.

About the fight scenes- I don't really mind them. I think that sticking strictly to the book in battles does not work. The descriptions are too short. The battles are supposed to last for hours and yet they take up fewer pages than a five minute conversation. This would be ridiculous on the screen.
I agree about the lack of respect for teens. Let's extend it to everyone; the typical 'movie' audience.
What's wrong with that?

I had a general lack of respect for teens when I was a teen. Now that I'm older, I have extended this general feeling of disdain to the entire population. Some of us are just crabby, pessimistic people. :p

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

lord, I usually agree with those sentiments! :D

[TPotSS]

So are you saying we should excuse PJ and his partners because shocking people is in their nature?
No, I wasn't really trying to excuse them- just sort of explain why they might do something that seems so offensive (try to shock book readers).

And as far as the fight scenes, I don't really mind them either. I thought that Legolas killing the elephant was pretty annoying though- especially the way he slides off at the end. It doesn't look right or something. I dunno.

[The Saucepan Man]

The current discusion seems to be premised on the assumption that Jackson and co set out deliberately to shock fans of the books. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for this, and I do not believe that it played any part in the changes that were made.

As far as the quote from Boyens that Fordim referred to earlier is concerned, and as I said earlier:


Boyens didn't say that this was the reason for the change. She said that this was one of the reasons why she liked it (ie after the event). I suspect, in any event, that the comment was provoked by the more extreme reactions of some of the fans to the films. A kind of retaliation, if you like. But I seriously doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately winding up the book fans.

[davem]

Well, the reason the writers chose to alter the story at that point was that they felt it was necessary for Frodo to enter Cirith Ungol alone, & the only way they could think of to arange that was to have Gollum make Frodo turn on Sam.

I don't think it works, & they fall on their faces as a result. Perhaps its another example of their obsession with 'what will work cinematically'. They seem to have laboured under the assumption all along that certain things in the books just wouldn't work, without even trying them out. Perhaps the problem was that they were always focussed on what would work best in each individual scene & weren't able to step back sufficiently & look at the whole. Its clear that with Faramir they made alterations in order to increase the dramatic tension of film two, wthout realising the hole they were digging for themselves in film three. His volte face in the last couple of minutes of Towers is not only unconvincing but actually embarrassing to watch as the character has to change from a hardened warrior who's only concern is obeying orders to an all around nice guy - & why? Well, because they knew that in film three he would have to be someone the audience liked & cared enough about that they wouldn't freak out & object when Gandalf 'drops his general's baton' in the middle of the siege to go & save him.

[Lush]

/They seem to have laboured under the assumption all along that certain things in the books just wouldn't work, without even trying them out./

I agree. But when you're on a tight shooting schedule, there are many things you simply never get to try out, let alone conceptualize. I think the sheer enormity of the project essentially doomed them to making certain clumsy moves. When you're in charge of something that huge it's hard to keep all the pieces together.

They gave us three movies in three consecutive years, but that's a tough pace to keep up with. Perhaps if they stretched this out over more time some of the more glaring imperfections would have been smoothed out. But we all live so fast these days. ;)

[davem]

I agree. But when you're on a tight shooting schedule, there are many things you simply never get to try out, let alone conceptualize. I think the sheer enormity of the project essentially doomed them to making certain clumsy moves. When you're in charge of something that huge it's hard to keep all the pieces together.

Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline. But even if we assume they really didn't have much time why make so many changes & introduce so many new ideas? I would have thought not having much time would mean they'd lack the luxury of inventing new stuff & have to stick to what was on the page...

My own position is that they should either have told the story the way Tolkien wrote it, making only absolutely necessary changes, like running scenes together or missing out some of the lesser characters or written a new fantasy story of their own & filmed that & then they would have had all the freedom they needed to tell the story they wanted to tell. My problem with the changes they've made to the story is that they simply don't work. One thing that springs to mind, among many loose ends which make no sense, is Mery & Pippin's finding Pipeweed in the storeroom at Isengard. Why is pipeweed from the Shire there? In the book it is for a very good reason - it sets up ominous questions in the readers mind about what is happening back home, especially in light of what Sam saw in Galdriel's Mirror. In the movie its left completely unexplained & seems only to have been left in so that they can have the scene of the meeting of the Hobbits with the Three Hunters as it is in the book. This is where the movies so often fall down. The writers/director want to have certain episodes from the books on screen but they change the story at other points so the context & meaning of the book episodes they do show is absent & for an audience who hasn't read the book they create confusion. Its the same, as I said, with Faramir's sudden change of heart & mind at Osgiliath. They want a 'threatening warrior' Faramir in film 2 & a 'caring philosophical' Faramir in film 3 so they have to try & write themselves out of the hole they wrote themselves into in a couple of minutes at the end of the film. Basically, we have two Faramirs in the movies & it would have been much more believable & convincing if they'd had two different characters - have the Hobbits captured in Ithilien by some thuggish Gondorian general, brought to Osgiliath by him & there brought before Faramir who plays the role he has in the book. But as I said, they want to make some (major) changes & at the same time keep some scenes exactly as they are in the book. We don't so much see an example of 'character development' in movie Faramir as a kind of Gollum-Smeagol transformation. The guy is clearly schizoid & doesn't know his own mind or have a clue what to do if he can do a 180 on the basis of Frodo flashing the Ring at a Nazgul & Sam's sudden (& seemingly interminable) bout of platitudinous Logorhoea...

(OOOOH That felt GOOOOOD!!!)

[Lush]

/Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline. But even if we assume they really didn't have much time why make so many changes & introduce so many new ideas? I would have thought not having much time would mean they'd lack the luxury of inventing new stuff & have to stick to what was on the page.../

Well, it's one thing to have something on a page, but it's another to go ahead and film it, when the studio is already breathing down your neck and expectations have been set so high. While I agree that the Faramir thing was ridiculous, I think it presents more of a lack of planning rather than a blatant "I can do this better than Tolkien" attitude. Faramir himself, if you have noticed, is a very stripped-down, unformed character in the films, particularly in the way they were originally shown. It's as if they ran out of room and time and decided to truncate everything in that particular episode; truncate, rather than invent. Or, essentially, "dumb it down." ;)

I think that constrained as they were by their time-table (and I can't imagine that they were unconstrained, not when three movies have to come out in rapid succession, not to mention the DVDs), they saw that sticking plainly to what was on the page would have been more difficult. The books are such a complex amalgamation of characters and themes, to present them in a somewhat coherent manner, sacrifices were made where one idea was simplified in favour of another. Of course, this made the final product patchy and uneven. But when I think about filmmaking strictly in business terms, I can't see how they could have done it in any other way, and still made their schedule, budget, and returns all work. It's a shame, really, but large-scale productions more often than not suffer from this weird disease of simply becoming too big and unwieldy in the hands of even the most dedicated people.

[Essex]

Davem, a simple equation for you, that works in most cases....

Film totally faithful to the book = film that does not work

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

What I'm saying is if you think a film can be made identical to LOTR, it wouldn't and couldn't work. I know, let's have them walking for 2 weeks from Weathertop to the Ford shall we? Let's show the whole pass of the marshes. It wouldn't work as a movie.

Now as a mini series presented over a few seasons, then yes, I believe your premise could work, but not over the course of 3 films.

[Evisse the Blue]

Davem, a simple equation for you, that works in most cases....

Film totally faithful to the book = film that does not work

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

Sorry I can't let this go by even if it's slightly off topic. HP and the Philosopher's Stone is one of my favourite movies of this decade! Not that I didn't like the other two very much as well, but I remember being so happy with seeing this first movie of the series because it was exactly like I imagined it would be. 'No alarms and no surprises' :D Just watching a world I have previously only seen with my mind's eye develop on screen. I remember giving it as a positive example to what FOTR should have been. I realize of course we have stepped into the misty realm of the highly subjective.

In the end I think it may come to whether you're a 'film buff' or a 'bookworm'. :p
Weird as it may seem in these modern times, there are still some who go by the saying 'I'd rather read the worst book ever written then sit through the best movie ever made'. (ironically this quote is from a movie, the x files). So, our different viewpoints on what should be, according to us, cinematic quality are very influenced depending on which of these - artificial - categories we are more likely to subscribe to. Especially when we judge movies made after books.

[The Saucepan Man]

In the end I think it may come to whether you're a 'film buff' or a 'bookworm'.Well, there are some who are long-standing fans of the book and yet find little fault with the films. We are a rare breed, though. ;)

While everyone will of course have their individual opinions, it is clear that most long-standing book fans have ended up disappointed (to some degree or other) with the films. Which I still think is a shame given that, as far as I am concerned, this is one instance when you can have your cake and eat it. :p :D

It is clear to me from everything that has been said on this thread that it is primarily because most here hold the book so close to their hearts that they feel disappointed and/or angry with (some or all of) the changes. But despite being the majority here, it is also fair, I think, to say that you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films. And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.


I don't think that that has been disputed.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't think that that has been disputed.I know. But the point that I am trying to make is that we ought to retain a sense of proportion. The views expressed by most here are genuine, heart-felt and for the most part eloquently put. I don't agree with a lot of them, but I can understand where they are coming from. But they are the views of a small minority (albeit an important one) of those who have seen these films. Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations - whether that be because they have not read the book, because they have read the book but don't have such strong feelings about it, or because they have strong feelings about it but (like me) are content to have their cake and eat it.

For me this goes back to the question of moral rights that davem raised and also the question of "ownership" that I think Lalwendë raised. There is a sense amongst many of those to whom the book means a lot that it is, in a way, theirs to protect and that any tinkering with the characters or the storyline is somehow wrong. And this tends to be expressed in terms of arguing how the changes don't work. But, as far as the vast majority of the many millions of people who enjoyed this film are concerned (myself included), these changes clearly haven't significantly impaired their enjoyment of them.

Yes, perhaps the films could have been better. Perhaps they could have remained (even) more faithful to the book and still retained their widespread appeal. There are some areas (only a few) where I think this is probably right. But the fact remains that those responsibe for making these films were fully within their legal and (as far as I am concerned) moral rights in making them and in making them in the way that they did. Maybe they could have been better (whatever that really means). But I have never been one much for crying over spilled milk. We have what we have and what we have is actually (in my opinion of course) exceptionally good and has given a large amount of enjoyment to an extraordinary amount of people.

And now I shall stop because whenever I post on this thread, I tend to start repeating myself ... :rolleyes:

PS:


Well, they were working on the scripts for years before production began, so they did have time to work out a proper storyline.As I understand it, the original script was actually a lot more faithful to the book, and many of the changes came about as a consequences of the practicalities of transforming it onto the screen. The script was being re-written right up to the moment that scenes were being filmed.

[davem]

Davem, a simple equation for you, that works in most cases....

Film totally faithful to the book = film that does not work.

But the BBC radio series dramatised LotR in 13 hours without making any significant changes to characters or events - apart from missing out the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode (which was later dramatised seperately - & which worked very well in spite of all the comments I've heard that it cannot be done). Taking the EE's into account PJ has had almost as long - especially as the radio version required lots of landscape description by a narrator.

Its not a matter of lack of time - PJ could have trimmed back every interminable fight/battle in the movies by half & made them better for it. My complaint is that most of the changes they made just didn't work. I won't reiterate my points about Faramir, but simply say book Faramir works & movie Faramir doesn't.

It is clear to me from everything that has been said on this thread that it is primarily because most here hold the book so close to their hearts that they feel disappointed and/or angry with (some or all of) the changes.

I feel annoyed with the changes not simply because I hold the book close to my heart but because the writers have taken a beautifully crafted, intricate, profound work of art & made a pig's ear of it...

[The Saucepan Man]

... made a pig's ear of it.Might this be the first example of a multi-award winning, hugely popular, massively successful and critically acclaimed pig's ear? :p

[Bêthberry]

You know, one of the things I have always found interesting about our movie/book discussions is how very different is Saucepan's method in each debate.

I seem to recall that on the Canonicity thread, SpM insisted upon the right of every reader to make his or her own interpretation, even if this interpretation went against the grain of the majority.

Yet on the movie thread, Spm's main point always depends upon this huge majority who enjoyed the films, as if the minority view somehow does not matter because it is outweighed by the sheer number of those happy with the films.

Perhaps our SaucepanMan chooses his method depending upon what shall make the most noise. :p :D


Seriously, though, Sauce, there are always those who disagree with the opinions of award judges and popularity lists. And sometimes, in the long run of history, those dissident voices are actually shown to have some merit. Not all popular films hold up over time, nor are all Oscar-winning movies remembered.

For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text.

[The Saucepan Man]

You mean it’s not legitimate to adopt contrasting arguments and tactics depending upon the nature of the discussion? But Bêthberry, that proposition runs counter to all of my professional instincts! :eek: ;)

Actually I have never sought to deny anyone’s entitlement in this discussion to hold the views that they do. Nor have I ever sought to suggest that those views do not matter because they are outweighed by popular opinion. Indeed, I have been at pains to try to avoid giving that impression. I am simply trying to bring some perspective to the discussion. The fact remains that the views expressed concerning the films on this thread are restricted to a minority of the audience for these films. Whether the fact that they are held (to varying degrees) by a majority of those who hold the book most dear makes them any more valid would, I think, be an interesting discussion.


Not all popular films hold up over time, nor are all Oscar-winning movies remembered.True. And there are a few real “stinkers” that have won Oscars (my opinion, of course). Titanic and Braveheart were both recently nominated amongst the top 10 “worst” films to win an Oscar, although they no doubt remain strong in the affections of many who saw them. My own perception is that the LotR films will hold up over time, since they have the same “groundbreaking” feel to me as the likes of Star Wars (the first) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I have a feeling that Jackson will become as much a household name as the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. But that’s just my opinion.


For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text.Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based. :cool:

[Rimbaud]

If the sauce fits, I suppose.

Some of us though are in the uncomfortable position of having watched the films entirely due to the books, and therefore our relationships with the filmic versions are inherently temepered by their relation to the original text.

That is to say; I would not ordinarily watch such a motion picture, that is not necessarily stating that the oeuvre is 'unworthy', merely not to my taste. Yet, as I see little of filmic merit outside of a welcome translation of a literary enjoyment, such book-divorced discussion is of little scope. I may or may not be alone in this.

Textual healing

~Rim

[Formendacil]

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based. :cool:

What if, however, the filmic problems are one and the same as those pertaining to the differences between the books and movies? How if the filmic difficulties in the movies could have been resolved by remaining more faithful to the books?

For example, in my opinion, the Aragorn/Arwen kiss at the end of the RotK was an extremely corny, Hollywood-esque, sequence, put in for dubious reasons. Indeed, the whole sequence of the calm, tame, subdued Arwen arriving in Gondor does not jive with the Arwen seen rescuing Frodo. Her relationship with Aragorn is off kilter. This is, in my mind, a filmic difficulty, above and beyond any canonicity-related issues concerning Arwen. Quite frankly, Arwen isn't consistent within the movies.

But had they depicted Arwen as she was in the book, this need not have happened. We need not have had a conflict between a warrior princess and a more domesticated princess. And we certainly wouldn't have had to contend with a corny Hollywood kiss.

Now, you can't make a filmically perfect movie by following a book, but you could have improved on the film that they DID make by staying closer to the book in various places. The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

[Boromir88]

Purely interested in being the middle-man here...in defense of The Saucepan Man, reminds me a lot of my political science teacher. Whatever we said, she would give us the opposite side of things, to get us thinking. Not trying to change our opinions, but with the pure interest of showing us what other people, who don't agree with you, believe. Often when we have our own set of opinions, we are unaware of, or just don't plain out care, what the other side has to say.

Formendacil brings up a nice point. There are changes PJ caused that strayed from the book, and made it less enjoyable (from a viewing standpoint). For example, the stupidity of the Gondor soldiers compared to the Rohirrim. Something that I've rambled on about many times, so I hope I don't need to elaborate. These are set up as fine warriors, who has been holding off Sauron's hordes, yet when we finally get to Gondor, they are even dumber then the Rohirrim civilians forced to fight in Helm's Deep. Another example of something PJ changed which I think weakened my movie experience.

[The Saucepan Man]

The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.Better in what way? For whom? By whose standards? :p

As for accuracy, well the films clearly tell a different story from that told in the book with different characters. They are therefore entirely accurate on their own terms.

Alas, though, I suspect that Rimbaud is right. It would be nigh on impossible to hold a discussion on this Forum about the qualities (whether positive or negative) of the films purely as films without it descending into a comparison with the books given the prevailing opinion (with which I do not wholly agree) that they would have been better as films had they more closely mirrored the book.

[Essex]

But the BBC radio series dramatised LotR in 13 hours without making any significant changes to characters or events - apart from missing out the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode (which was later dramatised seperately - & which worked very well in spite of all the comments I've heard that it cannot be done)Wow, who did the Tom Bombadil bit, and where can I get it?

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.

[davem]

Wow, who did the Tom Bombadil bit, and where can I get it?

PS radio medium totally different to film medium.

Brian Sibley, who co-authored/adapted the radio series wrote another series 'Tales from the Perilous Realm', which adapted the Bombadil/Barrow Downs, Leaf by Niggle, Smith & Farmer Giles. Its available under that title on CD from the BBC (you can get it on Amazon. Smith isn't very successful (imo) but the others (with Brian Blessed as Giles & Alfred Molina as Niggle & Michael Horden as the series Narrator) work very well.

As to divorcing the book from the movies, well, I can't. They're adaptations of the book & stand or fall by whether they tell Tolkien's story well or not. Again, in my opinion, they don't. Neither do they work as movies, for smoe of the reasons I've given. The writers/director's obsession with what looks impressive on screen works against telling the actual . I'm not sure I'd go as far as Tolkien's judgement of the fifties radio version & call them a 'sillification' but in parts they come close to being just that.

Again, I'd say that the real problem is their obsession with size & spectacle worked against them. Bigger isn't [I]always best & whatever Jackson might say CGI still isn't up to the job Jackson wants it to do. Basically, he's putting too much weight on the technology & it isn't convincing enough. For instance, Gollum domminates the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline because PJ clearly believes that the CGI is good enough to convince & as a result he loses control of the character - who, as in the books, should only be seen through the eyes of the other characters, & never given screentime on his own. Same with the Mumakil & the Army of the Dead.

Now, am I glad they were made? Did I get anything from them at all? Something, certainly. But was it worth all the 'annoyances'? Probably not in the end. If others enjoyed them I'm happy for them, but I can't say they've added anything to my appreciation of Tolkien's work. I suspect they'll fade from public attention very quickly. The ones who onlylike them as movies will move on to other movies, the ones for whom they have served as an introduction to Tolkien's work will tuen to the books & the movies will fade into the background for them.

As movies I don't think they're as good as the first two Star Wars films (episodes IV & V), & as adaptations of the books they leave too much to be desired. If they were original works perhaps I'd have been more impressed by them. but I don't think its possible to divorce them from the source - if you know the source that is.

The question that inspired this thread is whether they are a 'dumbing down' of the original & I can't see that anyone who knows the original can argue that they aren't. Are they 'dumb' movies? Certainly not. They ask questions which most maistream Hollywood movies wouldn't & confront issues of morality & power which Hollywood tends to either avoid or offer at best dubious & at worst immoral answers to. Bur in comparison to the books they offer dumbed down versions of those answers...

[the phantom]

For example, in my opinion, the Aragorn/Arwen kiss at the end of the RotK was an extremely corny, Hollywood-esque, sequence, put in for dubious reasons. Indeed, the whole sequence of the calm, tame, subdued Arwen arriving in Gondor does not jive with the Arwen seen rescuing Frodo. Her relationship with Aragorn is off kilter. This is, in my mind, a filmic difficulty, above and beyond any canonicity-related issues concerning Arwen. Quite frankly, Arwen isn't consistent within the movies.
Thank you for mentioning that. I've been forgetting to bring it up. You are right- Arwen was inconsistent. As soon as PJ threw her in where she didn't belong in the first movie, he was risking this sort of inconsistency. Remember what I said a couple of pages ago on the thread? ->
Every event has (or should have) an effect on the rest of the story. In other words, if Aragorn were to get his armed chopped off in the first film, that event should cause him to appear without an arm for the rest of the movie. If you add something, you must follow that change through to the end and make sure that the rest of the story reflects the addition you made. That is the danger in putting in things that did not actually happen.
This Arwen inconsistency is an excellent illustration of my point.
Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.
I never read the book. I loved the movie. Same as my friends.
Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations
Yes that is true. And why is this? You answered it-
because they have not read the book
Hello! They haven't read the book! Therefore they are NOT going to have reservations about ANYTHING. They don't care! So why would we try to please people who aren't even going to NOTICE much less care about changes???
you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films
Yes, but we are the only group who would even notice a small change, so why not make it to our liking? Most of the movie followed the book so why not get rid of the parts that don't work (the inconsistencies of Faramir and Arwen)?? It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else.
I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them
And they STILL would've been "enjoyed by the vast majority" had a few minor changes been made.
a multi-award winning, hugely popular, massively successful and critically acclaimed pig's ear...
...is still a pig's ear. ;)
Better in what way?
Coherency is better than incoherency.
For whom?
For people who notice such things.
By whose standards?
By logical and intelligent standards (ie my standards ;) ).

[Bêthberry]

posted by SaucepanMan
You mean it’s not legitimate to adopt contrasting arguments and tactics depending upon the nature of the discussion? But Bêthberry, that proposition runs counter to all of my professional instincts!

Actually I have never sought to deny anyone’s entitlement in this discussion to hold the views that they do. Nor have I ever sought to suggest that those views do not matter because they are outweighed by popular opinion. Indeed, I have been at pains to try to avoid giving that impression. I am simply trying to bring some perspective to the discussion.

Oh, my bad! my bad! I never said it was wrong to explore various strategies of debate, Sauce. I simply observed that here, at least, you seem very fond of reiterating popularity as a satisfactory evidence of the quality of a movie. It is one criterion certainly, but not the only one and I can't recall off hand if you have considered others. (Apologies of course if you have and I have an audio fixation on your popularity claim.)

posted by SpM
My own perception is that the LotR films will hold up over time, since they have the same “groundbreaking” feel to me as the likes of Star Wars (the first) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I have a feeling that Jackson will become as much a household name as the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. But that’s just my opinion.

Here we might be on to something. To me, Jackson's films are not 'groundbreaking' the way Lucas' and Spielberg's are/were. In fact, to me, they are very derivative. Certainly the CGI techniques represent a step forward in technology, but that to me is simply a developmental stage in technology rather than an important advance in cinematic art. Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is groundbreaking about the LotR films?


posted by SpM
"For my part, my qualms about the movies were based upon their filmic qualities and not upon their relationship with the antecedent text." [posted by me :P]

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based. [posted by SpM ]


A long time ago, on a post far, far away (Post #116, to be exact, on this thread) I posted:

Both of these statements might together, I think, explain why I am disssatisfied with the movies as movies. PJ's imagination is watered by two sources: Tolkien and Lucas. Yet rather than out of this creative ferment producing new vintage wine, he produces some vinegar.

Take, for example, the skateboarding scene in Helm's Deep. Or the dwarf tossing comment. In Star Wars that kind of bragadocchio reflects upon the characters. Han Solo's "That's great kid. Now, don't get cocky" works as a humorous interjection into the battle because it says something about both Han's and Luke's characters. The line reads like the effort of those fighting to lessen the impact and force of ... The Force, if you will. It is part of their battle strategy. At Helm's Deep, the skateboarding and dwarf tossing are mere additions for the sake of humour. And both the tragedy of the battle and the dignity of the characters are lost.

The same thing when Aragorn's horse nuzzles him awake from the dream of Arwen. Haha, sure, funny, but how does that develop Aragorn's character or depict this supposedly iconic love and romance? It doesn't. It is just a but of cheap humour thrown in.

Similarly, for me, is Gandalf's arrival atop Shadowtax and the great rearing shot of the horse. Roy Rogers to the rescue? The cowboy motif fits Han Solo because that is how he is presented throughout the ST trilogy: he is a gunslinger in space. But Gandalf is not. He has, from the beginning, been a wizard and interjecting a cowboy image late in the game takes artistic skill which the director does not have.

This discussion could turn into a version of the Canonicity argument: the Director, the film, the audience, but I don't think it is so much a question of 'dumbing down' for the audience. Rather, I think it is a question, as Mr. Underhill suggests, of PJ's nature as a filmmaker. This is his interpretation of how to bring Tolkien to the screen. Yet he fails to appreciate the mythic or moral stature of LotR and his fails to understand how Lucas uses humour in ST. Thus, we have diminished charactertisations and misplaced comedy and changes which don't ring true as a movie.


Knights in battle have a different tone than cowboys in space. PJ could not amalgamate the two into a unified, coherent filmic vision. Too many semes show. (And, yes, I do mean 'semes' ) ;)

*coughs and smiles*

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes that is true. And why is this? You answered it-

Quote:
because they have not read the book

Hello! They haven't read the book!Really phantom! Such blatant selective quoting does not become an intelligent debater such as yourself! :p


It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else.It is the second statement that we differ on.


...is still a pig's ear.Well then, I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed a pig's ear quite so much.


By logical and intelligent standards (ie my standards).That's what I like to see. Pure objectivity. ;)


I simply observed that here, at least, you seem very fond of reiterating popularity as a satisfactory evidence of the quality of a movie.I have most certainly never claimed that popularity was the only factor when considering the quality of a film. But it is a good indicator of how successful a film is in achieving what it set out to achieve. It will be interesting to see whether the LotR films do stand the test of time. As I have said, my feeling is that they will.


Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is groundbreaking about the LotR films?Perhaps "groundbreaking" is the wrong word. I was grasping for a concept that describes a film that makes a significant and lasting impact. This trilogy of films has that feeling for me. And there are groundbreaking elements to them - the use made of CGI in combination with an actor to create one of the central characters, the incredible attention to detail (perhaps not groundbreaking, but rare in a film of this type nevertheless) and the sheer achievement in filming a trilogy of films more or less over a single period. I should elaborate further but I haven't got time now.

Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter to me that these films receive such a mauling here on such a consitent basis. As I said many moons on this thread, it's no skin off my nose. But something still irks me about the criticisms that are made (which is why I keep coming back to this thread) and I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it is just because I enjoy them so much. Which, I suppose, makes me unintelligent and illogical by the phantom's standards. ;)

[Boromir88]

Star Wars was certainly ground breaking. Lucas created a new camera technology to create the effect of the ships moving through space. Star Wars serves as a ground breaking moment for SFX as well. However, I argue that The Lord of the Rings is ground breaking in it's own regards. Looking at Imdb's Top 250 list (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top) , ROTK is number three, FOTR number 8. Showing (as we all know) the popularity of the film. I agree with SpM in saying that their popularity has to account for something (perhaps the success of the films)? Also, credit PJ for having Tolkien places as the best selling author of the 20th Century, something Tolkienists should applaud him for.

[Lalwendë]

Some of us though are in the uncomfortable position of having watched the films entirely due to the books, and therefore our relationships with the filmic versions are inherently temepered by their relation to the original text.

That is to say; I would not ordinarily watch such a motion picture, that is not necessarily stating that the oeuvre is 'unworthy', merely not to my taste. Yet, as I see little of filmic merit outside of a welcome translation of a literary enjoyment, such book-divorced discussion is of little scope. I may or may not be alone in this.

An interesting thought. I'm not entirely sure I'd have gone to watch the films myself had I not been such a fan of the books; I can take it or leave it as far as big budget action 'flicks' are concerned. So it's a very good point that as readers it is inevitable that we will bring a whole pile of presumptions and expectations with us along to the cinema with the bucket of popcorn. Alas, expectations make for an uncomfortable seat after 3 hours, and when I saw changes made that quite frankly confused me, I was quite cross. 3 hours is surely enough time to get across the plot and characters correctly?

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

Still, I like the films, in fact, I love the films. I have watched them many many times and there are many things in them which delight me. So why do I get so narked and humpty about the changes to the plot? Because, as far as I can see it, there was no justification for such changes as the Faramir episode or Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny. I simply cannot see why certain stupid and frankly dumb things were included, when this time could have been given over to including the stuff which would have helped the films make more sense plotwise, the stuff from the books. Jackson showed he could make changes to some things and keep their integrity, but not to others. I got the distinct impression that the team got themselves into a tangle with their changes and could not really justify them.


Now, you can't make a filmically perfect movie by following a book, but you could have improved on the film that they DID make by staying closer to the book in various places. The effect would not have been just a more ACCURATE movie, but a BETTER movie.

I agree broadly with what Formedacil says here. It is indeed difficult to stick rigidly to a book when adapting it to a different medium, and I have yet to see a 100% perfect adaptation, but it could indeed have been so much better.

Perhaps I ought to stick to what I term 'pure film', where it is based on a new story, not on an adaptation. :(

It is clear to me from everything that has been said on this thread that it is primarily because most here hold the book so close to their hearts that they feel disappointed and/or angry with (some or all of) the changes. But despite being the majority here, it is also fair, I think, to say that you do represent only a small proportion of the millions of people who saw these films. And going by the reviews and the stats, I would say that they were enjoyed by the vast majority who went to see them.

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world? Of course, some may have not picked them up for many a year, but they have still read them. And even the membership of the 'Downs includes a significant amount of people who can be called 'Film recruits' (with thanks to Snowdog's thread for the terminology ;) ), who have since read the books. I wonder how this translates within the wider audience of the films? I certainly know many people who have become addicted Tolkienistas since the films came out. Strange thing is, a rather large proprtion of these new recruits also bring up the changed scenes and criticise them. So it might actually be a smaller proportion of the audience than we think who are confirmed (committed?) non-readers.

My example, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone - a brilliant book, well crafted, great plot, great characters. The film followed this almost word for word and look how dull it is.

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books. But the interesting thing is that Prisoner of Azkhaban also wanders away from the text, yet is the best of the three films in my opinion. I think much of the success has to do with the quality of the adult actors in the HP films, something which also was of great benefit to the LotR films, as I find little to fault in that respect.

Now that’s the kind of discussion I would like to see more of on this Forum. It would certainly make a change to discuss the films as films, rather than simply by reference to the text upon which they are based.

There are a fair few of these on the boards, surely? I often find some decent things being discussed, and I don't always bring my gripes to the table. ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.This reminds me of a point which was mentioned earlier in this thread (I forget by whom) but not really picked up on. And that is that there are many "historical" films which totally misrepresent the events that they purport to portray. I understand that Braveheart falls into this category and there are numerous Hollywood-made WW2 films that replace some or all of the original heroes with Americans to make them more appealing to American audiences. Clearly, such changes are made with the intention of increasing a film's appeal with its intended audience. And changing historical fact, with the effect that people end up believing that this is how it really happened, irks me far more, and seems to me to be much more of a crime, than altering what is, after all, a fictional story.

That said, in a recent poll concerning just this issue (perception of historical fact against filmic portrayal), something like 2% of the respondents believed that the battle of Helm's Deep was a historical event. :eek: :D


I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world? Undoubtedly. But I would say that only a small proportion of those who have read and enjoyed the book are quite as fanatical about it as the average Barrow-Downs member.

As for the contention that the changes made make little sense or somehow confuse the story or make it "dumber", I take the point. I simply disagree. With very few exceptions, I found the changes to make complete sense. In my view, they do not make the story "dumber" - they just make it different. There are a few inconsistencies and plot-holes, yes. But I am sure that careful scrutiny of most films, certainly those of the same oeuvre (nice word, Rim), would reveal much the same. After all, how many film scripts are written with the same dedication, devotion and time that Tolkien lavished on LotR?

[Neithan]

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books.
Yes, I was beginning to think I was losing my mind given some of the comments about this movie. Glad to see someone agrees with me on that issue. However, I thought these movies were some of the worst I have ever seen! The acting was awful (meaning the younger actors for the most part). I like the HP books but I was so disgusted with the second movie that I stopped watching them and will not watch any of the others.

As far as the popularity of the LotR movies goes I don't think that it makes any difference to the argument at hand. The successfulness of a movie does not always reflect on its quality.
I know I have said in the past that I love the movies but when I was watching RotK recently I noticed something. The reason I like the movies is not because of any merit of their own but because of the books. I usually just skip to those scenes that stick closest to the books now and don't bother with the rest.
By logical and intelligent standards
Yes, very good! The quality of the films is not a completely subjective thing. They could have been objectively better than they were.

[The Saucepan Man]

The reason I like the movies is not because of any merit of their own but because of the books.Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself. Jackson and co did not just sit back and let such scenes jump magically onto the screen.


They could have been objectively better than they were.If one accepts this proposition then it follows that, objectively, anything could be better than it is (including the book). But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.

[the phantom]

Really phantom! Such blatant selective quoting does not become an intelligent debater such as yourself! :p
Oh, fine. I'll quote the whole thing you said and explain why I left out the parts I did. :rolleyes: :p
Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations - whether that be because they have not read the book, because they have read the book but don't have such strong feelings about it, or because they have strong feelings about it but (like me) are content to have their cake and eat it.
I left the following groups out of my quote last time-
Group 2- Read the book and don't have strong feelings about it.
Group 3- Read the book and have strong feelings about it but don't have reservations about the movie.

Why did I leave them out? Because I was focusing on individuals who had not read the book. I couldn't stand to see this group mentioned even one more time in someone's post. The whole point of that last post I made was this- of course non-bookers don't have reservations about changes that were made! They can't see the changes! Their opinion has no place in this debate because they DON'T HAVE one.

I found it absurd that you included them on your list of people without reservations. They have no weight in this matter.

Now I guess I'll go ahead and give some thoughts on groups 2 and 3.

Group 2- If they read LOTR and don't have strong feelings about it then are they going to care that much if the movie sticks to the book or not? No. They won't care either way.

Group 3- Honestly, how many people are there who really care a lot about the book and don't have reservations about changes to the film? How many book fans honestly have no problem with the changes that PJ made (particularly the changes that caused inconsistency)? Do you realize that, even though you claim to be, that you are not a member of this camp, Mr. Saucepan?

Why would I say this? Here are some quotes from you earlier in the thread-
I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made
Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.
I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better.
the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.
From your very own mouth (or should I say fingers), you, The Saucepan Man, have reservations about the changes that were made to the book. You do not belong in group 3. Group 3 is fiction. I doubt there is a person in the world who read LOTR, loved it, and also had no problems with PJ's changes.
It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else
It is the second statement that we differ on.
Umm... by definition if they don't care then they aren't going to be effected. But okay, let's pretend... If they were effected, it would certainly be positive. I mean, is there any way that making the storyline more sensible and making the characters more consistent could be a bad thing?

Let me ask- was it Arwen's character inconsistency that sold all those tickets? Was it the Nazgul incident in Osgiliath that got LOTR the Oscar? Was it the little corny or ambiguous lines and moments that made LOTR popular?

NO! Obviously not. Then why in the world have you, for the past five pages, been trying to cling to the idea that the critic reviews and fan numbers were somehow improved by the changes that we are complaining about?

[Neithan]

Eh? Even if it is fair to say that the films are only good in the scenes where they stick most closely to the book (a point with which I do not agree), surely the act of rendering these scenes on film gives rise to merit in the film itself.
In a sense yes. What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens. Basically what I am saying is that whatever merit they might get for rendering the book onto the screen is connected to the Tolkiens work. It is the screenwriting that I have a problem with, not the visual effects. I hope you can understand that, I am having a hard time explaining it.
But, for me, quality is an entirely subjective thing, although subjective opinions may be widely shared and thereby gain some degree of objectivity.
Well first of all no degree of objectivity can be gained through subjectivity. Whether or not quality of art can be objective is a philisophical question, one which I disagree with you on. I hope that the majority of people would agree that a plot that has no logical contradictions is objectively better than one that does. I would also contend that Tolkiens humor is objectively better than fart jokes, but this is a much more controversial. There is a whole philisophical argument behind it but even if I had time to effectively argue the point it would be way off topic, so let's just agree to disagree on that one.

[Aiwendil]

Neithan wrote:
What I meant to say though, was that I don't love the films as films, ie as something seperate from the books. What I love is seeing book scenes put onto the screens.

I think I may feel this way as well. When someone asks me whether I like the LotR movies, I tend to be a bit flummoxed.

Do you like the Lord of the Rings movies?

I'm a huge fan of the books.

But what about the movies?

Many of the changes really bother me.

So you don't like them?

Well, I own all the extended edition DVDs and have watched every special feature and listened to every commentary.

Oh, so they must be like, some of your favorite films.

No, I don't think so . . .

And so on.

The truth is that I have a hard time evaluating the films as films. I can point out the things I like and the things I don't like, and I can tell you why I like or dislike them. But I can't really tell you whether I like the movies or not. The book is simply too important to me for me to evaluate the movies as entities in themselves.

That's not to say that I think my complaints about the changes are unfounded - I think that many of these decisions were mistakes and I don't think that this view is merely the result of an obsession with the book. But somehow I can't really make an overall evaluation of the movies without it being an evaluation of faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the book.

[Essex]

I believe we are going around in circles. Yes, the films were dumbed down, as they didn't have 54 hours+ to show the books in their entirety. People have their own points of view, I just feel really sorry for people like Davem who were really dissapointed by the films.

Three words though, for ALL of us.

Live with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Can't stop for long as I am at the airport.

Phantom, you yourself have suggested that non-book readers may find fault with the films. Accordingly, they can still potentially have reservations about the changed scenes even if they do not know that they are changed from the book. Their opinions therefore do count in this matter.

And I have never sought to claim that I find the films perfect. I am quite happy to admit that there are aspects of them which I think could (in my subjective opinion ;) ) have been done better. But there is a world of difference between my approach and that adopted by the majority on this thread. The latter is the approach I was talking about when I referred to "such reservations".

Tsk! Really! :p

Must go - the money's running out ...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Perhaps another analogy would be useful at this point:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

Yes, the film is based on the book, but it is not the book itself. The differences between the two mediums is simply too great to make comparison possible except upon lines that are only and can ever be purely subjective: "I like this about the book but not this about the movie"; "I think this could have been done better in the movie"; "I enjoyed the book more." OK, wonderful opinions, but that's all they are and can ever be: these do not constitue some kind of objective means whereby we can establish whether or not the film is "successful" in any way beyond it's "success" in evoking (or not) these same subjective responses.

But to my analogy:

I adore Hamlet. It is a wonderful play. One of the things that I like most about it is its infinite variety (to quote another Shakey play. . .) It is such a rich text that there is just no way to do "all" of it in any one production or version -- the "definitive" performance of Hamlet is just not possible as there is too much, well, potential in the text for any single performance to bring out. That is why it is such a successful play in theatre history -- well, one of the reasons. Every Hamlet is different, and every one brings out different elements of the text. I like some productions and not others; some I think are brilliant and others are appallingly bad, but I never make the mistake of conflating the performance of the play to the text: they are different. Nor do I make the mistake of claiming that a performance of the text necessarily "dumbs it down" -- in the written version, all the potential and possible Hamlets are there, but for it to work on stage, there can only be one Hamlet. This is the nature of drama.

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not. The 'distance' between the text and the performance in the case of Tolkien's work is vastly greater than with anything by Shakespeare, which does even more to short-circuit any attempt to meaningfully or objectifiably compare them to one another in any way other than, again, through the purely subjective.

In a perfect world, there would be a dozen other film makers out there with the money, time and vision necessary to make their own versions of LotR. As has been happening with Hamlet for 400 years now, these different versions would bring out different views and aspects of the text, develop its different potentials, and slowly a dynamic, fuller view of it would be available in performative/dramatic form, but none of them would be in any way definitive or complete. To attempt such a thing is hubris. To demand such a thing of a performance is naive. To condemn a performance for not accomplishing it is unfair and entirely misled.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's dedication Saucepan, or maybe it's just addiction... ;)

Anywho, I'd like to bring up a point championed by myself on a couple of other threads. That being: why not talk about it? I love these discussions that may seem to some people to go around in circles. However, they are interesting. Please don't try and end them by saying "Live with it" or "Stop complaining."

I get the feeling this thread will roll on for a while yet. Page 5 is just as interesting as page 1.

[Formendacil]

I find many of your points fascinating, Mr. 'Edgethistle, but I have to object to this:

I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

You can't make this comparisom at all, since apples and oranges have (if you are a creationist Catholic like myself) one and the same origin in the same God, created at the same time for separate purposes. Or, if you're an evolutionist, then they have separate evolutionary paths parallel to each other, not one derived from the other.

As has been pointed out so many times, the movie is derived from the book. It isn't an evolutionary journey, because that would make it a throwback. The story was not improved to adapt to its new environment, it was, at best, a step sideways. And many would say not even that.

Comparisom to the book is inevitable. It has to happen, just a portrait is inevitably compared to the subject. Until such time as the subject and everyone that knew it dies, the portrait cannot be seen except in the light of the subject. In this case, I think we all agree that the subject (the book) will outlive the portrait (the movie).

[lord of dor-lomin]

To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.
You can't make this comparisom at all
You're right, Formendacil. To say that a DERIVATIVE WORK and it's SOURCE MATERIAL are apples and oranges is ridiculous. We're not comparing apples and oranges. We're comparing orange juice and oranges, and saying that orange juice is a dumbed down version of an orange.

And I also agree with what Eomer said. If you aren't enjoying this thread then just don't read it. I am enjoying all of the back-and-forth action. I get to see people's thoughts on something that I'm interested in. I like it. I say we keep this going for a million pages.

[davem]

This new piece on TORN seems quite relevant:

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/anwyn/files/030105.html

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not.

Perhaps this is the root of the problem - Tolkien wasn't writing a 'first draft screenplay' but Jackson & the writers seem to be under the impression that he was. LotR was never intended to be dramatised, so it wasn't written with that in mind. It seems most novels are now written with movies in mind & the film rights are negotiated along with the publication rights in many cases. Its seen as inevitable now that any successful novel will be filmed. Tolkien waswriting in a period when this wasn't the case.

I do wonder what LotR would be like if Tolkien had written it recently - would he have taken for granted that his book would be optioned & so have written it with that in mind & done some things differently? Its interesting how many pro movie contributors have argued that novels & films work differently & that a book cannot be translated to the screen exactly as it is. It strikes me that many current novels are written so as to be as easy as possible to adapt to other mediums.

I think this is perhaps what CT means by LotR being inherently unsuitable for dramatisation in visual form. It was never intended by the author that the story would have any other form. Hence the language (I don't just mean the dialogue)is central. Perhaps that's why I much prefer the radio series, because it not only retains most of the original dialogue but also place the narrator centre stage, & he uses Tolkien's original words. This means that the 'mood' of the tale, so much of which depends on the language & turns of phrase Tolkien used, is retained. In short, listening to the radio series feels like reading LotR, whereas watching the movies doesn't. The radio series is much more like a dramatised reading than a dramatiastion per se. Perhaps that's the only way it can work in terms of dramatisation..

[Essex]

Davem, yes the readio dramatisation was good, and worked well in the way you said above, but it also tinkered with tolkien's text and added stuff in where Brian Sibley felt appropriate. i.e. just 2 examples off the top of my head, he added in the witch king meeting up with wormtounge, and more text at the havens to make it even more weepy than it is. so it's not as faithful as one may seem. I was lucky enough to meet Mr Sibley at a london howard shore concert, and thanked him for a great adaptation. He's a nice, cordial fellow, and can dramatise a book very well, it seems.

PS the baski cartoon was a lot more faithful than PJ's versions. Are you saying this is a better adaptation????? :p

PPS to those I annoyed by saying Live with it. We have to, it's as simple as that. I have to live with the constant dissing of these movies by a seemingly large percentage of barrow-down movie thread writers, and the people greatly annoyed by PJ's interpretation have to Live with the Film itself. But we are going around in circles here (but I can't stop either as I can't resist an argument)

PPPS Don't get me wrong, the books are far better than the movies, but the films themselves are the best films ever made. you can therefore work out my feelings towards the book.

[Formendacil]

PPS to those I annoyed by saying Live with it. We have to, it's as simple as that. I have to live with the constant dissing of these movies by a seemingly large percentage of barrow-down movie thread writers, and the people greatly annoyed by PJ's interpretation have to Live with the Film itself. But we are going around in circles here (but I can't stop either as I can't resist an argument).

Well, it has already been admitted that this is a circular discussion in nature. Like the orbit of Earth around the Sun, it cannot be any other. However, like the seasons that come up every time around, each argument/opinion is different than the last one like it. No two autumns/winters/summers/springs are the same, and in the same way are no two for/against/don't care opinions the same, nor are the way they are stated the same. And just as the variation from year to year gives us a greater appreciation for each season in general, so too does the variation from argument to argument give us a greater appreciation for each opinion.

PS the baski cartoon was a lot more faithful than PJ's versions. Are you saying this is a better adaptation?????

Actually, I didn't mind the Bakhshi cartoon. It wasn't as good filmically, but my main complaints when I saw it were the lack of wide vistas, the dark lighting, and the poorer sound quality, together with a less inspiring score. The story as they did it there did not irritate me nearly as much as Jackson's version. That's what really ticked me off when I saw FotR in theatres the first time. It was such an amazing movie visually, audibly, and musically, with talented actors, that I was really let down when they couldn't carry over that talent into the story.

[davem]

Davem, yes the readio dramatisation was good, and worked well in the way you said above, but it also tinkered with tolkien's text and added stuff in where Brian Sibley felt appropriate. i.e. just 2 examples off the top of my head, he added in the witch king meeting up with wormtounge, and more text at the havens to make it even more weepy than it is. so it's not as faithful as one may seem.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'faithful'. Certainly Sibley (& Michael Bakewell, his co-adaptor who always seems to be forgotten) left out certain episodes, changed the order of events at the end at the end of the story & added in some bits - though the one of the ones you cite - Wormtongue encountering the Black Riders - is taken (mostly word for word) from 'The Hunt for the Ring' in UT, as is the earlier encounter of Saruman with them. But it didn't change the characters or their behaviour & motivations. These facts, along with so much use of the original text make it what I would consider a 'faithful' retelling.

I did have a lot of problems with the Bakshi version - not in terms of content but in terms of quality. I can't help wishing Bakshi had had Jacksons financial backing & access to CGI because it would have been interesting to see what he would have produced.

[Lalwendë]

PJ and crew had it even tougher than directors who put on Hamlet, however, insofar as Shakespeare was writing a text that was meant for performance, when Tolkien most emphatically was not.

This could be a justification for why the scriptwriters of LotR ought to have paid more attention to the content of the original text. Shakespeare wrote plays, Tolkien wrote novels, two very different things. Many years ago I voiced the opinion that Shakespeare plays were meant to be performed and that reading the texts was something entirely different. A play can be adapted, that is part of its nature, or rather, it can be interpreted, in the dramatic sense. A novel is not like that. You dramatise it in a modern setting (e.g. Clueless being a modern version of Emma), but this essentially changes it utterly. This is why it is even more important for the scriptwriter working on an adatation to pay particular attention to the original text as the smallest nuance of meaning is easy to miss or to change.

Yes, my main gripe with the films is indeed the textual changes, the changes of plot and character, and the use of too much modern idiom. I call this dumbing down because the sheer audience numbers showed that had these changes not been made or indeed, not made quite so clumsily, and more of the original and beautiful language used at the expense of some naff lines, there would have been no diminishing box office figures. Yet again, I must pull up things that those who have not read the books have said to me, and one of those things is that they comment on how some of the lines are incredibly moving and they cannot forget them. These, strangely enough, are Tolkien's own lines.

It does just frustrate me so much, when they made such a good job of everything else, that the main drive of the films, the scripts, could have been so much better, and it is in Two Towers in particular where they go noticeably astray. A double shame because that is the film where they portrayed the people of Rohan so beautifully.

there are numerous Hollywood-made WW2 films that replace some or all of the original heroes with Americans to make them more appealing to American audiences. Clearly, such changes are made with the intention of increasing a film's appeal with its intended audience. And changing historical fact, with the effect that people end up believing that this is how it really happened, irks me far more, and seems to me to be much more of a crime, than altering what is, after all, a fictional story.

I daren't even mention Pearl Harbor to my father lest he start ranting about the insinuations made about the RAF in said film, so i understand your point. Now it might be slightly disturbing, but there is something about LotR which has entered my mind so deeply that it has become more than a mere fictional story. I think it is in fact nothing disturbing, it is simply that I love it so much, and I desperately wanted the films to be perfect.

Anyway...what's wrong with discussing things over and over? It reminds me of those long, smoky, drunken conversations of my student days when you would sit up all night arguing the same point over and over and suddenly look at the clock and realise it is in fact 5am and you had better go to bed. ;) And though I may disagree with some people's points, I learn much from what they have to say!

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Spm: If one accepts this proposition then it follows that, objectively, anything could be better than it is (including the book).
I hope I don't get stones chucked at me for this one, but I actually believed Jackson made improvements on Tolkien's books. It isn't anything big, or drastic, but the best example is having Eomer threaten Grima and not Gandalf. Tolkien has Gandalf say the line, to Grima, "Too long have you watcher her (Eowyn) under your eyelids, too long have you haunted her steps." Jackson gives this line to Eomer, which I think gives more emphasis, and meaning behind that line, considering it's coming from Eomer, her brother. Having Gandalf say it, I think weakens it, since he is just some mysterious old man, that comes once in awhile. I like this line given to Eomer, more than to Gandalf, which would make it an improvement on Tolkien's work. Surely it's not a big difference, but never the less, an improvement.

[Essex]

Wormtongue encountering the Black Riders - is taken (mostly word for word) from 'The Hunt for the Ring' in UT Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

[davem]

Yes I read the hunt for the ring section, so let's add another new scene added in - the capture of gollum by the witch king and his torture in mordor. also, the first hobbiton scene where we have bilbo talking to frodo. (and many others) so the radio adaptation is exactly that - an ADAPTATION - if you want the book word for word, we must listen to the 54 hour narrated version.

PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Of course the radio series was an adaptation. I'm not objecting to adaptations per se. I like the radio adaptaion because its faithful to the book in spirit & very nearly in letter. The movie is not anywhere near as faithful & in some scenes the changes made alter characters & events out of all recognition. I think what it comes down to is that Sibley & Bakewell wanted to tell Tolkien's story in the best & most faithful way they could (which would inevitably - & much to the adaptors' regret - require excisions & new connecting/establishing scenes) while PJ & the scriptwriters wanted to produce a blockbuster movie series using LotR as their raw material.

Whatever you think of the movies as opposed to the radio series I defy anyone to compare them both to the book & say the films were more faithful to the book , or comunicated the spirit of it more effectively.

[Essex]

I didn't say that. I said that the radio series wans't as faithful to the lotr text as
I thought you implied.

just to say one piece of work is better because it uses more of the actual text
from tolkien is one sided. I personally would have loved the films to have used more direct text from the books, and one of my pet hates is the changing of someone's line to other characters (which doesn't bother some people). But it's not just the text itself. It's the feeling and the emotions that PJ's version stirs up.

If someone said to me I was only allowed to view the films or listen to the radio adaptation I would pick the films every time.

[radagastly]

Essex:
PS thinking of the UT book, wasn't the wormtounge scene incompatible with the final plot and changed inasmuch as the witch king did NOT meet up with wormtounge, but went straight to saruman instead? (ie wormtounge did not give gandalf away) - that's the problem in adding in work from the UT into any adaptation of LOTR

Yes, Tolkien seems to have decided (according to Christopher Tolkien) that two days was not enough for Gandalf to escape Orthanc, get to Edoras and have Wormtongue get back to Orthanc from Edoras to inform Saruman. In the final version, it was the "Slant-eyed Southerner" who betrayed Saruman to the Witch King.

This brings up a point about this adaptation and about the 'knock-on' effect that Saucepan mentioned (though, of course, that scene itself has nothing to do with it since it was in neither the book nor the movie!) Tolkien crafted his story with as much care as was possible, and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc.

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

Obviously, there are basically three things you can do to any story to adapt it into a different art form. You can add to it, you can change it or you can delete from it. In 'Fellowship,' the primary tool used was deletion, excepting, of course, Arwen's part which was enhanced for reasons that, I believe, were previously discussed. For the most part, in 'Fellowship' this works well, and only seems to disappoint because we look forward to favorite scenes and characters that are now missing. For example, I would have loved to have seen the Barrow-downs scenes intact, ("intact" is a dangerous word on this thread,) but I didn't expect to. My disappointment came and went before the movie was even released.

In 'Two Towers' we have a different animal altogether. "Wargs attack the people of Edoras!" "Aragorn dragged off a cliff!" "Elves at Helm's Deep instead of Eomer!" "Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul! (in Osgiliath, no less)" etc. I know these changes seem gratuitous, and some of them are, but imagine a truly loyal telling of the plot of 'Two Towers.' The entire battle of Helm's Deep would have to be over and done with in the first forty-five minutes to an hour, and we'd spend the first ninety minutes without knowing what may have become of Frodo and Sam. In the book, this delay helps to build tension and enhance the epic qualities of the story. On the screen, it would have had even loyalists like us walking out of the theatre. Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature. In a movie theatre, we spend nearly half our time sitting in complete darkness staring at a blank screen, waiting for the next frame to pop up. We just don't notice the gaps, because they happen so fast. A book can be studied and reviewed and re-read for detail that is simply not available to a film audience sitting in a theatre.

Fordim:
I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.

I must say, I agree, but with certain reservations. I much prefer Tolkien's carefully crafted plot choices to Peter Jackson's visually exciting ones. Not the structure of their telling, mind you, just the plot elements themselves. Jackson's changes did create plot-holes that were not present in the book and need not have been present in the movies, if more care had been taken in making the changes he made. I wouldn't necessarily say he was 'dumbing down' the book so much as he was occasionally 'dumbing down' his own story without covering it later. Still, that's an analysis after many viewings and I have to say I was still swept along by the films when I first watched them, and enjoyed them immensely.

[Lalwendë]

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)

This is a good example of where the scriptwriters obviously took care to make sure they had considered the needs of the plot, or even the continuity of the story as it were. Interestingly it is found in the first film, which I found to be the most carefully crafted of the three by a country mile.

But a thought has occurred to me here. In actually taking the care to do this, it is as though the scriptwriting team could have created something of an entirely new version of LotR, one which covers the plot holes, and creates new events which will have an effect on events further down the line. But by not carrying this through in all of the films, they missed a great opportunity. Did they become over confident, I wonder?

Many of the structural changes were necessary simply because film is a completely different language than literature.

I agree that some changes were indeed needed, and one of the major changes was to weave the tales of Books 3 and 4 together. Even the most keen cinema audiences might have struggled with a film of two distinct halves. Jackson defended this well, and he also gave perfectly valid reasons for moving the episode with Shelob into the final film. It's the changes which cannot be justified which I do not like.

[Essex]

radagastly, totally agreee, especially and to make changes risks creating problems down the line that need even more explanation, thus creating more changes etc.

In the commentary for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I believe it's Phillippa that says "we don't know for certain that [the hobbits] DIDN'T pass through the Old Forest and visit Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's just not shown." (or something to that effect.) Then, just a few scenes later, Strider gives the hobbits their weapons, a plot change to cover the deletion of those scenes. Later, (in the extended edition) Galadriel gives Merry and Pippin weapons instead of just silver belts, probably to enhance the weapon's specialness (is that a word?) so that a 'special' weapon can be used two movies later to stab the Witch-King. Another change from the original. (Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.)The changes Boyens, walsh and jackson made do tend to give us plot holes in certain cases. In your point above, boyens was wrong in saying that 'pretend that they DID pass through the old forest etc' not just for the sword (which to me is one of the most pivotal plot lines in the whole trilogy) but also Merry mentions to Pippin as they're brought to fangorn by the orcs that 'you remeber the stories of the old forest, etc?' remember the stories, phillipa? you reckon they passed through there a few weeks ago! god, that bump on Merry's head must have caused some amnesia!

I find it interesting that a lot (perhaps most) people say that the Fellowship is the closest adaptation to the book. if we're talking about the number of deletions and changes, I would hazard a guess that it is the LEAST faithful to the books, even more so that TT (yes in TT we had the 'biggest' ones, faramir, etc). for example, at the begining we have gandalf meet Frodo. no he doesn't! but this is the curse of trying to be faithful to the books. How can we, unless we have a narrator talk over the film, which DEFINATELY wouldn't work for film. But the scene itself with gandalf and frodo was excellent, just transposing the narration to the characters instead. (Just like Frodo infront of the Nazgul at Osgilliath was transposed from the scene in the book where Frodo is tempted to show the Witch king the ring at Minas Morgul)

[Formendacil]

Yes, Tolkien seems to have decided (according to Christopher Tolkien) that two days was not enough for Gandalf to escape Orthanc, get to Edoras and have Wormtongue get back to Orthanc from Edoras to inform Saruman. In the final version, it was the "Slant-eyed Southerner" who betrayed Saruman to the Witch King.

Time.

Another major inconsistency in the movies.

Obviously, in converting a book to a movie, there will be a reduction in the time you have to show something. Obviously, you can't convey nearly as well the enormous amounts of time spent doing nothing. It isn't important to the film that there are 17 years between the Farewell Party and Gandalf's return. Nor is it important that Frodo "really" leaves Bag-End half a year later, and not the next morning.

And yet.... and yet....

It doesn't feel right.

The Lord of the Rings is a great, world-changing epic, and like most world-changing events (by world-changing I mean in middle-earth, not the real world), it takes TIME.

Does it feel right that a Ring that lay lost for 3000 years, and then right under Gandalf's nose for 60+ years is discovered by Gandalf to be THE One Ring in the course of, what the movie shows, as about 3 months? It doesn't feel right.

However, this is rather piddly stuff, and as such, it isn't much of an issue for me. Jackson does a great job in moving the Fellowship along its course to show the passage of time. Two weeks from Rivendell to Caradhras feels right. Three days in the Mines feels right. A month in Lorien feels possible (especially in light of Sam's queries on the River). A good job was done in the Two Towers of showing the elapsing of time.

Then, in the Return of the King, Jackson shoots his own work down, and has Elrond make it to Dunharrow in what appears to be a matter of a couple days, after establishing how long it took Aragorn to get there (if by a slightly longer route) from Rivendell. The journey of Frodo and Sam across Mordor, and the parallel journey of Aragorn's army also doesn't work in the same way the previous movies did. And the journey back to the Shire? What journey? It isn't even HINTED at.

Then, what REALLY baffles me: the amount of time from Frodo's return to the Shire until his departure to the Grey Havens. Jackson LENGTHENS the amount of time. After his shortening of time elsewhere, why on earth is he doing this? (Evidence: as Frodo is leaving for the Havens, we have a voiceover by him that it is four or five years, I forget which, since some event at the start of his quest. I apologise for the vagueness of the quote, but it was very clearly TOO much time. Frodo left in 1421. His quest occurred in 1418-1419. It wasn't four years since ANYTHING in his life. Let alone five.)

Has this distortion of time, more especially the inconsistency in its usage, and the lack of any apparent reason in some places, annoyed anyone other than me? I think that it constitutes a very genuine "dumbing down" of movies. Not because it was a change from Tolkien, but because it was done inconsistently, sometimes with no real reason, and quite often for the benefit of "the audience".

[lord of dor-lomin]

Please note that I delberately chose an apparently non-controversial change.
You chose wrong. That change resulted in there being absolutely no explanation for Merry's sword. The audience has no clue that his blade is special, therefore the audience assumes that all you have to do to render the Witch King helpless is to have any weak little hobbit poke him in the leg with any old knife- which of course is extremely inconsistent with the rest of the movie where the WK is portrayed as being very powerful.

[Essex]

FormendacilFrodo is leaving for the Havens, we have a voiceover by him that it is four or five years, I forget which, since some event at the start of his quest. I apologise for the vagueness of the quote, but it was very clearly TOO much time. Frodo left in 1421. His quest occurred in 1418-1419. It wasn't four years since ANYTHING in his life. Let alone fiveIt was actually what Frodo mentions to Sam at his desk. 'It's been 4 years, etc'. I put it to you that the ONLY reason PJ did this is as a favour to Sean Astin, as Sean greets his real daughter at the end of the film, whereas in the book, Sam is only greeted by Rosie and his first (baby) daughter, Elanor.

About the Time factor, the way we have Frodo have to hunt deep down into his treasure chest to find the ring for Gandalf seems to be the way the director shows the passage of time from Gandalf leaving and coming back. Of course this isn't 17 years, but I think this is his nod to it being a 'long' time.

lord of dor-lomin, your point re Merry. totally agree, but to me Im able to pretend in most cases that what doesn't happen in the film that SHOULD do, does happen. i.e. I can marry both film and book together whilst watching the film, so when I watch the WK scene, Merry gets the Witch King with the sword that Tom gave him.

[Neithan]

First of all I think that the problem with the swords could have been cleared up by Aragorn saying that they were heirlooms of his people and were magic.

Anyway, I was watching some of the commentary in RotK the other day and noticed something that made me very angry. Several times Peter Jackson stumbled when trying to remember how things happened in the book as opposed to his changes. It became quite clear after he was corrected several times by the other commentators that he didn't know Tolkien's stories all that well. LotR is Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If he wanted to create a story of his own then he should have done so rather than adapting someone elses work. The most damning thing he said was something like, "I'm not really sure how it was supposed to work, we were just making stuff up as we went along, it doesn't really matter anyway". To be fair he was talking about a very minor change at the time, one which I didn't mind when I saw it, but even so it made me very angry. Making a mistake is one thing but to not care at all? I think that if you are going to write an adapted screenplay then you must first go through the work with as much, or nearly as much, detail as is being done in the CbC forum. Only then will you be able to create the best adaptation possible.

[alatar]

Several times Peter Jackson stumbled when trying to remember how things happened in the book as opposed to his changes. It became quite clear after he was corrected several times by the other commentators that he didn't know Tolkien's stories all that well.

Not sure if he or the other commentators knew the stories well or not; irregardless, what they ended up writing/filming was not the books. However, what makes me suspicious is that the first film was close with some parts of the story missing, the second added scenes not found in the books, and the third continued this divergence with more input from the writers than from JRRT.

I understand (somewhat) adaptation, but adding to the story was just wrong.

[lord of dor-lomin]

totally agree, but to me Im able to pretend in most cases that what doesn't happen in the film that SHOULD do, does happen. i.e. I can marry both film and book together whilst watching the film, so when I watch the WK scene, Merry gets the Witch King with the sword that Tom gave him.
Well, that's all fine and dandy for you, but non-readers certainly can't do this. There is no way for non-readers to reconcile the silliness of the WK's death.
First of all I think that the problem with the swords could have been cleared up by Aragorn saying that they were heirlooms of his people and were magic.
Yes! Thank you! It was a problem that could've been fixed. Someone could've said (Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, or Aragorn) when looking at the blade, "Hey, this blade was forged specifically to kill the WK". I know that seems like dumbing it down, but Tolkien was very clear on this point. When Merry stabbed TWK Tolkien specifically said that no other blade in the world, though wielded by a mighty warrior, could have hurt TWK so bad- so making it obvious would not have dumbed the movie down.

[alatar]

Yes! Thank you! It was a problem that could've been fixed. Someone could've said (Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, or Aragorn) when looking at the blade, "Hey, this blade was forged specifically to kill the WK". I know that seems like dumbing it down, but Tolkien was very clear on this point. When Merry stabbed TWK Tolkien specifically said that no other blade in the world, though wielded by a mighty warrior, could have hurt TWK so bad- so making it obvious would not have dumbed the movie down.

When Aragorn gives the hobbits their swords, it looks like he found them somewhere (in a junk pile) and hands them over, like, "here, these are better than sticks."

The boy's (Haleth?) sword at Helm's Deep gets more attention and scrutiny.

And why did PJ have Merry's blade wither? Was this to show that something important happened? I don't think that Eowyn's blade suffered so.

[lord of dor-lomin]

And why did PJ have Merry's blade wither?
I thought that every blade that touched TWK was supposed to do that. Did Eowyn's not bust? Or did she drop it too quick to tell?
The boy's (Haleth?) sword at Helm's Deep gets more attention and scrutiny.
Yeah. Can you get any more addle-brained, PJ? Bring in some little kid and have Aragorn swing his sword around (something that was pointless and made up) and don't explain Merry's sword (something that was important and in the book).

Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
When Aragorn gives the hobbits their swords, it looks like he found them somewhere (in a junk pile) and hands them over, like, "here, these are better than sticks."
Ha ha ha!! :D

You're right on! That's exactly what it was like! :p

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the film, doesn't Merry stab the WK with the dagger he was given by Galadriel in Lorien?? There's not much of a big deal made of that blade, but it was from the White Lady. . .

Or did he use the sword of the Rohirrim given him by Eowyn. . .?

Either way, I too would have liked a bit of an explanation as to the magical provenance of Merry's blade, but I don't think it's necessary. The WK is not diminished by the lack of magic-blade in anyway -- just look at the size of his mace!!!

WHAZZOK!

[alatar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the film, doesn't Merry stab the WK with the dagger he was given by Galadriel in Lorien?? There's not much of a big deal made of that blade, but it was from the White Lady. . .

Or did he use the sword of the Rohirrim given him by Eowyn. . .?

Not sure with what sword he is armed. Assume that it was either the one given to him by Aragorn or the one gifted by Galadriel. Most likely the one he received at Weathertop (just thinking about what it looked like when he uses it on the Pelennor fields). How does he get either back after his Uruk Hai riding experience? I can't remember seeing his sword being returned to him when he meets the three hunters at Orthanc.

We readers all know how he gets his sword back, but what assumption did the average movie-goer make, or wasn't it that important as seemingly any sharp object wielded by a Hobbit will do? :p

[lord of dor-lomin]

The WK is not diminished by the lack of magic-blade in anyway
I wouldn't say that. He kills Theoden, defeats Gandalf, and has the whole "no man can kill" line stuck on him, and as you said, with his mace and all he looks like an absolute beast...

...but then he gets killed in a weak, dumb way. That is definitely getting "diminished".

No doubt about that. You can't argue it. As someone said a few pages ago, he gets poked by a knife and proceeds to kneel down in front of Eowyn for ten minutes and allows her to take off her helmet, say her line, and stab him in the face. How stupid is that?

That's the same way you'd kill some little orc that got on your nerves. The only difference was that TWK's face crumpled up before he died. Ooh, aah, nice visual effect... that cool face crumple action sure makes up for his weak death now, doesn't it? Almost makes me forget he went out like a punk. :rolleyes:

[Lathriel]

After reading this thread I began to understand something about why I like the movies so much.

Although I compare the books to the movies like anybody else, I enjoy them appart. (As has been said already) However, I also look at the movies like a piece of art. It is very difficult not to. I think you guys are forgetting that this movie does represent the view of the people who worked on it, which happens with any play/movie that you see, You can't expect the movie to be exactly as you imagined it because the people who made it are different from you. They live differently and have different point of views so they will see the book differently as well.

In this thread it seems that you guys believe it isn't allowed to look at things i from another point of view.So if you want the movie the way you imagined it, go ahead, make it.

Of course I also see there are faults but I just let it lie and accept that everyone sees things from another perspective.

P.S. You also have to remeber that PJ couldn't just focus on the script alone. he had other things to do like directing a movie! Which means overseeing the art department, WETA, the costumes, the sets etc.

[the phantom]

Oh, don't give me all that "different point of view/perspective" stuff. I already addressed that a few pages back when I said this-
Most of the complaints have nothing to do with PJ's "vision" (or personal interpretation) of the story.

If PJ thinks that elves have pointy ears and you don't agree, or if he thinks that Faramir is 6'4" but you think he's 6'6"- that would be where his "vision of the story" would come into play.

But what about having Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? You could read the entire book upside down and backwards and there's still no possible way you could view or interpret the story like that.
Most all of our complaints are about things that were added (to the detriment of the story) or about things that were taken out where the resulting loose ends were left dangling.

Such things have no relation whatsoever to PJ's different "point of view".
You can't expect the movie to be exactly as you imagined it
I seriously doubt that any of us ever harbored such utopian hopes, but we did, perhaps, expect there to be no glaring errors or inconsistencies introduced by complete departures from the text. Was such an expectation unreasonable?

[Essex]

lord dor-lomin,

Take a close look at the text of the WK scene.

as important as merry's blade is (as I've said countless times) it's not just the blade itself that helps defeat the witch king. It's the point that Merry is OVERLOOKED by everyone (except eowyn) which works exactly as it does in the book. Merry was able to sneak up on the witch king and attack him from behind, hitting him just below the knee (perhaps a play on Achilles' heel?) and dealt a BITTER blow. No matter whether he had a great sword or not, if he was a great Warrior etc, he would have NOT GOT NEAR the WK to attack him. It was becuase he was a 'lowly' hobbit, totally disregarded, that he was able to help defeat the WK. This theme is EXACTLY the same in the film as it is in the book, and is highly important. If PJ could have somehow fit in the Barrowdown scenes with the Numenorean sword then this scene would have been perfect.

On top of this, why wouldn't the WK kneel there for a matter of seconds after taking the blow from Merry? Yes, eowyn removes her helmet and says her line at this point in the film, but the WK had been dealt a BITTER blow as Tolkien tells us. Indeed, in the book, Eowyn slowly gets up from her knees, "tottering, struggling up", so this would take longer than removing her helmet and saying her world famous line at this point.

The reason PJ makes his helmet wither like it does, is because HE WAS BEING FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK. Read the scene from the book closely and you will see.


Neithan,

re Several times Peter Jackson stumbled when trying to remember how things happened in the book as opposed to his changes. It became quite clear after he was corrected several times by the other commentators that he didn't know Tolkien's stories all that well.We also see this in the EE of FOTR. PJ doesn;t know the book TOO well, but it really wasn't him that wrote (and re-wrote) the script. In my opinion it was Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh, looking at the interviews the 3 held in various sections of the EEs.

[lord of dor-lomin]

Yes yes, Essex, Merry was "overlooked" in the movie, just like in the book. I never complained about that.
but the WK had been dealt a BITTER blow as Tolkien tells us
As "Tolkien tells us"??? How in the world does that relate to the movie? You are speaking of the book! Non-readers watching the movie have no clue what you're talking about when you say "bitter blow".

The movie blow wasn't a "bitter blow". It was a hobbit with a very ordinary weapon. Why should TWK fall down because of it? I mean- in The Fellowship, that big orc that Aragorn fought- Aragorn stabbed him in the leg and the orc didn't even come close to falling down. That orc didn't even stop when he got impaled!

So if an orc doesn't fall down after getting stabbed twice by a great warrior, we would expect that the ultimate bad guy would be able to withstand a hobbit induced leg wound just a little bit better than what he did!
Indeed, in the book, Eowyn slowly gets up from her knees, "tottering, struggling up", so this would take longer than removing her helmet and saying her world famous line at this point.
Being faithful to the book in this way is a BAD thing, because PJ had already ruined it by NOT being faithful to the book when it comes to Merry's sword. In other words, he had TWK get damaged just as badly as he was in the book, but he neglected to give a reason as to why he was damaged so much.

There is NO WAY that this scene works for someone who doesn't already know about Merry's sword. PJ's partial adherence to the text only makes the scene worse. He should've just come up with his own thing for TWK's death if he wasn't going to explain Merry's sword.

[davem]

There's some interesting stuff here:http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/History.html (sections 2-4). The references to lines in the books:

Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.(The Departure of Boromir)

&

No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will. (Battle of Pelenor Fields)

Seem most relevant.

This is another example of how you excise parts of Tolkien's text at your peril. At least in the radio series the adaptors take into account their exicision of the Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode by having the WK exclaim, when Merry stabs him 'Halfling, you sting like a gnat' or something. In other words they have him dismiss Merry's strike as meaningless & it serves merely as a distraction for Eowyn to find time to deal the death blow. This also diminishes Merry's part in his death, but it does get round the problem of Merry using a normal weapon. At least they take the story seriously enough to understand that if Merry's blow is to have any serious effect on the WK it would only be if it was struck by the Barrow Blade.

The reason PJ makes his helmet wither like it does, is because HE WAS BEING FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK. Read the scene from the book closely and you will see.

Well, in the book he wasn't wearing a helmet at all - if I remember rightly - but a Crown on his (invisible) head.

I think LoDL makes the central point - you can't pick & choose which bits you will faithfully reproduce from the book & which you'll change without a lot more thought for the implications than the movie writers seem to have put in...

[Lathriel]

Although the withking in the movie does seem to have helm it also has a crown. It is a helm and crow combined. Besides if you folowed some of the descriptions of Tolkien precisely as he wrote them they might not have worked on screen. Some of the people from the art department continually complained about the difficulty of the helmets with wings for the Gondorian soldiers. It was very easy to make the gondorian armour look extremely gaudy or just plain ridiculous.

[The Tennis Ball Kid]

I'm pretty sure Merry stabs Wiki with the sword he got at Dunharrow, he had lost the other two by that point.


Does it feel right that a Ring that lay lost for 3000 years, and then right under Gandalf's nose for 60+ years is discovered by Gandalf to be THE One Ring in the course of, what the movie shows, as about 3 months? It doesn't feel right.
At least six months I'd say, judging by Barliman's line about not seeing him in six months. Felt about right to me (in the context of the film), he gets suspicious about it, rides off to the nearest public library to read up on Rings of Power, rides back, and tells Frodo he's got the Big One.

Then, in the Return of the King, Jackson shoots his own work down, and has Elrond make it to Dunharrow in what appears to be a matter of a couple days, after establishing how long it took Aragorn to get there (if by a slightly longer route) from Rivendell.
It may look like it took him only a couple of days, but he presumably started right after Arwen had him reforge the sword, which was presumably right after she got back from almost sailing across the sea, which actually might be rather close to the time the Fellowship left and she had her little spat with Aragorn. In other words he may hve left Rivendell not long at all after Aragorn did. You're right that the timeline isn't entirely coherent when viewing ROTK, but it might make more sense if you watched the three films in a fairly short period of time.

No doubt the timeline would have made more sense if they had left the scrapped "Arwen at Helm's Deep" storyline in. :D


ttbk

[Boromir88]

In other words he may hve left Rivendell not long at all after Aragorn did. You're right that the timeline isn't entirely coherent when viewing ROTK
Jackson does this with the Haldir scene, coming in to Helm's Deep...He basically said Elrond and Galadriel telepathically cybered after the Fellowship left Lorien, and Haldir approximately left at the end of FOTR. Sounds sort of like a cover up to me on a time mistake, but oh well.

I love on the FOTR EE when Jackson and crew are asked why didn't you have Glamdring shine when orcs are around like Sting? Jackson sort of squirms in his chair, and I believe it is Boyens who responds "budget restraints," and Jackson quickly agrees. It doesn't make a difference whether Glamdring shines or not, however you get the feeling Jackson wasn't as well learned as some of our very own downers. Of course who got everything the first time they read it...or even repeated readings? There's something new to find out each time you read it. Very fascinating.

[Aquarius the King]

My first time posting here. Thought I'd jump in on something a little less intimidating than the chapter-by-chapter forum. :)

Alot of the changes in the films didn't bother me... Some seemed necessary in the interests of dramatic action...something which the book, with it's pages of pages of expositions(one of my favorite things about it, ironically!) would have needed more of to be directly "translatable" to a visual medium. Nevertheless the films have much more exposition that most films, albeit in a simplified way.

However there were some changes I didn't like, or was disappointed by, to wit:

over-simplification of the History of the Numenorean Kingdoms...though I realize that such a complex history would have had to have been simplified, the fact that there's no mention of Arnor, and little mention of Numenor bugs me...I got the impression that all the world knew of Aragorns identity...witness Boromirs awe during the Council of Rivendell...in the book, he seems unaware of Aragorns hereditary status until Aragorn dramatically draws the stub of Narsil...

No warg attack in Hollin! Pity, would've made a good battle scene.


GROSS oversimplification of the political situation in Rohan...it made no sense at all in the film...why would all of Eomers men follow Eomer in his "exile"? And how the hell do they travel "three hundred leagues" in a few days?

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

"Evil" Faramir. While I appreciated seeing the ruins of Osgiliath, it made no sense whatsoever to me to do it the way Jackson et al did it: why let the halfling go after he's JUST offered the Ring to a Nazgul?? Sam's speech was moving, but no intelligent military commander would've done that. Much more credible in the book.

Simplified Denethor. IMO, Denethor and Faramir are two of the most interesting human characters of the book...they seem much more competent in the books than the movie...Denethor's madness and destructive pride seem much more of a tragedy...

Bombadil being cut, okay. Why cut the Woses out?

Didn't like Pippin's "tricking" of Treebeard into warring on Isengard.

Elrond delivering Anduril to Aragorns hand...where does he go afterwards?

No Scouring.

[Lalwendë]

Elven archers at Helm's Deep. A crime!! And where do they go AFTER Helm's Deep? Why do they not continue to Gondor?

No doubt the timeline would have made more sense if they had left the scrapped "Arwen at Helm's Deep" storyline in.

Hmm. I am eternally thankful that Liv Tyler's many skills :rolleyes: do not include fighting, as allegedly her scenes were so bad they had to be cut. I'd have been apoplectic if they had left those in! By way of interest, there are pictures on t'internet which people have taken from freeze frames of the film, showing Arwen lurking in the background of several scenes, including riding out with Theoden at dawn. So they did not manage to edit her out entirely. Possibly why the Elves turned up to fight there was something to do with the Arwen at Helm's Deep story line. Maybe they were simply too difficult to edit out, or else PJ thought 'what the heck, more elves will be good' and left them in.

[davem]

Just as an aside, what about this idea (for those who haven't watched the Appendices for RotK this was for a proposed 'addition' to the Battle before the Black Gates. Sauron was to appear to fight Aragorn but he first appeared in his earlier form of Annatar. The idea was that he would appear this way in an attempt to win over Aragorn & when that didn't work he was to adopt his earlier form from the Last Alliance)

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/9499/d117hn.jpg

Would this have worked? Did the writers change their minds because they wanted to stay faithful to the books or because they feared the reaction of the fans?

The reason I ask is that I think this goes to the heart of why certain things from the books were left in despite changes in the storyline which made them seem at best incoherent & at worst nonsensical. How much freedom did they feel they had in making changes to the story? If the books had had a less devoted following would they have gone further than they did? And if they had felt they had complete freedom to 'adapt' the story as they wished, how different or how faithful would it have been?

Perhaps what we've ended up with is bits of two movies awkwardly stuck together - a 'faithful' adaptation of the book & another one which just uses the book as a starting point. Could this be the reason for all the 'back & forthing' we've been going through here - they simply couldn't decide whether they wanted to make a movie of Tolkien's LotR or their own?

[Lathriel]

At first I was horrified by the idea of Sauron appearing on the battle field and I'm glad it never appeared on film. However, when I heard the ideas behind it I thought it was very neat.
I think the filmmakers left it out for two reasons. One: it wasn't faithful to the book and would horrify the book fans Two:It would have confused the whole audience

[alatar]

I love on the FOTR EE when Jackson and crew are asked why didn't you have Glamdring shine when orcs are around like Sting? Jackson sort of squirms in his chair, and I believe it is Boyens who responds "budget restraints," and Jackson quickly agrees.

At least in this case Jackson is consistent. No one said anything about Glamdring glowing, so why would it glow (assume non-reader)? Sting had to as Bilbo said that it would.

Plus, it wasn't Glamdring...

After flying out of Orthanc, Gandalf either forgot his luggage or it was shipped to a different destination, never catching up with him, and so Saruman got to keep both his staff and Glamdring.

Luckily, on the way to Rivendell, Gandalf stopped at a 'Staff 'R' Us' shop (opening a new location in Gondor soon!) and purchased a 72" brown driftwood model. He 'acquired' a new sword from one of the ones sitting around on display in Rivendell. :p

[The Tennis Ball Kid]

If you look closely, Gandalf actually has a different staff after he escapes.



ttbk

[Essex]

Lord dor-lominBeing faithful to the book in this way is a BAD thing, because PJ had already ruined it by NOT being faithful to the book when it comes to Merry's sword.Davemyou can't pick & choose which bits you will faithfully reproduce from the book & which you'll change without a lot more thought for the implications than the movie writers seem to have put in...I really can't argue with you anyomore if you take this viewpoint. So, you would rather PJ made up something totally different if parts of his adaption, which were TRUE to the book, clashed with other changes he made? No way, I would rather he stayed faithful to the book as much as possible.

In other words, you would have rathered Merry not attacking the Witch king at all? I really don't give a monkey if a non-book reader doesn't understand why Merry hit the WitchKing with such a savage blow. Read the books if you want to know. But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?

I've said countless times I wanted the sword from the Downs to be included, but I have to live with it. The scene, other than this, worked superbly.

[alatar]

If you look closely, Gandalf actually has a different staff after he escapes.

Really? Just how many staffs, swords does Gandalf have in the movie?

He starts with one in the Shire, and I assume that he has Glamdring.

He loses both when he visits Saruman.

He gets another staff and sword for the journey to Moria. How he got a staff between Orthanc and Rivendell is beyond me.

He loses both when he fights the Balrog. I assume that when his body burns away after throwing down the Balrog that he cannot carry the sword/staff with him.

He gets a new white staff and a sword (PJ doesn't explain what happens to Gandalf when he upgrades from grey to white).

He loses his staff to the WK during the Pelennor Fields battle, but at least he retains his sword.

When he leaves ME with Frodo, he has yet another white staff, and I can't remember if he's still packing a sword.

Am I missing any staff appearances (i.e. the Coronation)?

The average viewer must think that Gandalf can get a staff/sword just about anywhere, and may conclude that they just aren't that special - except, maybe Anduril, Sting, and the son of Haleth's sword.

Merry's blade may just have been a random sharp piece of metal that he picked up after being thrown from Eowyn's horse. Again I would say then that PJ is being inconsistent as the WK is shown to be 'the bomb,' terrorizing and 'owning' the Balrog slayer yet being brought down by the hobbit's blade. Did Merry break the spell that knit the WK sinews together, or did he sting the WK, bringing him to his knees and causing him to 'freeze' so that (1) Eowyn could have time to say her line and (2) she could stab him in the face easily without the need of a step stool?

And while I'm ranting away, just how does Eowyn get 'almost dead?' After racking up an impressive body count, fighting Gothmog (2nd in command?), she kills the WK (and if that weren't enough), runs from the Gimp, and then...what are we to assume? She looks well enough when she chats with Theoden.

And remember, we're in PJ's world, and so information must be gleaned from what was on the screen.

[Essex]

AlatarAnd while I'm ranting away, just how does Eowyn get 'almost dead?' After racking up an impressive body count, fighting Gothmog (2nd in command?), she kills the WK (and if that weren't enough), runs from the Gimp, and then...what are we to assume? She looks well enough when she chats with Theoden.It's called adrenaline, and then shock. Just like the unsung hero Merry who was walking around unnoticed after he helped defeat the Witch King in the book, his wounds did not take their perilous hold until later. This has been transposed from Merry to Eoywn for the movie, as she was the one at Theoden's side for his death speech (because film wise the story could not fit a Merry/theoden bonding session in - but this is a pity).Did Merry break the spell that knit the WK sinews together, or did he sting the WK, bringing him to his knees and causing him to 'freeze' so that (1) Eowyn could have time to say her line and (2) she could stab him in the face easily without the need of a step stool?Yes, just as in the book (except she said the line before hand), Merry brought down the WK enabling her to kill the WK with a sword to his 'face'. If non book readers don't understand, and book reading cynics can't except it, then too bad.

[alatar]

If non book readers don't understand, and book reading cynics can't except it, then too bad.

I hope that you understand my point. I've taken your advice, either 'filling in' where PJ left stuff out or 'separating' the movie from the books and enjoying each as a different thing.

Just wanted to point out more items that may not have made sense to the illiterate nor to me. With Eowyn, a major character, to be one moment a bit tussled and the next moment a bit 'dead' is was a bit (IMO) hard to swallow. Where was Merry after the encounter? Do hobbits have less adrenaline? ;)

Would have been better, I think (like anyone cares!) if, upon stabbing the WK Eowyn screamed as if wounded. She could then have talked with Theoden but we might have had a sense that she too was filing, being mortally wounded, like Merry (luckily Aragorn saves them). Running from Gothmog didn't make her seem almost dead to me.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

When he leaves ME with Frodo, he has yet another white staff, and I can't remember if he's still packing a sword.. well that was a few years later. I'm sure he had time to get a new one.

And wow!! I mean WOW this thread has really gone along since I was here last.

Plus a 5 Star (Or is that 5 bone?) rating! Truly I am the happiest dead thing alive!:D

Coming soon! More controversy from Beleg!

[lord of dor-lomin]

So, you would rather PJ made up something totally different if parts of his adaption, which were TRUE to the book, clashed with other changes he made? No way, I would rather he stayed faithful to the book as much as possible.
You've gotta be kidding me.

You'd choose a greater number of book scenes over coherency??

Even if PJ makes a change, you want him to be faithful to the book in a later scene and ignore the change??

Following that logic, PJ should have had Eomer fighting at Helm's Deep with Theoden and Aragorn, since that's what he did in the book. Never mind the fact that in the movie Gandalf rode away to get him. PJ should've, without any explanation, stuck Eomer in Helm's Deep.

Ooh, and he also should've had The Mouth of Sauron ride away on his horse with a fully intact head since that's what he did in the book. Nevermind that ten seconds ago we saw Aragorn cut his head off. We'd rather see another scene accurate to the book than to see things that make sense.

Brilliant idea, Essex.
But to say you think it would be better to totally change the scene to cater for non book readers?
I don't think PJ should've changed anything for non-bookers- I agree with you on that. BUT, he did change things, and once he changes something I think it's better to follow through on the change and have the rest of the movie make sense than to ignore the change later and end up with an accurate book scene that doesn't flow with the rest of the movie.

[alatar]

I would have preferred that Jackson keep to the book world, and modify only as needed to translate to the media. Additional information wasn't appreciated.

For example, wanting to show that the WK is very powerful by breaking Gandalf's staff - okay, as painful as it is for me to watch.

Aragorn falling off of the cliff into the river in TTT - what?

Eomer's not at Helm's Deep - okay, whatever; it keeps the focus on Aragorn, Theoden et al and shortens the list of main characters (i.e. no Erkenbrand).

Arwen at the Fords - okay, again to shorten the list and also keeps the 'romance' in the movies to attract a bigger audience.

Arwen at the Fords - "She elf..." need I say more? :mad:

[Essex]

lord of dor-lommin, you've moved into the realms of sarcasm, which dosen't suit anyone here.

re the MoS head. No, I do not mean changing a scene that much. At the end of the paragraph you quote, I stated 'as much as possible'.

Going back to the scene in question, because PJ didn't explain Merry has a 'magic' sword doesn't mean the scene does not work for book readers. You really think it would have been better to NOT have this scene partly faithful to the books? You would rather Merry did NOT help defeat the witch king because PJ hadn't explained about the sword of westernesse??????

[Boromir88]

This thread here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11447) goes into some of the changes made by Jackson and team, and explaining why they decided to do what they did...it may be of some interest.

Then this one (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11576) brings me to a key point. You can't take things explained in the book, that weren't shown in the movie, and say "it doesn't work in the movie." If you want to explain how something doesn't work in the movie, then stay within the movie's context. The recent debate seems to be the Withch-king Merry sequence...

Since nothing is in the movies is shown about a special sword specifically designed to harm the witch-king we must assume that any sword would be able to do so. Does this weaken the WK's power? Possibly, we'll look at that a little later. First however...I'll let you know any blow to the knee is going to hurt, speaking from experience from tearing my ACL, it's going to hurt if you get stabbed in the back of the knee, so you're going to go down. Heck them whip out batons the police you, a crack from them in the knee, you're down...it's a very vulnerable spot.

Jackson has nothing on the sword of westernesse, so now we must think does it weaken the WK's character from being struck in a vulnerable spot, that will likely bring you down? The Wikkie doesn't do nearly as much as he does in the book. If you ask me Gothmog seems more in command of the armies then the WK, there is nothing to show that Wikkie had anything to do with breaking the walls of Minas Tirith...The one arguable scene we see, that could possibly fit in, would be WK owning Gandalf. Which happens to bring up another question about inconsistancy in the films...Gandalf the grey able to defeat a Balrog, but Gandalf the White is owned by the WK? So, did it weaken Wikkie's power by having him stabbed in the back of a knee by a "normal" sword? That I'll leave for the debaters, I'm merely a messenger, I know nothing :p .