Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Meriadoc1961]

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

I quoted this from another thread, and I have ran across many statements written like this, and always as a statement of fact.

Should we just accept this notion as fact? Why? What is the empirical evidence to back it up?

I say it is not factual, but conjecture, because I have yet to find a movie that actually did stick with the way a book is written. We will never know if LotR would have made just as much money if Tom Bombadil was in it, simply because Jackson capriciously decided he was not necessary and he left him out. I, for one, would have much preferred a scene or two with Bombadil, particularly seeing the ring powerless over him and his power demonstrated over the Barrow-wight, instead of seeing Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath, or see Frodo send Sam away, or Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum, or see the Witch King break Gandalf's staff. There is plenty right there that was added by Jackson that was not needed that would have left plenty of time for Bombadil to be in it. He WAS in the book. But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil for whatever reason, we do not get to see him, even though we have for years, for those of us who have read the books more than once. And I felt slighted. We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.

Merry

[Folwren]

I have seen one movie that was almost identical to its mother book. That movie was A&E's Pride and Prejudice. It was excellently made and it was an excellent movie that is one of my family's favorites.

Another movie that was made like it's book was Master and Commander. This was actually a story that the director and script makers made up with the characters from the books, basing it losely off of one of the books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, but it was written, made, and performed in the spirit of the book and turned out wonderful.

Now Bombadil...hehe. I understand your feeling of being slighted, but I think that Jackson made a good call in drawing him out. All that stuff that you mentioned that could have been left out and that would have left open time could have been used for other characters. A LOT of the fellowship didn't have proper development in the movie that they could have had if they had taken out the stuff that P.J. added.

I think it is possible to make a movie fairly close to the book its based off of. I think if people did it more often, movies would be better. :)

[Meriadoc1961]

"I think it is possible to make a movie fairly close to the book its based off of. I think if people did it more often, movies would be better."

Thank you. That is my point. To me, when I hear people claim that books are books, and movies are movies, so they can not be done the same way, reeks of eliticism. I just do not buy that premise.:)

[Annatar]

We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.


Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.


Frodo send Sam away

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum

This is where I agree with you - it's quite pointless.

But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.


reeks of eliticism

Not to be flaming, you're being elitist.

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.


As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

[Sauron the White]

In the imaginary kingdom of Wouldashouldacoulda anything is possible. For those who cannot find it on the mythical maps, its right east of Secondguess Land and a bit north of the Itmighthavebeenperfectif territories.

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE]Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Mentioned, not given two pages worth of writting. Elbereth was mentioned, thank goodness she wasn't in the movie, as a character.

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.

Well, it's PJ's fault that Shelob was moved to the RotK, so no problem there.

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

What rift? In the book? It must have been a long time since I read them....

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.

um... and the Watcher of the Water, the Wargs attacking Theoden, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.?

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.

Of course you can't do the characters thoughts in a movie, but really, Meriadoc didn't say word for word.

As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

Do you think that the wider audience would have disliked Imrahil or Bombadil? Maybe Bombadil, he seems to be disliked by alot of people, but Imrahil? He saves Faramir, and takes a big part in the restoration of Minith Tirith.

[Annatar]

Mentioned, not given two pages worth of writting. Elbereth was mentioned, thank goodness she wasn't in the movie, as a character.

Elbereth takes little or no part in the events of the movie, so no surprise there.



Well, it's PJ's fault that Shelob was moved to the RotK, so no problem there.

Required, as Shelob's Lair is completely different to the tone of Helm's Deep, and takes place during the siege of Minas Tirith.



What rift? In the book? It must have been a long time since I read them....

Added in the movie.



um... and the Watcher of the Water, the Wargs attacking Theoden, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.?

The Watcher in the Water is required to trap the Fellowship in Moria. The Fellowship being trapped in Moria is required for the confrontation with the Balrog. The Wargs attacking Theoden are required for Aragorn falling off the cliff. Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army. And so on. But not Bombadil. The only thing he's for is the Blades of Westernesse, and those are filled in for in the FoTR EE by Galadriel giving the Noldorin Dagger to Merry.



Of course you can't do the characters thoughts in a movie, but really, Meriadoc didn't say word for word.

No idea how to answer this.



Do you think that the wider audience would have disliked Imrahil or Bombadil? Maybe Bombadil, he seems to be disliked by alot of people, but Imrahil? He saves Faramir, and takes a big part in the restoration of Minith Tirith.

Imrahil is not needed, like the Grey Company. He is just too much detail, because PJ did not have enough time to introduce every single character from the books.

[Sauron the White]

Imrahil would have worked well on the screen if they could have fit him in. Bombadil, on the other hand, is poison even in the book. On the screen he would have been the equal of an atomic explosion wreaking havoc with the sensibilities of the viewers. One of JRRT's absolute worst moments with pen and paper.

[Sir Kohran]

Actually I believe Imrahil was included in the movie; apparently he's the blonde knight who takes the wounded Faramir up to the Citadel (which is indeed what Imrahil does in the book). I think it was described on a Decipher Card.

And anyway, I think Gothmog was needed to give the Orcs a sense of realism - by giving them a leader on the ground who gives the Orcs orders/encouragement/insults, they function more realistically as a genuine army than just a faceless mob of enemies.

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc...

since it was my quote that you used to start this

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

allow me to directly post this to you in response to your attempt to dismiss it with these comments

I quoted this from anothetr thread, and I have ran across many statements written like this, and always as a statement of fact.

Should we just accept this notion as fact? Why? What is the empirical evidence to back it up?

If you think that I am in error - that books and films are not so different, that indeed what works in the one can work in the other, just do this:

Take the LOTR book, page by page, line by line, and picture it as a complete film. Cut nothing. Condense nothing. Combine nothing. Film everything as if the book is the script.

Then think about what you would have and ask yourself how many people would have both seen it and enjoyed it.

For that is the ultimate test to see if a book can be just like a film and vice versa. Make the book your shooting script.

[Meriadoc1961]

Annatar wrote:

"Not to be flaming, you're being elitist."

I do not consider this to be flaming at all.

Interesting thought. I had not considered that. Would I be elitist or just consistent if I offered the same criticism if a movie was made and then a book followed with the same title but changed it in many ways, supposedly just because it can not be done the same way in a movie that it is in a book?

I am just not convinced that "it can't be done".

Sauron the White wrote:

"If you think that I am in error - that books and films are not so different, that indeed what works in the one can work in the other, just do this:

"Take the LOTR book, page by page, line by line, and picture it as a complete film. Cut nothing. Condense nothing. Combine nothing. Film everything as if the book is the script.

"Then think about what you would have and ask yourself how many people would have both seen it and enjoyed it.

"For that is the ultimate test to see if a book can be just like a film and vice versa. Make the book your shooting script."

First of all, I was not intending to be dismissive when I quoted you, but I offer to you sincerely my apologies because in hindsight I see how it could look that way.

But to answer the above, I certainly believe it could have been done this way. I enjoyed the narration of Galdriel to start the film. I believe much of the narrative could have been done in that same way. I then would not have changed a single sentence made by any of the characters.

I believe it would be an interesting undertaking for someone to try it in this manner. If not in a movie, then maybe in a series.

[Folwren]

Meriadoc - I don't think that word for word would quite work. StW is right in that sense. The LotR is simply too long.

Keep in mind, that if you did it word for word, all the descriptions of land and scenery would not have to be spoken - they'd be there to be seen. That would cut down about half of the book.

Although the words and converstions and some scenes would have to be clipped and trimmed, one could still keep mostly to the book. Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond. I just can't see putting that onto screen quite perfectly.

So...it is true (in my mind, anyway) that in the case of the Lord of the Rings, a movie could not be succesfully made if it followed word for word the book.

However, I do believe that a more succesful LotR could be made if it followed much more closely the book than did Jackson's LotR.

Just my humble opinion. Others may agree or disagree as they choose.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

There certainly are portions of the films where I would have preferred it if they kept more to the book. Two glaring examples are a misuse of the Army of the Dead on the Pelennor and the confrontation of Gandalf and the Witchking - although I feel this second example is not as jarring as the first.

So there we have two cases where sticking to the book would have been better.

But it reminds me of the charcter of Tevye in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. "But, on the other hand...." Consider the vast improvement in the character of Boromir including his far more touching death scene in the movie over the book. Plus all the expository material that comes out of the Council of Elrond chapter is far superior in the film. Arwens expanded role connected with many of the filmgoers - a majority of which turned out to be female - and I think that was not coincidental.

So this is not a one sided proposition.

[davem]

Consider the vast improvement in the character of Boromir including his far more touching death scene in the movie over the book.

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.


Plus all the expository material that comes out of the Council of Elrond chapter is far superior in the film.

In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

Arwens expanded role connected with many of the filmgoers - a majority of which turned out to be female - and I think that was not coincidental.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

[Annatar]

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.

The changing of Boromir's character was a good thing. The hypothetical changing of Sauron's character, however would not have made the movies better than the book. On the contrary, it would have made them worse.




In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

The Council of Elrond would have been simply too long in the movie. It would have killed it even worse than Bombadil. Long scenes of exposition slow down the action and bore the audience. The "shouting match", as youy call it, was the only way to make it work, showed the drama of Frodo's decision, and also showed the Ring's influence seeping into Rivendell.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

That's your opinion.

[davem]

The changing of Boromir's character was a good thing. The hypothetical changing of Sauron's character, however would not have made the movies better than the book. On the contrary, it would have made them worse.

In what sense 'a good thing?' The movie Boromir is not the Boromir Tolkien created. The idea of praising the scriptwriter's 'skill' in making movie Boromir's death more moving than in the book is a bit odd as its only more 'moving' because they've turned him into a nice guy corrupted by the Ring, as opposed to Tolkien's thuggish, overly proud warrior.


The Council of Elrond would have been simply too long in the movie. It would have killed it even worse than Bombadil. Long scenes of exposition slow down the action and bore the audience. The "shouting match", as youy call it, was the only way to make it work, showed the drama of Frodo's decision, and also showed the Ring's influence seeping into Rivendell.

It was dreadful. Of course, modern movie-goers do get bored by 'Long scenes of exposition slow(ing) down the action', because generally they have the concentration span of a senile goldfish - & producers/directors are eager to cater to them. Condense one of the most important chapters in the book to a three minute shouting match, & get on with the beheadings & the 85 minute fight with the cave Troll......



That's your opinion.

No. Movie Arwen was a dull, wet, simpering annoyance & one of the worst things in the movies. "Blub, blub, blub, Woe is me!"

[Sir Kohran]

they've turned him into a nice guy corrupted by the Ring, as opposed to Tolkien's thuggish, overly proud warrior.

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

It was dreadful. Of course, modern movie-goers do get bored by 'Long scenes of exposition slow(ing) down the action', because generally they have the concentration span of a senile goldfish - & producers/directors are eager to cater to them. Condense one of the most important chapters in the book to a three minute shouting match, & get on with the beheadings & the 85 minute fight with the cave Troll......

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Also, much of the discussion in the Council is taken care of elsewhere in the movie - the story of the Last Alliance was placed as the movie's prologue, Gandalf's escape from Saruman was shown interspersed with the travels of Aragorn and the Hobbits, and Bombadil wasn't in the movie to begin with. Things like Sauron's messanger tempting the Dwarves don't need to be included; they have no real relation to the general plot. Boromir's account of what's happening in Gondor was stripped down probably to create more interest from the audience in Boromir's far-off, much-talked about country. Add all these together and you get a smaller, tighter sequence.

[Raynor]

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.
But he plays a very important role, showing the decay of Gondor, from the height of its numenorean ascendence, of which Aragorn is an exponent and a reviver, to the level of Rohan, under the rule of the stewards. As Faramir said:
- Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days. So even was my brother, Boromir: a man of prowess, and for that he was accounted the best man in Gondor.

[davem]

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book. And if you rewrote Theoden's character to make him a nasty piece of work his death would be less moving.

And if you gave the Ring the voice of a little girl with a cute lisp we'd all be a little sad when it went into the fire - but that's not what Tolkien wrote. As far as Boromir goes, Tolkien gave us a very specific type of person in order to explore the effect of power on someone like that. The scriptwriters basically took the easy way out in order to get an emotional climax to their movie.


Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Well, that's only true if the audience you're aiming at is a spotty 17 year old ...

[Finduilas]

The counsil could have been just as long as in the movie, but more to the books character. I'm not a.... purist? It doesn't need to be word for word. Leave out Bombadil, shorten the counsil, I don't even mind a slight change in Boromir. But to have all your main characters, excepting of course Aragorn, Frodo, and Elrond, argue like children is foolish, and destroys, mostly, the nice change you were talking about in Boromir.

I think the movie focused to much on the Ring's power to twist characters. After all, Bilbo got it, practically cheated with it, used it, and still felt sorry for Gollum. Only 60 years later(60 years, that's a long time) was he a grump grasping for the Ring. And he was still a nice guy.

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

[Folwren]

Heh...Finduilas and davem are doing a fine job. I don't think I'll put in my two cents of opinion here.

-- Folwren

[davem]

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for. Unfortunately the writers don't seem to know what to do with her - the 'XenArwen' idea fell flat on its face (her scenes were removed from Helm's Deep, & thus the only justification for Elves being there was lost) & had two unfortunate consequences - first we lost Glorfindel from the movie, & second we get this odd change in Arwen's character, who at first appears as a 'warrior' Elf, wielding sword & defying Ringwraiths, only to subsequently become this simpering 'girly' Elf, who can only wave her big, brave warrior off to war, & then spend the rest of the movie sobbing her eyes out begging Daddy to help her get him back. Book Arwen weaves her 'magical' banner for Aragorn, &, though she remains in the background, is a powerful, mysterious 'force' behind the scenes. I can't recall such a 'weak' female character in any recent popular movie. Tolkien has often been accused of not being able to write convincing female characters, but he never made such a pig's ear of a female character as the movie scriptwriters did of Arwen. Where is the inner power of this descendant of Melian, Luthien & Galadriel?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book.

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character. I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

Like many of the younger generation would say.....'duh".

[davem]

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

Yes - & your point is? That LotR is a story of perfect good guys in white hats who are completely loveable versus horrible bad guys in black hats who behave like pantomime villains?? Tolkien did not write Boromir to be a likeable character. In short, no, we aren't supposed to 'cheer' for Boromir in the way you imply. Tolkien was writing for grown-ups who understand that people are complicated, & not all the people on the 'good' side are actually 'good'.

[ I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

So, in other words, because the character Tolkien wrote wasn't somebody you'd consider a stereotypical 'hero' it must be a result of bad writing?

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

As you must realise, the point I was making is that if you rewrite a morally dubious character & make him into a sympathetic 'hero' his death will elicit sympathy, so if you rewrite a 'villainous' character & make him a sympathetic figure his death, too, will elicit sympathy.

[Sauron the White]

As I wrote in my previous post


I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character

That seems to cover the line of reasoning you predictably used in your last post davem.

[Imladris]

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

I quoted this from another thread, and I have ran across many statements written like this, and always as a statement of fact.

It's more of a general rule of thumb than a fact -- to overquote a movie, it's more of a guideline for discussions than a rule. Eg -- books written in the first person would be rather difficult to turn into a movie since it's about interior thoughts of the narrator and that is very difficult to show without narration...and most people view that as bad form. LotR is easier -- except for the massive amount of detail that is both needed and rather unnecessary.

Please remember that directors have to report to another higher authority than just themselves. They don't have the final say. For example, I believe when I watched the commentary (which was a very long time ago so I am liable to misremember) -- they wanted Jackson to do it in two movies and, iirc, he fought very hard to keep it at three. There are also the matter of funding and all sorts of troublesome things. Sure a book can be turned into a movie, but at what cost? And if the higher ups deems it'll cost too much...well compromise must be made.

And everybody has a different vision or interpretation of the work. Just because it doesn't match yours doesn't mean it's necessarily false. I had read Tolkien's work many times before the viewing of the movie and I didn't think that Borormir's character was all that "changed", just that different aspects of his complexity were emphasised.

[davem]

As I wrote in my previous post


Quote:
I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character
That seems to cover the line of reasoning you predictably used in your last post davem.

Ok, so your position is that rather than setting out to write a three-dimensional, morally complex, character & succeeding, Tolkien actually set out to write a two-dimensional, morally simplistic, character & failed? Any reader who percieves Boromir as a complex, flawed, selfish character motivated by desire for personal glory is reading that complexity into the character, because Tolkien was actually trying to write a stereotypically 'good' character for the reader to cheer on?

Now, would you argue the same for Turin? Tolkien actually intended to make Turin a 'simple' good guy but was so incompetent a writer that he ended up producing a complex, introverted, often amoral, selfish, tragic figure?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Ok, so your position is that rather than setting out to write a three-dimensional, morally complex, character & succeeding, Tolkien actually set out to write a two-dimensional, morally simplistic, character & failed?

NO. My position is this. JRRT wrote the LOTR with Boromir being one of the least successful characters of the Fellowship. Jackson improved upon the character of Boromir making him a character which worked much better on screen than he did in the book.

Where do I get this from? The posted observations of many people over the last several years in this forum, TORN, B-77 and others.

Clear on that?

[davem]

NO. My position is this. JRRT wrote the LOTR with Boromir being one of the least successful characters of the Fellowship. Jackson improved upon the character of Boromir making him a character which worked much better on screen than he did in the book.

No, Jackson completely re-wrote the character.

Where do I get this from? The posted observations of many people over the last several years in this forum, TORN, B-77 and others.

Clear on that?

Many people? Well, it must be true then.

[Sauron the White]

Your opinion is worthwhile and I respect that. However..... (here comes the zinger
;)) ... after a while it reminds me of that old story about the proud mother watching her son play tuba in a marching band during a town parade. the boy was clearly marching with his footing opposite every other member of the band. Without skipping a beat the proud mother proclaimed "everybody is out of step but Johnny".

[Folwren]

My dear fellow...your are exagerating quite a bit. Davem's opinion is not the only one like that out there.

I believe that Tolkien meant Boromir to be a very complex character and I believe that he succeeded. I have never read any other book wherein two readers have opposite opinions about the same character. I read the LotR, wept at Borommir's death, and thought he made an honorable character in the end. I then talked to my best friend who was reading the book at the same time and found that she did not like Boromir at all and that she in fact disliked him. The opinion on Boromir varies from person to person. Many people dislike him. Many others like him. We're all reading the same book. We're all reading the same words. And yet Tolkien has created such a deep, complex character that some readers can latch onto him and like him, and others latch onto his other side - his worse side.

I don't have longer to make this post flow more. So sorry.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

from Folwren

My dear fellow...your are exagerating quite a bit. Davem's opinion is not the only one like that out there.

You are 100% right. Davem is not alone. And it seems the lions share of his compatriots are right here. I have frequented many Tolkien sites which share both book and film fans. I must say, with all due respect, that this particular site seems to have a gross imbalance of those who have the strongest negative opinions about the films and the most "bowing before the altar" attitudes toward the books. That is simply my observation after being here several months and several years on other sites.

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

Fowren, I do think you have an excellent point about the complexity of Boromir in the book. I respect that. I do honestly feel that there are some here who have an almost religious attitude towards the writings of JRRT and can find no fault, or at least publicly to finding no fault with his creations. They defend nearly everything with the zeal of a True Believer. It seems to have become far less a contest of reason than it does a test of ones faith.

[davem]

I have frequented many Tolkien sites which share both book and film fans. I must say, with all due respect, that this particular site seems to have a gross imbalance of those who have the strongest negative opinions about the films and the most "bowing before the altar" attitudes toward the books. That is simply my observation after being here several months and several years on other sites.

Most people on this site have a greater interest in the literature Tolkien produced over the course of his long life, & a desire to understand it, than they have in three movies - however many trillions of dollars they may have made (I think in an earlier post you gave it as $1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 per second since their release) or however many Oscars, Golden Globes, Baftas, Palm d'Or's Golden Oscars, Palm Globes, Boscars, Globetas, Palm Pilots, PDA's, Golden Deliciouses or I-pods they may have won..... This has nothing to do with 'bowing before the altar' of the books. Personally, I thought bits of the movies were fine but in the main they were grossly simplified & over stuffed with SFX which may have worked fine on a first viewing but increasingly dull thereafter.

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

I don't think anyone here has argued that the movies weren't popular. I've only ever argued that I think they're dull &, unlike the book, which I've read about 15 times & regularly return to with joy, I simply can't face another viewing of the movies.

I do honestly feel that there are some here who have an almost religious attitude towards the writings of JRRT and can find no fault, or at least publicly to finding no fault with his creations. They defend nearly everything with the zeal of a True Believer. It seems to have become far less a contest of reason than it does a test of ones faith.

No, sorry, some of us love the books but just don't care for the movies - its that simple, & I really don't know why you've decided to embark on this assault against those who don't share your opinion of the movies. The books came first for most of us, & we prefer them. Where the movies fail to come up to the standard of the books, or where they alter the story, we get either irritated or bored. It seems to me that if anyone is 'worshipping at an altar' here its yourself at the altar of three popular, but (in my opinion quite average) movies.

[Sauron the White]

No assault on you or anyone else is intended. I do not mean to attack anyone personally or claim they are bad people.

My comments are spurred by simple observation. To be brutally honest here, I was knocked over more by one thing I read here than anything else. I noticed that many people whose opinions on the JRRT books I respect, adopted a nearly subservient position regarding the publishing fraud that is THE CHILDREN OF HURIN. When I saw the tag line offered by the publishers - that it was the first new Tolkien novel in thirty years - I said to myself "self - people who know are going to rip that slogan to shreds because it is a lie. They have had that story on their shelves in other volumes for some time now."

Boy was I wrong. Nearly everyone was willing to look the other way as the Emperor paraded down the avenue with no clothes at all. In fact, some even winked and smiled about it. What I found out was that since it was authorized by the Tolkien Estate, it had the impramatur of Holy Writ and thus would never be challenged by those who I thought had some scruples and integrity. And as I have said many times in many posts on many subjects, I see the same people try to destroy the movies over and over and over again but they not dare raise so much as a whimper about anything associated with the source material, its author, the Estate or its doings.

That totally altered my thinking. I really do see some people bowing before that altar of Tolkien. Call it some weird type of JRRT political correctness for the literary crowd, but it is alive and well.

Maybe its my own personality that is at fault. I am by nature a contrarian who sits when asked to stand. If I were in a crowd of JRRT haters I would defend his writings to the death. So here its natural for me to be the bad guy. Sorry but thats just my natural inclination.

Davem, no attack on you or others is intended. Just observations and commentary on opinions.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion.

I take it you've never seen The Wannsee Conference? An hour and a half or more of absolutely gripping (and horrifying) drama- and it's nothing more than the verbatim recitation of the minutes of a real-life committee meeting.

One could also throw in My Dinner With Andre and many more which belie the video-game mentality that you gotta put 'action' on screen or else bore the audience.

**********

Who said Gothmog was an Orc? In fact he was explicitly *not* an Orc: "It was no brigand nor Orc-chieftain who commanded...."

Still, objections on this sort of geek-level are trivial compared to the fact that PJ Just Doesn't Get Tolkien: not his themes, his style, his moral vision, his sense of language, none of it. Just monsters and fights. This is a guy who calls the Eorlingas the "Rohans," after all, and thinks "Rohirrim" applies only to the king's cavalry. (If you want to get truly geekish, then PJ should be taken to task for having Theoden et al refer to their country as "Rohan", which in the book they never do- it is, after all, a Sindarin name coined in Gondor. How could anyone so deaf to language think they were qualified to adapt Tolkien? Misologists, Tolkien would call them. Hiring David Salo to concoct some snatches of pseudo-Elvish (while omitting all of Tolkien's own) doesn't cut it).


**********

In Annatar's long regurgitation of the excuses and self-justifications PJ and his accomplices offered up on the DVD's, he claims it was 'necessary' to rewrite Faramir (actually to create a new character with the same name) because the real Farmair's was "flat" and had to become an "obstacle" for Frodo- which goes back to the repeated reference by JBW to "story arcs." - If you buy this tripe, I suggest you read Shippey's Road to Middle-earth in its 2004 edition, where good Prof. Tom takes to task these paint-by-numbers approaches to screenwriting.

*******************


Shelob/Helm's Deep and the relative calendars- Only because PJ was dwetermined to make Helm's Deep the Bam! Zowie! climax of his movie, puffing it up beyond its proper place in the narrative; and, at any rate, Shelob's Lair took place *before* the Pelennor Fields, not simultaneously.


Would it not perhaps have been a great exercise in 'experimental cinema' (in the hands of a much more innovative director than Jackson) to present the narrative just as Tolkien did, without intercutting Books III & IV, V & VI?

[davem]

I noticed that many people whose opinions on the JRRT books I respect, adopted a nearly subservient position regarding the publishing fraud that is THE CHILDREN OF HURIN. When I saw the tag line offered by the publishers - that it was the first new Tolkien novel in thirty years - I said to myself "self - people who know are going to rip that slogan to shreds because it is a lie. They have had that story on their shelves in other volumes for some time now."

CoH. I bought The Sil in '77 & UT in '81 on the day it was published. Right from the moment I finished the Narn in UT I felt that it should have been published as a stand alone work, rather than as CT had chosen to do - the bulk of the tale in UT but with chunk missed out (the reader is referred back to The Sil to read the missing section.

I, & most other Tolkien fans, knew exactly what we would be getting with CoH, not least because many of us have both The Sil, UT & HoM-e. So, I've read the story before (ok, there are a few very slight differences), but that's not the point. We now have one of Tolkien's greatest tales available in a single volume so that if we want to read it we don't have to pile up 3 or 4 volumes & jump back & forth between them, & without the distraction of constant footnotes & cross references. In other words, we can read it as Tolkien intended - a single coherent narrative. Its also available now to a general readership who simply would never (even many of those who love LotR & TH) have read UT - or even The Sil.

So, CoH is not a rip off in any way - anyone who is enough of a fan of Tolkien to own The Sil & UT (hence, those who already own the Turin Saga) would have known what CoH would contain. For anyone who didn't own those books, CoH has made the Turin saga easily available (& more cheaply than having to buy The Sil, UT & the relevant volumes of HoM-e).

I really do see some people bowing before that altar of Tolkien. Call it some weird type of JRRT political correctness for the literary crowd, but it is alive and well.

I still don't see this - I love Tolkien's work, but I don't 'worship at his altar'. I don't think everything Tolkien wrote was perfect (the 'linguistic' writings go over my head completely & to be honest I find whole chunks of The Sil virtually unreadable - Ainulindale I wade through (for all the beauty of its language) & Valaquenta is a good contender for on the dullest thing I've ever read. My response to the early parts of The Sil has always been the same - a desire to scream at Tolkien 'For ***** sake get on with it!!' Most of HoM-e I skip because its made up of multiple versions of the same story. However, I love LotR, TH, Smith, & most of The Sil writings with an abiding love, & I'd now add CoH to that list.

[Sauron the White]

Davem, I find no fault with much of what you say about COH. I also purchased the same books exactly as you did and share many of your feelings about it.

My big complaint was with the intentionally false claim that was posted on the various websties that this was THE FIRST NEW TOLKIEN NOVEL IN THIRTY YEARS. That is simply not true. This was not NEW. It was material that had been around for some time in other formats.

How many times can you sell something again and again and advertise it as NEW? Is this not a question of ethics?

Like many things, this probably comes down to definition of terms and semantics. I do know what the word NEW means. And it is not something I have had on the shelf for a long period of time. I was greatly disappointed to see both the false claim and the willingness of many people including you who should know better just go along with the false claim. That kind of opened my eyes to see that there is more going on here that just what is on the surface.

from Willaim CH

I take it you've never seen The Wannsee Conference? An hour and a half or more of absolutely gripping (and horrifying) drama- and it's nothing more than the verbatim recitation of the minutes of a real-life committee meeting.

One could also throw in My Dinner With Andre and many more which belie the video-game mentality that you gotta put 'action' on screen or else bore the audience.

I have seen ANDRE and found it mildly amusing and witty. Perhaps you could look up the world wide box office grosses for it to see how how the public responded to it. I realize it was an arthouse hit - but that was about it. I have not seen WANNSEE so cannot speak about it. I did see the recent HBO remake. I have attended far too many real life committee meetings and cannot imagine any minutes of those meetings being good screen material. But then we were not discussing the Final Solution which may be more interesting.

[Annatar]

Who said Gothmog was an Orc? In fact he was explicitly *not* an Orc: "It was no brigand nor Orc-chieftain who commanded...."

That quote refers to the Witch-King. Nowhere in the books is anything other than Gothmog's name stated.

Still, objections on this sort of geek-level are trivial compared to the fact that PJ Just Doesn't Get Tolkien: not his themes, his style, his moral vision, his sense of language, none of it. Just monsters and fights. This is a guy who calls the Eorlingas the "Rohans," after all, and thinks "Rohirrim" applies only to the king's cavalry. (If you want to get truly geekish, then PJ should be taken to task for having Theoden et al refer to their country as "Rohan", which in the book they never do- it is, after all, a Sindarin name coined in Gondor. How could anyone so deaf to language think they were qualified to adapt Tolkien? Misologists, Tolkien would call them. Hiring David Salo to concoct some snatches of pseudo-Elvish (while omitting all of Tolkien's own) doesn't cut it).

The movies aren't just meant for those purists who bow before the Altar of Tolkien. Its meant for the general audience as well. The movies are not the books. Get over it.


**********

In Annatar's long regurgitation of the excuses and self-justifications PJ and his accomplices offered up on the DVD's, he claims it was 'necessary' to rewrite Faramir (actually to create a new character with the same name) because the real Farmair's was "flat" and had to become an "obstacle" for Frodo- which goes back to the repeated reference by JBW to "story arcs." - If you buy this tripe, I suggest you read Shippey's Road to Middle-earth in its 2004 edition, where good Prof. Tom takes to task these paint-by-numbers approaches to screenwriting.

You've got me stumped here.

Helm's Deep and the relative calendars- Only because PJ was dwetermined to make Helm's Deep the Bam! Zowie! climax of his movie, puffing it up beyond its proper place in the narrative; and, at any rate, Shelob's Lair took place *before* the Pelennor Fields, not simultaneously.

Shelob's Lair takes place too close to Pelennor Fields. If the Voice of Saruman and the chapters after are moved to Return of the King (which was a good idea - with Helm's Deep the movie would have been too long), Shelob's Lair has to go to RoTK. For Helm's Deep, if done as the book it would have been not good. PJ needed action to keep the film going, and as Helm's Deep is so fleeting it would have bored the audience. Its "proper place" in the movie narrative is as the climax.


Would it not perhaps have been a great exercise in 'experimental cinema' (in the hands of a much more innovative director than Jackson) to present the narrative just as Tolkien did, without intercutting Books III & IV, V & VI?

Putting it the way Tolkien did it would simply not have worked in a movie. It would have been boring ("when are we going to get to Frodo and Sam?") and a bit annoying. Intercutting the storylines was the only way to get it done successfully.

[Sir Kohran]

I take it you've never seen The Wannsee Conference? An hour and a half or more of absolutely gripping (and horrifying) drama- and it's nothing more than the verbatim recitation of the minutes of a real-life committee meeting.

Assuming I've got the one you're talking about...it's a made for TV film that lasts an hour and fifteen minutes. Did it appeal to millions across the world, and win multiple Oscars? And that meeting is the entire story. However, the Council is just one segment of a much bigger story. Sorry, but there's just no way you can compare the two. They are on completely different levels.

One could also throw in My Dinner With Andre

Another film where the meeting is the majority of what is a fairly small film. However the Council is meant to be just one part of a much larger story. They aren't comparable.

video-game mentality that you gotta put 'action' on screen or else bore the audience.

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

[davem]

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

Honestly, I think it depends on the approach you take. If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct. The point, though, is that LotR doesn't have to be made into that kind of movie. Jackson made a decision about the kind of movie he wanted to make. The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga. Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Another director could have chosen a different approach to the material. Hence, one can criticise Jackson's approach - what he chose to focus on & what he chose to ignore. A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work. In other words, they may not have worked in Jackson's movie, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have worked full stop.

And that's the point. Jackson's 'simplisitic' 'action-adventure' approach to the material forced him to exclude material/events which are central to the story Tolkien wrote. Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one. Now, I'm not sure that Jackson could have made a different kind of LotR movie, given his track record, but this is the issue (& the reason I'd rather he didn't direct a Hobbit movie).

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring. Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring, with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Assuming I've got the one you're talking about...it's a made for TV film that lasts an hour and fifteen minutes. Did it appeal to millions across the world, and win multiple Oscars?

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."
Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

Tolkien was not writng for "Tolkienites," of course, since they didn't exist. He wrote a unique book owing in very large part to his stubborn refusal to compromise either with popular taste or with the fashions of twentieth-century Litteraturgedenken. He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.

[Sir Kohran]

If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct.

Let's face it - that's how the movies are viewed. What makes them so good is their ability to be more than just a CGI-filled mess of fight scenes. Unlike the cardboard acting in Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings movies managed to be moving and emotional on a level that most action adventure movies can't even attempt.

The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga.

How many people left the cinema saying, 'Well, the acting and the special effects were great, but I don't think they got across the Catholic themes of temptation and redemption'?

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor. These things just don't make for good movies.

And anyway, are you suggesting they shouldn't have used SFX/CGI? How else would you create Minas Tirith or the Oliphaunts or the Trolls? Without using such methods you'd end up with a movie that would completely fail to capture the visual majesty that Middle-Earth has.

A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work.

But would the movie have been as good?

Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Only in your opinion.

Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one.

No, but I believe it was a good one. Not perfect, but a good one given the pressure he was under. He could have made a wooden, bland, CGI-filled video game with bad acting (Eragon and Dungeons and Dragons come to mind) and yet he managed to deliver a trilogy that was both visually stunning and emotionally moving at the same time.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring.

Admittedly a little too much focus was put on the human side of things in TTT, but I think ROTK gave a perfectly fine amount of time to the Hobbit's story - Minas Morgul, Shelob's Lair, Cirith Ungol, the trek across Gorgoroth, Frodo's agony under the Ring, Sam's carrying of Frodo up the mountainside, the final confrontation between them and Gollum - it's all in the movie. And don't forget the last scenes of the movie all concern the four Hobbits and what happens to them.

Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring,

Oh come on, countless reasons for the removal of all of these have been given - the biggest being that they just take up too much time.

with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

How were they given minor treatment? Half of TTT and half of ROTK don't even include Frodo and Sam. And how would you give characters like Eowyn, Faramir, Treebeard, Denethor, etc. proper development with so much time being given over to Frodo and Sam?



I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

[davem]

I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

[Sir Kohran]

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

Tha's the difficulty. Heck, I love the movies and passionately defend them, and yet I openly admit that they don't affect me in the same way the books do. Nor could they - they are adaptations; not clones. I don't believe I've ever seen a movie adaptation that managed the same power as the book did. The answer is simply that it's a different format - text on paper is very different to moving images and sound. With books you can form your own vision of a story; with movies you're looking at someone else's vision of the story. I would not expect the movies to affect me as the books do, anymore than I would expect them to include a singing man with yellow boots.

As an adaptation of the books I would say they are a success - not a perfect success, but a good enough success - though also in my opinion.

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."

The issue is not whether it is good. Of course, by itself, the Council *is* good - hence why it works in the books. However, we're talking about the movies here, and they aimed to appeal to the massed millions - something that the Council by itself would not have done.

Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

I concede that the Council scene could have been done better. But I'm arguing that we could not have had the scene direct from the books, and it seems that to some extent you agree with this.

He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

And anyway, just how much did it succeed? Whilst LOTR certainly was a success, both financially and in terms of awards and prestige, I'd say it was a limited one; they did not achieve the same kind of success that Dickens or Shakespeare before or Rowling after managed. Before the movies were released I knew nothing of Tolkien (one of the reasons I like the movies so much is because they introduced me and so many others to his work). How much of this was down to the lack of 'compromise' is debatable - my dad can remember trying to read the books back in the seventies and being utterly confused (fortunately I didn't turn out the same way).

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.

So Peter Jackson changed some things to please his audience. And?

[Sauron the White]

Like many things of this world, the truth usually is found somewhere in the middle of opposing arguments. I think it is unfair and hyperbole to characterize the LOTR films as straight up action adventure films. That is tarring them with a brush that just does not quite fit. Obviously it was not an art film either. I think the truth lies in the middle. Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ;)), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

I think Jackson had all of this in his films if one looks with an open mind.

[davem]

Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ;)), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.



My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

I think with a book you have the actual characters - the 'real' Gandalf facing the 'real' Balrog (real in the secondary world that is), whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect. It doesn't help to have all the documantaries & interviews either, which reinforce that fact & discussing how he approached the role.

Tolkien discusses this in OFS:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or “imagination” that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy. This is, I think, well illustrated by the failure of the bastard form, pantomime. The nearer it is to “dramatized fairy-story” the worse it is. It is only tolerable when the plot and its fantasy are reduced to a mere vestigiary framework for farce, and no “belief” of any kind in any part of the performance is required or expected of anybody. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the producers of drama have to, or try to, work with mechanism to represent either Fantasy or Magic. I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring. As it was, though done with some ingenuity of lighting, disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered. In Macbeth, when it is read, I find the witches tolerable: they have a narrative function and some hint of dark significance; though they are vulgarized, poor things of their kind. They are almost intolerable in the play. They would be quite intolerable, if I were not fortified by some memory of them as they are in the story as read. I am told that I should feel differently if I had the mind of the period, with its witch-hunts and witch-trials. But that is to say: if I regarded the witches as possible, indeed likely, in the Primary World; in other words, if they ceased to be “Fantasy.” That argument concedes the point. To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare. Macbeth is indeed a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.

A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasimagical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may not be impossible. I have never seen it done with success. But at least it cannot be claimed as the proper mode of Drama, in which walking and talking people have been found to be the natural instruments of Art and illusion. For this precise reason—that the characters, and even the scenes, are in Drama not imagined but actually beheld—Drama is, even though it uses a similar material (words, verse, plot), an art fundamentally different from narrative art. Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

That certainly makes crystal clear sense to me. I understand your feelings completely when expressed this way.

I am just glad that did not happen to me.

[Sir Kohran]

or if I'd seen them first

Maybe that's the case. I saw the movies before I read the book and now I enjoy both.

whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect.

That's just you. When I see that sequence, not for a second do I not believe I'm seeing Gandalf the Grey defy the Balrog, in the same way as when I am reading the corresponding passage in the book I do not believe that all I'm doing is looking at some ink printed onto some paper.

But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

I agree with Tolkien here...I saw the movie Eragon recently and it was appalling. So was Dungeons and Dragons back in 2000. One before LOTR...one after LOTR...and yet both were terrible. In fact, I think the LOTR movies are the only fantasy films I've seen that have done both drama and fantasy well at the same time. I believe this is because they have their roots in literature, where drama and fantasy can coexist (as the books prove).

disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered

:D

[Sauron the White]

For those who criticize the films for being too action oriented or playing up the violence at the expense of other more sublime parts of the tale.... I was reading LOTR just this morning , chapter THE GREAT RIVER. I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

For those who try to tar Jackson with the brush of being a thud and blunder action director who plays up the violence over more subtle parts of the story, thse two examples prove that it is not always so.

I reread the scene where we have the death of Boromir and noticed that JRRT describes him as pierced with many arrows. Jackson limits it to three. I guess you could argue that three could be the same as many but I got the image of the old St. Stephen paintings where he was nearly a human pin cushion. Then JRRT describes that around the dying Boromir lay many orcs piled about him. Makes me think of those 70 trolls in COH. A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

I would guess that there are other portions of the book where similar examples could be cited.

If you want the movies to be more like books does that include adding more violent action scenes like these?

[davem]

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield). Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way - which is perfectly understandable when you take into account the fact that he had fought on the Somme, seen two out his three closest friends die horribly & possibly even taken German lives himself.

I accept that Jackson didn't included every single incident of action/violence on screen - actually I wish the Warg attack just prior to Moria had been included (one of my favourite episodes) - the problem I had was that every incidence of violence that was included was depicted in the most graphic way imaginable. Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... I do appreciate this exchange and I am appreciating your position more and more. Not agreeing with it - but appreciating what it means to you. I do think that we are placing Jackson into the position of he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. You concede that Jackson did not put in all the action and violence that is written by JRRT. But you find fault with the stylings of how it is depicted. You explain it this way

A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield).

The first half of your objection would apply to any author of any book as compared to any on screen depiction. Obviously what happens in a readers mind in terms of how much detail they want to see can never be captured on screen since the director is forced to make a choice that the viewers can see. It would seem that your criticism there is not directed at Jackson so much as it would be the simple process of filmmaking where things must be shown clearly. Of course, the alternative to that is the type of violence which was depicted in the sanitized Hays Office years of the movies - Thirties and Forties - where blood was hardly ever shown and carnage was invisible. Some feel that that type of depiction of violence is far worse because it gives people an unrealistic view of the consequences of violence. And I would agree.

You saw Legolas surfing down the stair as humorous - as is your right. I believe Jackson was going for "oooh thats cool" reaction from the younger viewers. I do not feel that scene was an attempt to be humorous in the least. So we see that differently.

Regarding Boromirs death - we are tending to repeat our positions here but I felt that it was far more effective on screen than in the book. We see the sacrifice of Boromir in all its dramatic magnitude and we gain a tremendous appreciation for it and for him despite the previous scenes of his less than gallant behavior towards Frodo. Having him dying in this way is an on screen display of personal redemption that seemed to ring true with the viewer. Again, repeating a previous point, but I have seen many posts over the past few years from people indicating that this scene really helped them gain a new respect and love for the character. So it did work on screen.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood.

No, actually; not of his own volition. Weta built the set for that episode, but a sudden flood washed it away so the scene was scratched. So we *do* get a scene of tension and character dynamic- only because PJ was forced by powers beyond his control not to go with his preference, another fight.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

Stuff and nonsense. The English literary world of the time was dominated by the likes of Leavis and Muir and Waugh, who expected all of the above (and castigated Tolkien for defiantly refusing to play ball). Again, intentionally 'appealing' to what an audience 'expects' (especially an audience which, if you are correct, is effectively Neanderthal in its expectations), is pandering and the antithesis of Tolkien's art. His mission, insofar as he saw it, was to reintroduce modern readers to something they had lost or forgotten, the glories of older literature before the rise of the bourgeois novel.

I regret that similar pandering apparently underlies the Zemeckis Beowulf, which from the trailers looks gawdawful- but I'm sure the same audiences whioo flocked to Conan the Barbarian and PJ's flicks will eat it up.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - and if PJ wanted that scene in the film they could have rebuilt it and included it. Even on the later pick-ups, it could have been included if Jackson had thought it important for inclusion. BUT HE DID NOT.

Again, some here seem to damn Jackson if he does and if he does not. In this case, he gets no credit for not including a JRRT written scene of more violence and action because you attribute that to the forces of nature ........ or perhaps even some higher power?

WCH - your argument about the style of Tolkien and even being out of sync with his contemporaries only serves to strengthen the hand of those who feel that it simply had to be updated to be marketable to todays audience. By your reasoning, JRRT appears even out of touch with the actual time he was writing in. He was a throwback to previous eras and traditions. The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

[Sir Kohran]

I had a big post that covered all of davem's points but the bloody internet came up with a 'cannot display' page so I'll have to be short:

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish.

Not really. Tolkien was gory:

Then Pippin stabbed upwards, and the written blade of Westernesse pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out.

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

The movie violence is extreme & often gross

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

And anyway, it's realistic - a bunch of fighters with swords and axes hacking into flesh is going to be brutal. What are you suggesting, that the camera cuts away every time we see Aragorn or Gimli swinging at an enemy?

its often presented in a humourous way

I don't agree. Was Boromir's death, grunting as the arrows slammed into him, depicted humorously? Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

What's more powerful and moving - seeing a man sitting next to a tree with some arrows in him, or seeing him fighting an overwhelming enemy desperately and slowly being shot? Also, Boromir's death is only surprising ad shocking on the first read - after that you epxect it. However the movie's death scene remains powerful every time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I actually have little problem at all with Boromir being shot onscreen. I think it's powerful and moving, and follows a very real dictate of cinema: "show, don't tell." What I do have a problem with is what follows immediately, Aragorn's o-so-Hollywood duel with an invented superorc character. Yest even that didn't bug me as much as, not the *acting* or *emotion* of Boromir's death-scene, which were palpable; but the *dialogue*, which was stupid, and reflects the supercession of Tolkien's powerful laconicism for more Aragorn-the-reluctant crap.

[davem]

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.



I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.


Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

I don't interpret that as humourous.

[Annatar]

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.


The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

I can't answer this.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Why do you have this strange ability, davem? Can't you think something good about something in the movies for a change? But of course not. You worship at the altar of Tolkien. You probably consider him a saint. Jackson is a heretic, a blasphemer who dares change what doesn't work. You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

It is, even if the humor is unintentional, which is unlikely.

[Folwren]

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have.

[Sir Kohran]

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings.

This sounds overly-sensitive. In movies with multiple battle scenes, how could there not be violence? There was little real bloodshed in the movies at all, and the beheadings are accurate for what would be very brutal battles.

And anyway, it's accurate to what Tolkien wrote - the books have many beheadings too. Aragorn 'cleaves' the head of the Orc-chieftain in Moria, Ugluk beheads two Orcs in Rohan, Gimli beheads two Orcs at Helm's Deep, and the Mordor Orcs behead fallen Gondorian soldiers to launch their heads into Minas Tirith.

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over).

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0172495/).

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

[Sauron the White]

Folwren asks an interesting question

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

[davem]

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

When I was 17 I would have agreed with you. Thirty years on I find the focus on gore & violence for the sake of it to be juvenile, dull & frankly silly.

You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I'm sorry if the fact that I find the movies dull, overwrought &, frankly, a wasted opportunity bothers you so much. I just don't think much of them. I wanted to like them. I've watched the theatrical & extended versions but in the end I don't care for them. Its personal taste. What do you want - are only positive comments to be allowed? Is it heretical to express a personal opinion about the movies unless your opinion happens to be that they are the greatest movies ever made? I don't like the movies & I've stated why.

This whole 'worshipping at the alter of Tolkien' accusation is frankly silly (not to mention meaningless if you think about it). Tolkien's story came first & is the standard by which I judge the quality of the movies. It is true that some changes are inevitable when translating a book to another medium, but the fact that changes are necessary does not make every single change good - some changes are made for the wrong reason, are mistaken, & some are frankly silly, or worse, pointless.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

Not Victorian; Mediaeval.

Although it is true that even the Victorians and Edwardians still recognized certain ancient virtues as virtues, unlike the ages of Modernism and Postmodernism: in Shippey's eloquent phrasing, "Tolkien was quite clearly... recommending virtues to which most moderns no longer dare aspire: stoicism, nonchalance, piety, fidelity."

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

*****

Incidentally, Peter Weir and his producers didn't shy away from spending millions to recapture the Nelsonian Era complete with its stylings and sensibilities.

[Sauron the White]

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

That is certainly one very uncharitable way of looking at it.

Another way to look at is that Peter Jackson was not insane and decided not to make a $300 million dollar movie for a small group of people who clung to these ancient values and had not yet realized the world had advanced beyond the years of the great plague. In other words, he is a realistic man of his times.

[Sir Kohran]

davem? Are you going to tackle my previous post?

[Folwren]

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

What, the music? :p

In all seriousness, I think the music would have been his favorite aspect about the entire thing. Howard Shore's music (and P.J's choice of hiring Shore) was fantastic.

Tolkien would also probably like the scenery of everything. That was another great thing about the films. I think Jackson did a good job of taking Tolkien's landscapes and putting them on screen.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren... yes you are right. The music was great as was the visual scenery, sets and design. That probably would have appealed to JRRT.

The obvious area I was referencing was the money it made for the Tolkien Estate. If you look at the sales of Tolkien books for the six months before the movies came out and take it five years down the road and compare it to the previous five years, they sold a ton of books. While the Estate did not share in the film receipts, they certainly did cash a whole lot of greatly increased book royalty checks during those five years. And who gets the thanks for that? Peter Jacksons films spurred that increased sales flood.

Given the written comments of JRRT and his want of money in his waning years, I am sure (had he lived) that he would have loved the increased royalties and it would have been hard to hate Jackson and his films the way some do today.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

a small group of people who clung to these ancient values and had not yet realized the world had advanced beyond the years of the great plague.

You really think that the character of "Modern Man" is anything but a degenerate shadow of former greatness? Tolkien, for one, would passionately disagree; belches and dwarf-tossing gags standing as ample exemplars of 'advanced' taste. PJ was supposed to be, or at least claimed to be, adapting Tolkien not refuting him. Or else perhaps you approve of the deliberate hatchet job Verhoeven did on Starship Troopers?

[Sauron the White]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

[davem]

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

Yes, he depicted in graphic detail the violence. Shame the moral vision, the philosophy, & the beauty of the books went by the wayside.


I get the same memories from both the books and the movies. Well, its also possible to read the books as action adventure novels.



So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

The point I was making was that the LotR movies were aimed at a younger audience & so the violence had to be toned down.



No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0172495/).

I concede. I didn't check. That clearly means you're right about everything you've said. I feel totally humilated by your devastating point there. I'll just nip off & shoot meself....



No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

That's a silly point. We're talking about the 'death' of an actor in a movie that had become a complete joke by that point.



So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

Its an expression of relief, of pride in his friend. Its not reducing death to slapstick in order to get a laugh.

[Essex]

very interesting debate. Just to add a point regarding the title of this thread. The narration on audio tapes of the whole trilogy is 54 hours long I believe.

Therefore to create the "film"version word to word from the book would require a 4 or 5 season mini series - now wouldn't that be great?

[Folwren]

The obvious area I was referencing was the money it made for the Tolkien Estate. ...
Given the written comments of JRRT and his want of money in his waning years, I am sure (had he lived) that he would have loved the increased royalties and it would have been hard to hate Jackson and his films the way some do today.

I don't know. This is a troubling comment. I think Tolkien would not have liked the sacrifice that it took to get that money. I can not imagine what I would think if I sold the rights to a book of mine and then later it was turned into a huge movie that, although it made me tons of money, destroyed the inner meaning of my story. I'm pretty emotional, I admit, but I think I'd be passionately angry and I'd want to throw the check back into the movie maker people's faces.

I don't think Tolkien would have laughed. And though he might not have hated Jackson (I don't hate Jackson myself), I don't think he would have loved him, either.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

-- Folwren

[Meriadoc1961]

Folwren wrote:

"In all seriousness, I think the music would have been his favorite aspect about the entire thing. Howard Shore's music (and P.J's choice of hiring Shore) was fantastic.

Tolkien would also probably like the scenery of everything. That was another great thing about the films. I think Jackson did a good job of taking Tolkien's landscapes and putting them on screen."

I agree that the movie was breathtaking visually, and that the music was fantastic. I absolutley love the Elves singing in Lorien as they mourn the fall of Mithrandir.

I also would very much like Essex's suggestion that this be done in a series form since I keep hearing that the movie can not be done as the book.

Merry

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To chime in in support of Davem's last: Tolkien felt very strongly that Frodo's journey was far more important than the War; and that the most important part of the journey was the Passion of Frodo Baggins, the crossing of Mordor: which PJ chops down to an impossibly short bit of screentime (and, especially in the theatrical cut, the impression is conveyed that Aragorn's march to the Morannon took the same length of time as it took Frodo and Sam to climb down a hill). From Cirith Ungol to Orodruin was ten long, nightmarish days- the sort of "eternal week" paratroopers in Normandy described.

Both Helm's Deep and the Pelennor are lengthy and exciting enough as written- but PJ elected to drag them out (especially the former), and use up even more screen time on fripperies like Tony Legohawk and Eowyn's duel with Mr Potato-head, not to mention the Osgiliation and the Warg attack and other invented action-adventure nonsense, when he could and should have focused on Frodo (and, perhaps, treated Treebeard with the respect Tolkien had for him instead of reducing him to rather dull comic relief).

Compare, since it's been brought up, Lawrence of Arabia- which in its very long running time contains a total of three battle scenes, all of them quite brief; yet it's considered an exciting movie.

[Sauron the White]

WCW - I dearly love LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for many reasons. I remember seeing it at the theater a few weeks after it had won the AA for Best Film of the Year. In those days the big films first opened up in downtown big city theaters and it took months to get out to the burbs where my family lived. I disctinctly remember being 13 years old and going with neighborhood kids on our weekly trip to the theater. We were surprised to see a line around the theater (which also in those days was a single stand alone building with a single screen). When we finally got up to the front of the line we encountered the owner of the theater who was periodically annoncing that he was very sorry but he had to raise the price for this special movie and no childrens tickets would be sold.

The adult price - jacked up for this special movie - was $1.50.

During the film I also remember an usher came down to us and told us quite sharply to shut up of leave since lots of people had paid a lot of money to see it. So we did and enjoyed it greatly.

But that was 1963. Forty-four years is at least two generations perhaps three. For good or bad, it is a far different world with a far different movie going audience. I have my doubts about LAWRENCE going over today as an adventure film that would be described as exciting. I think it would be classified much closer to something like ENGLISH PATIENT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Everything! Whatever you or I believe, *Tolkien* was firmly convinced that human history is the 'long defeat.' He was defiantly heretical toward the Church of Progress, and was convinced that Man was in his own day becoming smaller and meaner, concerned with nothing beyond material comfort and convenience, and a fixation on 'democracy' as a surrogate for freedom. Although he was of course aware of the downside of the Middle Ages, he nonetheless believed that people of that day aspired to loftier things than their decadent descendants.

He was also aware, being something of an expert, that the average man in medieval England was a far cry from the filthy, famished, oppressed serf beloved of Victorian and then Marx-influenced historians, both of whom had a vested interest in creating a "look how far we've come" narrative. From Tolkien's viewpoint, 'progress' meant Birmingham's Satanic mills and the industrialised carnage of the Western Front and mushroom clouds over Japan. Accordingly, he tried (with indifferent success) to revive something of the old Northern Spirit he loved, and hoped would revive his dying England. I'm sure he wished he could blow Merry's Horn of Rohan and sweep Sarumanism away.

You may disagree with his opinions. But if one is to adapt *Tolkien*, whether in film or any other medium, then one should be attuned to what he was all about. The idea of ameliorating his message to appeal to 'modern' prejudice would be anathema to him.

[Sauron the White]

WCH- thank you for that information. I despised reading books in my English courses only to be told by the profs that what I thought I read was not really what the author wrote. They would then tell you all about the authors life, the authors philosophy, the trials and tribulations the author went through, the social and political history of the times he was writing in and writing about, and that was all before the psycho babbly mumbo jumbo analysis was introduced telling you that a cigar was not really a cigar at all.

Soon tiring of all these books and authors with their hidden messages, meanings, and truths I just said "forget about it". I found books I wanted to read and enjoyed the tales for what they were.

I much prefer to be guided by the great philosopher Robert DeNiro in the classic work THE DEERHUNTER.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, that could be said of Faramir, or Aragorn: he is he. He isn't someone else. He is he. By DeNiro's Law, it would be incumbent upon an adaptation to present the characters as Tolkien wrote them, not substitute the adaptor's preferences.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

To apply criteria from one to the other is folly and a violation of the reality of each.

[davem]

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.
.

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film. If the two media are so totally different that any book 'adapted' for the screen will end up a horse of a totally different colour then there is no point buying the rights, no point trying to make a movie of any book at all. Jackson should simply have written an original script for a fantasy movie.

What you're arguing is that the LotR movies, because they are movies, cannot be the Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien - however hard the director & his team try to make it into that.

Yet Jackson & his team did try & tell Tolkien's story - he carried a copy of LotR around with him. The artists & designers drew on Tolkien's descriptions - even occasionally (when their own 'talent' failed them) using his dialogue. Jackson repeatedly stated that he was trying to remain faithful to Tolkien. According to you this was a complete waste of time on his part, as, however hard he tried, he could never have succeeded.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film.

Sounds like your dispute is with JRRTolkien and not Peter Jackson since JRRT authorized and licensed his books for just that purpose.

Or another way to look at it that an orange is an orange with all the properties of an orange. However an orange can be turned into juice. It is now something else. An orange is an orange while orange juice is orange juice. Does that mean that an orange should never be turned into orange juice?

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

[davem]

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

One can criticise the quality of the orange juice, particularly if it was made from the highest quality fruit, but tastes like its been through a dead cat.

[Sauron the White]

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable. ;)

[davem]

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable. ;)

I've yet to come across a 'professional movie critic' who wasn't in the job purely because they weren't capable of making a useful contribution to society.

I'm sure 'Professional movie critics' would have been first on the 'B' Ark:

Golgafrincham is a red semi-desert planet that is home of the Great Circling Poets of Arium and a species of particularly inspiring lichen. Its people decided it was time to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population, and so concocted a story that their planet would shortly be destroyed in a great catastrophe. (It was apparently under threat from a "mutant star goat"). The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers*, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone".(Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy -from Wikipedia)

[Sauron the White]

Allow me to add school administrators to that list of the useless. I taught in high school for 33 years and never could figure out just what they did to make more money than a teacher when they never taught a single child to read, write, count or think. Education is a very funny profession. The further you get away from children, the bigger your office, paycheck and title. I used to say that a good administrator was worth their weight in gold. And remember - gold is a rare commodity.

Have to make my post topical .... I would not put JRRT on that list of the useless. And I notice that in his professional academic career he was a hands on teacher and not an administrator. Bravo!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In fact he was both- Oxford in his day being run by faculty committees and college boards, all of which comprised dons. The full-time 'administrator' was yet unknown there. Tolkien spent a great deal of time on such administrative tasks, heavier than most because he was a chaired Professor ( a very lofty title in Oxbridge).

At the University of Virginia, the arrangement was similar until 1904 when the post of President was created- and even then he was expected to carry a full teaching load.

[Kath]

In need of something to entertain me for an hour or so I've wandered through this thread and picked up on some things. It's a little random, but it's kept me busy.

You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.
But then, none of the characters mean anything to those that haven't read the books. Frodo means nothing to them, neither does Gandalf, not even Sauron. They are included and given backstory and so they do start to mean something. There is nothing to say that the same wouldn't be true if Bombadil or Imrahil had been included in the films.

Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army.
Why? There are any number of ways he could have learnt about the size. As a king going into battle he would surely have sent scouts out. There was no need to have Aragorn go leaping off into his own side story when the same shot of the advancing army could have been used in a different way. It didn't further his character development, and the time could have been used to further someone elses.

I agree with Folwren on the idea that though a film can't be based word for word on a book and still be seen and enjoyed by millions, a mildly condensed version such as she described would work. PJ's visuals were stunning and quite remove the need for any verbal expansion on them, and that cuts down a fair slice of the books. However:

Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond.
Why? If the prologue was left as it was done in the film then a good section of the Council of Elrond has already been done and it wouldn't be a strain on the films to do the rest of it. You wouldn't need Bilbo's story, indeed in the book that's cut out, because it's already been explained as much as it needs to be for the film and the same goes for the information about Gollum and other things, so that really you'd be left with pretty much the same scene as we already have. As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? :D It could be done. Have the hobbits being trapped by Old Man Willow, have Tom save them, have the conversation where he reveals the ring has no power over him, have the hobbits go off and get trapped by the Wights and have them be saved by him. It needn't be an overlong section and if he gets them to Bree as in the books it would still be continuing the plot, plus you'd have the sword Merry is able to stab the Witch King with in there too, another important plot device. It wouldn't bore the viewers as with the Wights in there would be action, and it would reinforce the idea that the hobbits are in danger even before they've left the Shire.

On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.
Now this I disagree with. Boromir accepts what Elrond told him, even if he has his own private misgivings, and from the moment he joins the Company he plays by the rules. Think of when they became trapped on Caradhras and he and Aragorn force a path through the snow, carrying the hobbits on their backs. He cares about the people he is with. He is certainly not ignorant. His mind may be weaker than his body, and that is why the Ring has more influence over him than the others, but it isn't missing. He is strong-willed and holds on to his opinions, that doesn't make him ignorant, just stubborn. I find it very easy to find sympathy for him when he dies. He made a mistake with Frodo, one which he was aware of immediately afterward and went and told Aragorn what had happened, and he atones for it by protecting Merry and Pippin with his last breaths. The film made him honourable, in the books he was human.

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion.
Drama and emotion don't need to include battle scenes, and can be put across to an audience very effectively via talking. Think of something like Donnie Darko, which is all about very complex ideas that are almost entirely explained by talking.

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for.
Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough. I think you're right when you say she is more effective as the mysterious figure in the background whom Aragorn loves so much he will turn down anyone else.

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.
Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor.
Da Vinci Code anyone? They may have changed it but in essence it is still a film about an exploration of Christianity. Same goes for The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Even Indiana Jones fits the theme. All these films combine discussions of morality with action and draw in huge audiences.

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.
Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.
Whereas having Aragorn lop limbs off an Uruk-hai who then impales himself and forces our hero to have to chop his head off isn't gruesome in the slightest.

Finally:
The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.
The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.

[Folwren]

Hear, Hear!

(Really...I have nothing else to say...)

Edit: No, I have something to say, come to think of it.

It just occured to me - those movie were famous before they came out. We who loved the books before the movies were even made were the ones who gave it so many veiwings and who gave it so much money. Some people were gathering information and pictures before it even arrived.

You realize that, don't you? It was no greatness of the films that made it famous to begin with. It was our own enthusiasm - not for the movies (we hadn't seen them yet), but for Tolkien's books.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren may have nothing else to say but allow me to say a few things.

from Kath

As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done.

Perhaps you can speak for "people" who have opinions you do not agree with, I on the other hand, can only speak for myself. Here is why I was overjoyed to see him cut out of the film and it has nothing to do with the reason you gave.

1- The way he is described by JRRT, he simply looks goofy, stupid, dumb, foolish, silly, cartoonish, childish, and just plain funny looking. I cut back on the adjectives because I do not want to come off as mean spirited. ;) Of all the characters JRRT created TB is the absolute worst visually. Films are foremost a visaul medium. What good would it have been to hire people like John Howe and Alan Lee and a host of other artists, illustrators, designers, model makers, and other creative visual talents only to have the absurd figure of TB appear on the same screen? It would be like serving a fabulous six course dinner in a five star restaurant only to have one of the dishes smell of vomit.

Are we clear on my feelings about that? It has not a darn thing to do with my not understanding TB.

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

Others here, defending TB, have said he is a colorful character who adds to the rich tapestry of Middle-earth and shows the wide variety of beings that inhabited it. Any being would fill that role. It does not have to be something which is so visually hideous or so meaningless to the story or plot or its advance or its resolution.

3- If Bombadil would have been hard on the eyes he would have been equally grating on the ears spouting doggerel such as:

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

the reply from Kath

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

For every film ever made to which tickets are sold to there are some people who do not like the film. That is true of LOTR also. However, that could well explain inflated box office for the first one, but only a complete idiot would come back again and again and eat a similar meal at a restaurant which made him sick the first time.

Besides, box office returns were higher for TTT and then higher again for ROTK. It is in fact the second highest grossing film of all time.

The figures you use of half an audience reading the books and seeing the movies is way way off.
Tolkiens publishers estimated that - before the films came out - there were between 40 and 50 million copies of his book sold over the previous nearly fifty years. Do you know how many tickets were sold to the movies? They did just over 3 billion US dollars in box office. Figuring an average of $7 per ticket, that comes out to an astounding figure approaching 430 million tickets sold. And I would guess that in some of the worlds poorer nations that per ticket price was significantly lower. There is no way that half of those people read the books.

Even if we assume that the same person bought three tickets - one for each film - we still get a figure of some 143 million people. That is at least four fold times the people who bought and read the books.

Yes, before anyone says it, people also read copies in libraries and borrow their friends copies so some copies are read twice or more. And some copies are never even read once cover to cover. Some who do read it do not like it and would be candidates for the films regardless. And some of those were long dead by time the films came out. So it all balances out.

Even if we say, that 10% of those who saw FOTR were hardcore Tolkien purists who love the books and hated the films, that still leaves many many many times more people who bought tickets and did not share their feelings against the films.

Do you know what the most effective advertising for a film is? Word of mouth. Obviously, it must have been pretty positive to sustain all that business, not once, not twice but three times.

Look what happened to the MATRIX trilogy. The revenues went down with each film as word of mouth was worse each time. The opposite was true with the RINGS films.

Regarding the point raised by many, inclding myself, that the expansion of Arwen helped the film especially with a female audience...

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough.

There were at least 22 major characters in LOTR films. Eowyn is one female. That would be one out of 22. So that "is enough" for you? Sounds like the absolute worst type of tokenism. Half of the people in this world are female. Over half of the people who bought tickets were female. Is it too much to ask for 2 females out of the 22? All Jackson did was to take what JRRT already wrote in the appendices and include it in the story. JRRT gave him that right according to the terms of sale of the film rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

reply from Kath

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

The point was a simple one. Davem - and others - accuse Jackson of including too much violence and action at the point of sacrificing other parts of the story. My inclusion of the above information was to show that indeed Jackson saw fit to cut some of violent action that JRRT wrote in the books. In this case you are partially correct - it would have been too close to another scene of violence - also written by JRRT in the books.

By the films end I do not think anyone was not unaware of the superior archery talents of Legolas. Jackson included several examples of that.

from myself

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

reply from Kath

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.


A book and a film are two different things. That is a simple fact of reality. An orange may be the foundation for orange juice but a glass of juice and an orange off the tree are two different things.

Why does this point seem to aggravate Tolkien purists so much? Cannot you accept reality? Or would the concession of admitting they are two individual things then take away so many thousands of objections that you constantly and continually voice against the films?

I saw the LOTR play in Toronto. I did not like it in the least. Everything I did not like about was based on its existence as a play. Not because it did not follow the book enough or it failed to capture what the films had captured. it simply failed as a play ..............

in my humble opinion.

I would be wrong to castigate the LOTR play because of what it was not. Namely the books or the films.

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

[davem]

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

But the Ring is not 'the be all & end all of everything. The TB episode is designed to show exactly that. Tom is beyond the Ring's power, & its his very nature, free from all desire, that puts him beyond it. 'He is' says Goldberry, meaning he is complete in himself, desires nothing, needs nothing to make him 'more' than he is. His songs are 'silly' because he is joy incarnate. Nothing can touch him. He laughs at Old Man Willow, at Barrow Wights, at the Ring itself. In many ways he is the most purely 'spiritual' character in the book. He is 'irritating' only to those who take life, & more importantly, themselves, too seriously. His power is joy & laughter. He laughs at everything & thus nothing can touch him, or gain power over him. He is necessary for that very reason. His appearance is like the appearance of the Star (Earendel) in Mordor:

Frodo sighed and was asleep almost before the words were spoken. Sam struggled with his own weariness, and he took Frodo's hand; and there he sat silent till deep night fell. Then at last, to keep himself awake, he crawled from the hiding-place and looked out. The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloudwrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master's, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.

The Star & Tom area expressions/manifestations of the same thing - transcendent joy untouched, & untouchable, by evil. There is hope that the Quest will succeed, & more than hope - Tom & the Star confirm to the Hobbits (& to the reader) that the Ring is not overwhelmingly powerful, that to some things it is nothing at all. This is essential to Tolkien's philosophy, & the underlying philosophy of the book.

[Folwren]

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

You seem to have nothing wrong with castigating parts of the original LotR and the man who wrote them! (See your above post about Bombadil.)

I don't believe Bombadil was the worst visually. He certainly wouldn't have been Jackson's most ridiculous or worst visual character. Nothing could be worse than his atrociously butchered Mouth of Sauron.
But if you consider, the part that Jackson cut out was not only Bombadil, who may be somewhat ridiculous in appearance, but also Goldberry who, if we say Bombadil was the worst "visual" character, is probably one of the best characters, visually speaking. I personally think Eowyn was the prettiest woman on the set, but Goldberry, if correctly done, would have been more beautiful than her.

As for Bombadil himself - his costume was the sort that any costume designer would have loved to have made! Anyway, I would have loved to have made it.

(Fond memory here...My brother once drew a picture of Bombadil and put color to it...it was a very lighthearted, rather beautiful drawing. It was before I knew the books myself. I had never heard of Bombadil in my life. The picture depicted him smiling like the sun, one leg lifted in a merry leap, one hand holding a stick, and the other balancing his lilly leaves. In the corner of the picture, wide eyed and open mouthed, crouched Frodo and Sam, staring in wonder.)

Back on topic. Bombadil is childish. But he's not stupid or dumb. There's nothing wrong with being childish. Hobbits themselves are suppoesd to be childish. That was one huge mistake Jackons made - he made Frodo and Sam not childish enough.

As for his songs. (Another grin at a fond memory.) My brother (same one who drew the picture) once got two CDs from a friend for a birthday present. They were a collection of many of Tolkiens poems put to music. It was a wonderful collection. And track 3 of the first CD had all of Bombadil's song in it. My sister and I still sing them. Don't tell me it's not possible. Don't tell me it's not enchanting.

"Hop along my, merry friends, up the Withy-Windle
Tom's goin' on ahead, candles for to kindle!
Down west sinks the sun, soon you will be groping.
When the night shadows fall, then the door will open!
Out of the window pane, light will twinkle yellow.
Fear no alder black, heed no hoary willow!
Fear neither root nor bow, Tom goes on before you.
Hey now! Merry dol! We'll be waiting for you!"

And I wrote that out of memory just now, and I haven't heard the song for over three years.

Oh, yes. The songs are quite possible to do convincingly enough to make people love them for years and years.

As for his power over the Ring...deepens his character. Makes the reader more intriqued. Heck, it's a darn sight better than Faramir being twisted and perverted enough to take it and Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath with the intention of taking them all the way to Minas Tirith! The Ring was NOT as powerful and luring as Jackson made it to be!

I found my tongue, in case you didn't notice.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren. I am in total agreement with you regarding the visual image of Goldberry. She comes across in the book as wonderous and beautiful and I am sure that she would have been the same on the screen. You are 100% correct on that. Unfortunately she is paired with Bombadil who is a visual train wreck. Reminds me of a couple or two I have known over the years but thats another story.

You seem to have nothing wrong with castigating parts of the original LotR and the man who wrote them! (See your above post about Bombadil.)

Yes. That is correct. And I feel no pain or guilt in doing so. I am criticizing Bombadil for what he is - not what he is not. It would be foolish for me to say "gee folks, Superman also wore primary colors but was soooo much cooooler than that geek Bombadil." That would be unfair. Ripping Tolkiens character of Bombadil because he is not Superman would be unfair. Just like ripping into the movies because they are not the books or do not have the qualities of a book is also unfair. That was... that is ... the point.

I think that JRRTolkien was a tremendous writer. Maybe my favorite. The only other book I return to as much as LOTR is GRAPES OF WRATH and for very different reasons. In fact, there have been times over the past four decades when i got this foolish idea into my head that I could write a great work of fiction. I usually only got as far as outlines and summaries. Once I even typed out nearly 100 pages and several chapters. Then, to see how well I was doing, I took out LOTR and read a bit, then GRAPES OF WRATH, then burned my writings with the rest of the garbage. So my opinion of JRRT is extremely high.

I do reserve the right to say that JRRT was not perfect. He was a human being just like you and I are. And as such they have impercections, faults and weaknesses. The work of humans is not the work of gods. Or God.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it,

Oh, no. No no no no no. This is Jackson's fundamental misperception, and it colors and distorts much of the films, most notably the vandalism of Faramir. I'm sorry to see you (apparently) share it, and suggest you read Shippey.

[Sauron the White]

Forget Shippey. I will read Tolkien. Does not Gandalf himself reject having the ring for fear of how he would eventually use it?
The Shadow of the Past
Frodo: You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the ring?
Gandalf: No! cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a powerstill greater and more deadly.

Does not Galadriel also reject the ring for fear of how she would eventually use it?

The Mirror of Galadriel
Frodo: I will give you the one ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.
Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.
The only one in the entire book who seems immune to the powers of the ring is Bombadil. And what does Tolkien do with this amazing incongruity? Nothing.

Maybe davem is right about the spirituality and pureness of Bombadil. I do not see how that makes him necessary. For me, he adds nothing to the basic story and his appearance and doggerel only make him a bad joke.

I ask again, try to imagine him in the first film spouting the lines

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV or cable or in comedy clubs talking about the dongs in the Lord of the Ring movies. And how long before the work dillo becomes something slightly varied and the object of more snickering and derision. And once the comedians were done every crude boy on the playground would repeat it. Any kid who liked the films would be pelted with jokes about them liking dongs and the like.

Bombadil would have been a disaster.

[davem]

I ask again, try to imagine him in the first film spouting the lines

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"


The 'ring a dong dillo'/ 'fa la la' stuff is common in folksongs (or in Shakespeare's songs - 'Hey nonny, nonny', etc) There are various explanations - old songs where certain words have been lost or half forgotten over the years so that a kind of 'chinese whispers' effect has taken place, nonsense words inserted to fill in the gaps & complete the metre (you know what I mean - its early), or imitations of musical instruments (as in the Carol 'Ding Dong Merrily On High) - in this context:

Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lutes, and pipes and
trumpets, and viols and organs, and like unto countless choirs singing with
words, began to fashion the theme of Ilúvatar to a great music; and a
sound arose of endless interchanging melodies woven in harmony that passed
beyond hearing into the depths and into the heights, and the places of the
dwelling of Ilúvatar were filled to overflowing, and the music and
the echo of the music went out into the Void, and it was not void.

I have to say that if we are to sacrifice everything in art or literature that a comedian or schoolchild may be able to turn into a joke we won't have much left...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Forget Shippey. I will read Tolkien.


Then you're being wilfully closed-minded, unprepared to consider that anyone besides yourself might garner a valid interpretation of Tolkien; one from which you might actually deepen your own understanding. Isn't that what we're doing here?



Does not Gandalf himself reject having the ring for fear of how he would eventually use it?
The Shadow of the Past
Frodo: You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the ring?
Gandalf: No! cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a powerstill greater and more deadly.
Does not Galadriel also reject the ring for fear of how she would eventually use it?
The Mirror of Galadriel
Frodo: I will give you the one ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.
Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.

What you posted was "it can control everyone who comes in contact with it." Not merely its potential effects on two of the Wise (and powerful), but everyone. It does *not* control everyone- certainly not Faramir, and it was PJ's misunderstanding of the Ring's nature which led to the creation of Filmamir. The Ring seduces those who are prone to temptation. Shippey draws an analogy to heroin; one could also use lust. Different married men will respond differently to a full-on seduction attempt by some luscious babe, depending on the strength of their commitment to fidelity. Faramir is one of those who would say, "I appreciate the compliment, but please put your clothes back on."

[davem]

StW

Have to agree with Mr Hicklin here. When you state:

Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.

The whole quote is:

And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!' She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light Faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad. 'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'

She has the freedom to reject the Ring & remain herself. If she takes the Ring & uses it she will be corrupted by it, because in order to use it one has to 'claim' it, effectively become one with it. However, she can reject it completely (with a laugh, take note!). Faramir too can reject it freely.

There are two reasons that the Ring must be destroyed - & that it will inevitably & automatically corrupt everybody is not one of them. The first, main, reason is that If Sauron gets hold of it the only chance of defeating him will be gone forever; the second is that even if Sauron were to be defeated without destroying it, while it exists there is a chance that it may fall into the hands of one powerful enough to use it who will give in & claim it. That doesn't come from Shippey, btw, but from a reading of the text itself.

[Sauron the White]

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?


Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

[davem]

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? .

Well, I just pointed out that my last post about the nature of the Ring did not come from Shippey, but from the text itself. Shippey is generally accepted by those in the know to be one of the greatest & most insightful experts on Tolkien's work. Before dismissing him I'd suggest you read his books.

[Annatar]

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.


The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.


PJ can increase the corruptive power of the ring, and it doesn't affect the books, because the movies are not the books.

If you don't like the movies, you can always read the books instead.

[davem]

The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

To which rather arrogant assertion I can only reply with part of the Oath of the Jefferson Society: "...holding it to be true that opinions arising from solitary Observation and Reflexion are seldom in the first Instance, correct."

It happens that Shippey, one of the last old-school philologists, and who in fact held Tolkien's old Chair at Leeds, might know a few things relevant to textual exegesis (especially linguistic) that you (or I) may not. Christopher Tolkien has read Shippey and considered his observations- perhaps you think your understanding is superior to CT's?

I find it rather interesting that you hold the work of Tolkien scholars to be useless, on the principle that they are just people with opinions, in no way superior to, or even capable of informing, your own; but you expect us to accept as Authorities the "professional fim critics" who loved the movies.

*****

On to Faramir- at least to PJ, simply being in the same room with the Ring is enough to trip Faramir over the edge; and indeed Filmamir does "touch" it with his sword. In the book of course he never sees it.

But touching it is not a factor. Boromir never did; nor did Saruman, nor Denethor. Sam by contrast actually wore it, yet was able to hand it over. It's all about the desire.

But PJ explicitly never understood any of this: by *his own admission* the entire Osgiliation arose from this false idea that any person (or at least Man) who came near the thing would be powerless not to try and grab it. This notion is already present in the Prologue, which claims, incorrectly, that Men "above all desire Power." A little knowledge is dangerous. PJ just didn't get it, but thought he did: he reminds me of the sort of rube who thinks he can fix his own car, and winds up leaving crucial parts on the driveway, and forcing others to 'fit' with a hammer.

PJ should have read Shippey.

[Bêthberry]

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

Myself, on the other hand, have been coming back fully expecting to see one of the brighter Downs wits who so favour parody to provide us with Professor Higgins' rendition of Why can't the movie be more like the book?.

I'd try my hand at it myself except blast it all PJ provided so much evidence himself to satisfy the refrain.

:p


PJ should have read Shippey.


What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.


Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me . . . .

I could swear that this sentence is the start of that Professor Higgin's parody I was thinking of. Beginning rings so true to it . . .

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Annatar:

But the movies are not as good as they could have been had they not tossed out a lot of what makes the books good. Your 'adaptation = carte blanche to rewrite' bromide is nonsense. You're trying to avoid comparison of the movies to the books (to the disadvantage of the former) by pretending they can't validly be compared. Tosh. The story is the same story, the characters the same characters. A different medium of storytelling, while requiring adaptation, cutting and compression, is nonetheless obligated not to distort what it does preserve of the original.

Your slogan also conveniently ducks the fact which is glaringly obvious from PJ's interviews: he didn't comprehend his source material, the sine qua non of a quality adaptation. "Tolkien's book was long and boring- I think I did better."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by WCH
PJ should have read Shippey.

What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.

What's yet more frighteneing still is that Phillippa Boyens had indeed read Tolkien's Letters, yet proceeded to commit so many blunders: some, in fact, being the same ones T castigated Zimmerman for in the famous No. 210.

[Sauron the White]

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

Who knew more about the powers of the Ring than either or those two in the book?

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

WCH - I am not dismissing anyones opinion out of hand. What I am saying is that the primary source- the actual text of LOTR is the first place to start and get the most authoritative information. Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What the text itself says is that Faramir did not attempt to take the Ring. "Not if this thing were lying by theside of the road."

You got a problem wid dat?

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

[davem]

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

The Ring corrupts if you take it & claim it as your own. It doesn't corrupt otherwise. Every individual has the absolute freedom to reject the Ring.


davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

Longer than Faramir. In fact, longer than anyone but Sauron, Isildur, Smeagol, Bilbo & Frodo. If the Ring is instantly corrupting, whether the bearer accepts it or not, Sam should have been corrupted by it.

Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

Well, as I've already stated twice, I've used the text to confirm my argument, rather than Shippey.

[Sauron the White]

Davem, thank you for your answers.
I have some follow up questions about the Ring.

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

[davem]

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Sam (in the book) rejected the Ring, & only 'withheld' it from Frodo in the Tower out of pity & a desire to share the burden, not out of a desire to own it himself.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

One is always free to reject the Ring. If one bears the Ring as long as Frodo, on such a long, traumatic road which ends at the Sammath Naur, one would be so weakened & vulnerable that one would almost certainly give in to it. But one is never overwhelmed against one's will & must always surrender willingly. Finally Frodo said 'Yes' to the Ring - although by that point it was all but impossible not to due to the extreme torment he had suffered. Anyone will give in to torture eventually, so Frodo is not to be blamed, but he did give in. A 'Yes' is always required.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... thank you for that explaination. Another follow-up question please.

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

This whole Faramir thing to me seems a bit of a misrepresentation. It seems that all who actually posessed the Ring for enough time for it to work its evil. Faramir was exposed to the Ring briefly and while it was owned and worn by someone else. I think it was very noble of Faramir to act as he did.... but, I would not go as far as to say he rejected the ring. He never had it to reject. Of course, the same could be said of Gandalf and Galadriel but they did so with a great deal more information and expertise at their disposal. Faramirs act was the slightest bit naive. Somewhat like an seventh grade student signing a pledge to abstain from sex. Yes, its nice and all , but ........

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.* Jackson singularly failed to appreciate this point, and invented the whole Osgiliation based on the notion that any Man (besides Aragorn) would be on it like a duck on a June bug, no matter what his previous character or moral stature.

Boromir did desire it- from the moment he saw it at the Council he coveted the Ring, or the strength he believed it would bring him (Sam says as much to his brother). Combined with spending many weeks in its vicinity,** the desire would eventually overthrow his will, even to the point of oathbreaking and betrayal.

Denethor shared this weakness, which is why Gandalf tells him that "Nonetheless I do not trust you. Had I done so, I could have sent this thing hither to your keeping and spared myself and others much anguish. And now hearing you speak, I trust you less, no more than Boromir." It is specifically Denethor he doesn't trust: not any Man or any Steward, but this particular one.

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

** I do think that the Ring can work without physical contact: but it has to have something to work on in the first place. It would have burned Denethor's mind away, we are told, even were it buried beneath Mindolluin: but that's because Denethor wanted it so. The Ring can only seduce the lustful.

[Sauron the White]

It sounds like you have nothing to worry about if you are pure of heart and harbor no negativity of any kind.

But who does that? There is nobody 100% pure of heart without a negative or selfish thought at some point. Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances. Except Tom Bombadil. Remember him? He was the being that the Ring had no power over but then JRRT does nothing with that incongruity. I think that is how we got to talking about all this in the first place.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yep- even Frodo, even Sam, even anyone, eventually. Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the Dark Power will devour him.

Nobody is completely free of baser impulses. "This is a fallen world," Tolkien would say.

Bombadil is an enigma. He's meant to be. Nobody really knows what Tom is. The closest we have to an explanation of his freedom from the Ring's power is found in Letter No. 144: "If you have...renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself...then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless."

[Folwren]

Look...STW...Bombadil was not an inconsistancy, he was an exception. He was perfect. He had no self love, no personal selfishness. He was your perfect being. Is there a problem with that?

Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances.

Yes, given time. However, according to Tolkien, Faramir's was such a character that could have resisted taking the Ring, had he found it by the road side. Just as there are some good kids out there in the 7th grade who would abstain from incorrect behavior (of any sort) around the other gender....something which you seem to claim to be impossible.

Disgusted,
Folwren

[davem]

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?



Well, you have an increase in the power of the Ring as the Hobbits approach Orodruin, but you also have a decrease in Frodo's will & inner strength. Whether Sam would have succumbed to the influence of the Ring is a bit more difficult. If it was to save Frodo he might have used it, or to save the Shire possibly, but he has already rejected its temptation in the Pass. The Ring can only tempt one by offering what one really desires, so if one does not desire what it offers one is not going to be tempted by it.I'm not sure its a question of being 'pure of heart' though. Faramir does have desires - to see Gondor restored to what it was in past days & a King on the throne again - but what he realises is that the Ring cannot bring that about. Faramir is a Numenorean at heart & would never put any trust in Sauron or his works. Faramir would not succumb & claim the Ring, because he does not want Gondor to go the way of Numenor.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it. Thus, it was easier for him not to pursue it. I compared this to a seventh grader taking a pledge of sexual abstinence in that the child has not yet participated in this activity (hopefully), has limited information and does not know what he/she would be missing except from misinformation. Thats all.

You say Bombadil was a perfect being. You may be right. I don't know. I find that concept a difficult one for me to comprehend - the idea of a perfect being living with the rest of the flawed beings. Heaven, maybe.

My problem with Bombadil is that he does nothing to advance the story or resolve it despite the amazing incongruity that he seems alone in being completely beyond the power of the Ring. What does Tolkien do with this amazing creature and the dilemma of the Ring? Nothing? It seems pointless to even introduce him into this tale. Save him for something else or keep him to his own little book.

WCH - so after todays exchange, it seems by earlier statement is not so incorrect after all. You and davem took exception to it

Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

If I had added the qualifying word EVENTUALLY after the statement "how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it..." it seems that would be correct.

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?

And to all.... I have so enjoyed our exchanges today. Very civilized. :)

[Folwren]

Well...I took your comment abount abstinence a little differently, is all. The subject of... well, yeah... is extremely taboo about my house and so I did, unfortunately, wish to reply in a rather heated manner. I was disgusted that you would compare the Ring to that which you mentioned (lol... the quote 'He that we do not name' comes unbidden to my mind), for I do not believe it is an accurate comparison at all. And here is not the proper place to discuss it.

Edit: Whoops, I forgot Bombadil.

I don't know if what I said about him being perfect is right, either. I believe that is the case with his character...but one can not be absolutely certain with Bombadil.
And it is a difficult concept to comprehend. However, there are two things to consider - one, he did not live with other flawed beings. He was actually set apart. Yes, it was possible to reach him, but he did not live among others. Two, there has been a perfect being on this Earth (our earth) before, and He was not set physically apart as Bombadil. He walked among us.

And although I do not agree with you about him doing nothing to further the story, I will not go into great deal to disagree with you. All I will say is something that I believe davem has said before - All the adventures that took place with or near Bombadil (in the three chapters of The Old Forest, In the House of Tom Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow Downs) were a huge part of the development of Frodo and even a bit of the other three hobbits. Not to mention their enchanted swords with which Merry ended up hurting the Witch King with.

-- Folwren

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But a character doesn't have to "advance the story." There's more to fiction than mere plot! Bombadil is a comment, if you like: a conception of a truly free, especially care-free, being. It's one with this that Bombadil appears rather ridiculous, even goofy- because he just doesn't care. He's all id, no ego.

He also serves to point out that in the real world, even the imagined 'real' world, there are always Exceptions: anomalies, bits that don't fit, things that can't be shoved into pigeonholes.

But if we're looking for Bombadil's *function* in the narrative- he is there to develop Frodo's (and thus the reader's) growing awareness of Middle-earth, its strangeness and its vast weight of history. Gandalf began this process, but Bombadil reinforces and widens it: especially since he uses no names or dates or specific events, just a great sweep of Time. Tolkien after all reveals his canvas gradually; he does *not* drop the reader into a slam-bang prologue full of epic sound and fury. That can wait.


On the corruption of the Ring: not exactly. The Ring will eventually overcome anyone who *possesses* it long enough. Some especially vulnerable individuals can be corrupted simply by wanting to possess it. But those who are merely in its vicinity, and aren't tempted to claim it, are in no particular danger: neither Frodo's companions (save Boromir), nor Faramir. Gandalf feared to take it, to possess it, even to touch it: but he obviously suffered no ill-effects from merely travelling with Frodo!

And so, again, the Osgiliation was entirely unnecessary. PJ & Co would have done better, IMO, to concentrate on the differences between the two brothers' personalities, rather than their relationship with their father (which is another whole area of complaint, however). If the audience were shown that Faramir is quite a different individual from Boromir, then his resistance makes perfect sense (and Denethor's treatment of him subsequently both more understandable and more painful).

[davem]

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it.

Faramir does not need to know anything about the Ring - though he would know about Isildur & the fall of Sauron. All he would need to know is that the Ring is the work of the Enemy. For that reason alone he would reject it. He is not 'naive' in the sense that while he may not know much about the Ring per se he does know a great deal about Sauron, & as far as he is concerned the Ring=Sauron

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?



No. None of the Valar would succumb. Neither would Tom (we are explicitly told so), or, in my opinion, would Goldberry. As Mr Hicklin has pointed out, & leaving aside those exceptions to the rule, only those who possess the Ring (either physically or mentally) would be at risk of falling to it. However, the Ring could only tempt them to claim it, it could never force them to. Of course, it could manouvre them into using it - either for some trivial, 'innocent' purpose (hiding from annoying relatives) or 'for the greater good' (to save an innocent person) but the possessor would have to make the decision themselves. They would probably succumb - 'probably' is as far as we can go, in that it wouldn't be possible to hand over the ring to every inhabitant of M-e & watch to see what happened.

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

My good fellow Sauron the White, you apply the allusion far more literally than I ever meant, an interpretation which of course demonstrates your point that there are many ways of taking things.

WCH, I wouldn't say that Bombadil is exactly care-free. He does, after all, save the hobbits twice, from Old Man Willow and from that ghastly Barrow Wight. Interesting that you employ the id allusion, for I would have thought that he is more eros than id, especially given the Goldberry figure, and particularly as he seems contrasted with the thanatos that is the Barrow Wight. (Admittedly this is a bit of a sanitised, Victorian eros, but this is Tolkien we are discussing after all.)

I myself did make the point some eons ago that PJ's Prancing Pony scenes had to be much darker than Tolkien's because the movie missed this first trip into the dark fantastic. Subtly isn't a PJ trait anyway.

[Sauron the White]

If you wanted to see a Pranciny Pony scene that was something out of the Twilight Zone, see the play. They did this rather poor musical dance number which was a cross between "Master of the House" from LES MISERABLES and the cast of DELIVERANCE complete with a few men in coonskin caps no less.

I think Jackson was trying to show the hobbits were out of their element and the darker setting set the stage for the events of that night.

Bethberry - how else could you take the very idea of the Higgins song except to make fun of the singer for being so myopic? I see that as rather obvious. But maybe thats just me. :)

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry - how else could you take the very idea of the Higgins song except to make fun of the singer for being so myopic? I see that as rather obvious. But maybe thats just me. :)

Sauron the White, it is an abiding temptation in the teaching profession to delight in explanation, explication, expoundification, nay, even pontification. To that end, I find the advice of Laurence Sterne positively invaluable, and so I here call upon him in reply to you:


As no one, who knows what he is about in good company, would venture to talk all;--so no author, who understands the just boundaries of decorum and good breeding, would presume to think all: The truest respect which you can pay to the reader's understanding, is to halve this matter amicably, and leave him something to imagine, in his turn, as well as yourself. For my own part, I am eternally paing him compliments of this kind, and do all that lies in my power to keep his imagination as busy as my own.

To my mind, Jackson wanted to add a little dark mystery, a bit of byronic appeal, to Aragorn/Srider, so he made the introduction of Strider dangerous. Appealing to the set who dotes on pirates, I believe.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just informationally, folks: my surname is actually Hicklin; but the B-D software wouldn't let me have another letter, nor apparently can I correct it without starting a new account.

[Meriadoc1961]

I am amazed how people can read the LotR and not see how utterly significant and important Tom Bombadil is.

You don't like the use of his primary colors so he should just be dumped? As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief!" Bombadil is the essence and embodiment of hope, and the inspiration for Sam and Frodo to continue on their quest at all costs to themselves.

As Goldberry said, "He is."

Merry

[Sauron the White]

You don't like the use of his primary colors so he should just be dumped?

Meriadoc ... you have completely misrepresented my objectionS to Bombadil. Primary colors indeed!!!!!

For your benefit, and in the interests of completeness and debate integrity, I give you again my reasons from an earlier post that you may have either missed or overlooked:

1- The way he is described by JRRT, he simply looks goofy, stupid, dumb, foolish, silly, cartoonish, childish, and just plain funny looking. I cut back on the adjectives because I do not want to come off as mean spirited. Of all the characters JRRT created TB is the absolute worst visually. Films are foremost a visaul medium. What good would it have been to hire people like John Howe and Alan Lee and a host of other artists, illustrators, designers, model makers, and other creative visual talents only to have the absurd figure of TB appear on the same screen? It would be like serving a fabulous six course dinner in a five star restaurant only to have one of the dishes smell of vomit.


2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

Others here, defending TB, have said he is a colorful character who adds to the rich tapestry of Middle-earth and shows the wide variety of beings that inhabited it. Any being would fill that role. It does not have to be something which is so visually hideous or so meaningless to the story or plot or its advance or its resolution.

3- If Bombadil would have been hard on the eyes he would have been equally grating on the ears spouting doggerel such as:

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.

Allow me to also point out that the negative opinion on Bombadil is not exclusive from the pro-film crowd. There have been other posts, both here and elsewhere, of people who were glad TB was not in the films.

[Bêthberry]

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.


It might be pointed out that Gollem was used in a major American TV broadcast using objectionable language for humorous effect. It had the audience in stitches--at least those who weren't offended by a major character of Tolkien's using language which he would never have countenanced in his character's mouth. So making fun of Bombadil wouldn't necessarily mean anything other than an opportunity for more publicity.

Leaving Bombadil out is neither here nor there for me. It has it's drawbacks, such as omitting a character who is immune to the Ring's influence and the subtle hints that the hobbits are in for more than they yet really appreciate. Yet I can also understand the omission from FotR given time constraints.

However, to reply to the criticism that Bombadil is so completely alien to LotR's Middle-earth as to render visual representation impossibly ludicrous, I offer this very fitting, very Shire-friendly portrait of The House of Bombadil by Alan Lee. (My own tastes do not lend themselves to the depictions by, for example, the Hidebrant brothers.) Amidst all the harrowing incidents on the journey to destroy the Ring, it is easy to overlook the fact that Tolkien does provide scenes of significant respit, The House of Bombadil being the first. To lessen the sites of relief represents an interpretation based more on (supposedly) PJ's own philosophical world vision than on Tolkien's. I don't offer Alan Lee's drawing as a definitive representation, but as an example of how Bombadil could have been represented as consistent within the LotR universe. The inclusion of the rainbow suggests just one way in which for Tolkien "hope" remained important.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/HouseofBombadilLee.jpg

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the /White,

I do not believe I said I was directing my comments specifically to you, but I apologize if that is how you felt. I intentionally did not use quotation marks because I did not wish to single any individual out, but someone in this thread at some point used the words "primary colors" in describing his or her dislike visually of Tom Bombadil.

Secondly, I do not believe I said I was directing my comments towards the "pro-film crowd." I directed my comments to people, and in fact, I actually said "...how people can read the LotR...." So in this case, if anyone should be offended (and I certainly am not wishing to offend anyone, but I apologize if I have), it would be the numerous readers of the book who object to Tom Bombadil.

The "you" I used in my post's second paragraph is a generic you pronoun that refers back to its antecedent, which in this case is the noun "people." I did not quote anyone in particular when I said "primary colors," because I felt that this expression pretty much encompassed the prevailing thought, if not the exact words, of many who had objected to Tom Bombadil, and as I said earlier, I did not wish to single out any particular individual.

Here is what I previously posted:

"I am amazed how people can read the LotR and not see how utterly significant and important Tom Bombadil is.

"You don't like the use of his primary colors so he should just be dumped? As Charlie Brown would say, 'Good grief!' Bombadil is the essence and embodiment of hope, and the inspiration for Sam and Frodo to continue on their quest at all costs to themselves.

"As Goldberry said, 'He is.'

"Merry"

Sauron, once again, sorry if you thought I was singling you out. I wasn't. I respect what you say and how you say it. You and so many others on this list are extremely intelligent and challenging intellectually. It is a real pleasure being a part of this group.

Merry

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc... no problem and no explaination is neccessary - but appreciated. I did use the phrase primary colors in a far earlier post. I guess I did not like having my three point post reduced to two words. No harm no foul.

And I like it here also. :)

Bethberry... I have always like that Alan Lee illustration from the big red edition of LOTR. Notice that Lee selected architecture as his focal point and shunned the visual of Bombadil himself. I cannot speak for Mr. Lee - but it seems a very wise decision.

[Essex]

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.And there's the rub. One of the main reasons why films and books cannot be the same. Now putting aside my view of what you say here (I'm not sure I agree with it 100%) - how CAN a director show that the Bilbo's look is something that only Frodo 'sees' and not what actually 'happened'. without a narrator to tell us this detail it can;t work.

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him. People seem to forget that Faramir WAS tempted by the Ring. One of the reasons he stoped himself taking it was he tied himself to his word, as Faramir himself tells Frodo. But HE WAS TEMPTED. He fought internally with himself and did not take the Ring. Therefore, to me, I see the trip to Osgiliath as a Detour. I didn't like it - but in the long run it did not make any difference.

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry... I have always like that Alan Lee illustration from the big red edition of LOTR. Notice that Lee selected architecture as his focal point and shunned the visual of Bombadil himself. I cannot speak for Mr. Lee - but it seems a very wise decision.

Wise of course than none of us can speak for Alan Lee as we can't say that he choose The House of Bombadil because he rejected depicting Tom. The chapter after all is called In the House of Tom Bombadil and the evocation of place seems to me to be Lee's great talent in his Tolkien illustrations. In fact, most chapter titles in LotR emphasise place or event rather than character; indeed, in this book, of the twelve chapter titles, only one is given to a character (Strider).

Despite your feelings that Tom's description is unfortunate, many have found this enigmatic character's description something worth putting to ink, paint and paper (as well as more contemporary methods of illustration). To my mind, the least successful is probably one of the first attempted, that by the Brothers Hildebrant, which often "sets" the style many think of as Tom. Yet their work lies in a particular style and vein of folk art and there is more to Tom than their sentimental rustic style captures.

Here are just a few attempts, which may or may not tickle your fancy. They do suggest, however, that Tom tickles many other people's imagination.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry4.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry5.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry6.jpg

. . . to be continued in a next post, due to the limitations on images . . .

[Bêthberry]

. . . continuing on . . .

In fact, there are several images of Tom in computer games devoted to LotR. Perhaps Tom holds a special appeal for gamers?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry12.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry3.jpg

And of course there are those who cannot resist the urge to recreate Middle-earth in Lego.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/BombadilGoldberry8.jpg


If these other artists can be drawn to depict Tom, why could not PJ attempt it also? It seems to me to be a limitation in his imagination/interpretation of Tolkien to forgo the attempt to depict an enigmatic character and a place of unusual fairie elements. Although of course I don't have access to Jackson's internal thought processes and can merely make suppositions about the absence of the House of Bombadil from the film.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And there's the rub. One of the main reasons why films and books cannot be the same. Now putting aside my view of what you say here (I'm not sure I agree with it 100%) - how CAN a director show that the Bilbo's look is something that only Frodo 'sees' and not what actually 'happened'. without a narrator to tell us this detail it can;t work.

Sure it can. One only has to create an 'unreality' vibe over the whole (Frodo-POV) frame- which is what PJ himself *did* with Arwen's entrance, and (excessively) every time Frodo put the Ring on. Depicting the protagonist's experience of being drunk/drugged/ill/whatever is one of the oldest tools in the director's box.



At any rate, that scene (though overdone and devoid of subtlety) doesn't bother me in itself- but it's an indication of PJ's misunderstanding of the Ring which led to his perversion of Faramir later.

And the Osgiliation not only inverted Faramir's resistance to temptation (I never said he wasn't, just that he didn't act on it), but also led to the utterly preposterous scene of Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul, a scene which makes absolutely no sense even in terms of PJ's movies, much less the books. Supposedly the same audience which couldn't accept Faramir resisting the lure of the Ring is expected to swallow whole the idea that, having seen that Frodo is non compos mentis and liable to hand over the ultimate weapon to the first Evil Minion he runs across, on that basis changes his mind and sets him loose. Bah!

Again, much better PJ had developed Faramir's character- which he doesn't do at all. All PJ shows us of Faramir is that Daddy hates him, and he's something of a bully.

[Sauron the White]

WilliamCH... I am in complete agreement about the horridness of the Brothers Hildebrandt illustration of Bombadil. I would attribute half of it to the bros and half to TOlkiens description which they seemed to do fairly accurately. I have looked over the ones that you thoughtfully included as well as the ones from Bethberry.

The lego one is the least damaging on my optic nerves. ;)

In the case of all Bombadil illustrations I think it is the song and not just the singer.

[Essex]

Sure it can. One only has to create an 'unreality' vibe over the whole (Frodo-POV) frame- which is what PJ himself *did* with Arwen's entrance, and (excessively) every time Frodo put the Ring on. Depicting the protagonist's experience of being drunk/drugged/ill/whatever is one of the oldest tools in the director's box.It wouldn't work in that scene - we were in a 'normal' situation, nothing was happening out of the ordinary - and the 'shock' factor would not have worked. It needed to be a 'surprise'.

At any rate, that scene (though overdone and devoid of subtlety) doesn't bother me in itself- but it's an indication of PJ's misunderstanding of the Ring which led to his perversion of Faramir later.you see, you have a viewpoint and an understanding of the Ring. PJ has another. It's his viewpoint - not that I agree with it in a lot of cases - but he's entitled to his 'understanding' - Tlkien's world is not black and white. It's why we have so many arguments on this website. Everyone is entitled to their view - and I suppose that means you're entitled to think he's wrong LOL.

And the Osgiliation not only inverted Faramir's resistance to temptation (I never said he wasn't, just that he didn't act on it), but also led to the utterly preposterous scene of Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul, a scene which makes absolutely no sense even in terms of PJ's movies, much less the books. they tried to answer that one in the commentaries by saying they transposed the scene when Frodo is tempted (maybe too strong a word)to show the Ring to the WK near Minas Morgul - it was a cheap idea to do this, but it did take away a BIT of the pain I get when watching this scene. Probably my least favourite scene in the trilogy. But I put up with it. By accepting that it was a diversion to Osgiliath and Faramir kills (or at least downs) the fell beast so that his rider can't get back to tell Sauron where the Ring is!!!!

PS - to be totally faithful to the book - would everyone want the Fellowship to be an 18 certificate as we would have to have Merry Pippin and Sam running around naked on the Barrowdowns before Tom gets them some clothes? ;)

[Aiwendil]

WCH wrote:
PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

This may be beside the point, but I think that your interpretation is far from the only one the book supports; I don't think it's "very clear" in the book. On the contrary, it is several times suggested that Bilbo had started to become corrupted by and possessive of the Ring.

Now, I do agree that Peter Jackson largely misunderstands and over-simplifies the workings of the Ring. His depiction of Faramir is one of the gravest mistakes that this over-simplification led to. However, I also think it's a mistake to over-simplify in the other direction. As I see it, the moment in the book when Frodo sees Bilbo transformed is a complex one, in which both Frodo's perceptions and Bilbo's motivations can be seen as influenced by the Ring.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This may be beside the point, but I think that your interpretation is far from the only one the book supports; I don't think it's "very clear" in the book. On the contrary, it is several times suggested that Bilbo had started to become corrupted by and possessive of the Ring.

Yes, but.

There's nowhere a suggestion that the Ring produces an instantaneous or even long-term change in physical being (aside from invisibility)- indeed its tendency is rather the opposite.* On the other hand, the Ring very clearly affects the sensory perceptions.

*Gollum's physical appearance: caused by the Ring, directly, or merely by extreme and unnatural age, combined with centuries in the dark?

[Gwathagor]

Hey Merry, totally with you on the importance of Bombadil to the story.

[alatar]

Wow! A thread comparing and contrasting the books and the movies. How novel! ;)

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out Sauron the White and others with a similar bent (and I mention him by name apurpose as he knows that, from me, this isn't personal but just to make a point) and what they are trying to 'get' from some of their posts. Earlier in thread many of the posts are like similar discussions that we've all had recently wherein the books are considered perfect and the popular movies are considered garbage...or the movies are just wonderful and those who cannot see the digital light are simply cloak-wearing troglodytes that just can't give Peter Jackson a break.

The Downs, if I have this right, preceded the movies. Therefore one would assume that members may have joined due to their love of the books. Others, after the movies came out, joined as well, and these member may love the books, movies or both, but there existed a time when PJ movie love was not possible. The forum culture, therefore, may reflect this book bent especially if we also consider the age of some of the members.

That said, we have StW asking why there seems to be bias in regards to the books/movies. I define bias as the tendency, when no other evidence presents itself, to choose the side one more prefers. StW, seeing this bias, for some reason wants these persons to not only admit their bias (which should be apparent) but also to renounce it when not presented with rock solid contrary evidence.

I live near Pittsburgh Pennsylvania (USA) and the Steelers, a (American) football team, holds a near religious status in the area (and the world, truth be told). If you are in the home stadium when the Steelers are playing, would you think it odd that many of the fans are cheering their local team? In that word, Duh! When a referee makes a questionable call - objectively, if we had perfect knowledge, the call could go either way - would it seem odd if the home crowd saw it as for the Steelers while the fans of the opposing team saw it otherwise? Same crowd, but assume that the referee makes a completely awful call that, given perfect knowledge, we know should not have been made but benefits the Steelers. Home team's opinion is like, "Well, you'll have that in sports," while the opposing team is outraged that such a travesty was permitted. When the call is reversed, the attitudes are reversed as well.

Note that in both cases you have some that are truly fair and so denounce the unfair call regardless of the team.

So, it would seem to me that StW has come to the Downs, which again I assume to be more book-philic than PJ-philic, and expect persons to convert to the "PJ got it spot on" team when the call is completely subjective. Do you prefer the Steelers or the (rival) Browns? In Pittsburgh, Browns-love is tolerated but one wouldn't hear much about it pre-game on the news, in the neighborhood, at parties and during the 5000 hours of post-game analysis. PJ's work is new and not the reason why many persons are here.

Does that make sense?

I'm not disregarding the arguments for or against, and have enjoyed the discussion on this thread, but with the exception of maybe being provocative I'm not sure why certain points of view are considered extreme.

alatar starts the tape... And, yes, PJ's films are popular and successful and have been seen by almost everyone on the planet, and with the TV broadcasts will soon be seen by our extra-terrestrial neighbors as well, but again, we have one data point, and so cannot extrapolate anything. In other words, we do not know what another director/writer/producer could have done, nor what the outcome would have been if PJ were truer to the books or truer to his vision (or whatever). But we can fill up a lot of pages with guesses. ;)

Anyway...

Bombadil was the hook that got me into not only LotR but the Sil as well. What's all of this other stuff to which ole Yellow Boots is referring? PJ, not knowing that FotR would be successful enough for the trilogy to continue, couldn't afford putting a hook in his first flick for movies not yet scripted. ;)

What was the significance of the necklace that Tom plucks from the Barrow hoard?

[Morwen]

What was the significance of the necklace that Tom plucks from the Barrow hoard?


Was there a necklace? I recall that he selected a brooch set with blue stones from the hoard and said that he would give it to Goldberry to wear in remembrance of the past owner.

[alatar]

Was there a necklace? I recall that he selected a brooch set with blue stones from the hoard and said that he would give it to Goldberry to wear in remembrance of the past owner.
Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

Anyway, the inclusion of Bombadil is not on my Top Ten list of things I would have done differently.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by alatar:
Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

You could check out this thread. It's a whole discussion about the significance of the brooch:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=891&highlight=bombadil%27s+brooch

[Morwen]

Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

Anyway, the inclusion of Bombadil is not on my Top Ten list of things I would have done differently.


I think the book is richer for having Bombadil in it. I believe that it's Bethberry who earlier made the point that acts as one of the many helpers that Frodo and the other Hobbits meet along the way, an early example of the "help unlooked for" that Elrond will later tell Frodo that he may find on his journey. But I can understand why one might opt to leave him out of a film adaptation as he appears in 3 early chapters of FotR and never again. So leaving out Bombadil is not among my Top Ten of things I would do differently either.

As for the significance of the brooch - I thought that it connects to the theme of loss in the book. "Fair was she that long ago wore this on her shoulder" but now all that remains is a trinket to remind Bombadil and Goldberry of the unnamed owner/wearer. I don't have the book at the moment but I recall Bombadil wearing a sad expression or at least pensive one as he contemplates the brooch. I thought that he is far from being "goofy" or "cartoonish" in this passage.


Edit: Cross posted with radagastly

[Sauron the White]

Alatar.... the Steelers??? Wasn't that the team that the league conspired with the refs in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago to give them the game despite their quarterback never crossing the goal line and then admitting it on national TV? Just want to make sure that your analogies and comparisons are the same ones that I understand.

and you said

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out Sauron the White

Good luck to you. I have a weekly therapist who has been trying for a couple of years now with no luck. ;)

[alatar]

Alatar.... the Steelers??? Wasn't that the team that the league conspired with the refs in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago to give them the game despite their quarterback never crossing the goal line and then admitting it on national TV? Just want to make sure that your analogies and comparisons are the same ones that I understand.
No clue. I have to admit that I've never drank the kool-aid, and would have to work on caring less. If it weren't for people thinking that I must be recording the games, I'd most likely be rid outa tahn. Regardless, the point that you well make is that some would believe that their team can do no wrong, and react crazily when one suggests it. Others admit it with a chuckle - nudge nudge wink wink - but see it as the nature of things. Still others lessen or lose their interest when they see examples of the game being fixed, even when it's in their team's favor.

Not sure why you're so interested in getting bookites to speak heresy, as obviously you're wise enough to know all of this as well.

Good luck to you. I have a weekly therapist who has been trying for a couple of years now with no luck. ;)
What does he/she think of the films/books? And sorry, but it's always a wonder to me as to what makes people tick.

And thanks, radagastly for the link. Seems that there's been more discussion on that thread since I last peaked in. But I still don't know why Tolkien makes a point of it...anyone have PJ et al's email address? Surely he'll know...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.

You have a point and I do understand it. And it does explain alot. Having said that, I would also say this. The concept of being a prejudiced "homer" is one that is foreign to me. I view myself, and hopefuly people here, as intelligent beings who 1) can use their minds well, 2) are open minded, and 3) strive to be free from the sort of prejudgements you speak of. What good does it do the advancement of knowledge, discussion, debate or anything else if we proudly stand up and say

... "well yes I am a provincial yahoo who admits I see things with blinders on and looks at the world with rose colored glasses on so I only see what I want to see..."

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse.

It reminds me of a line in an old Simon and Garfunkel song "The Boxer". "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I have always strived to not be that man. I would hope that others also do the same.

For my part, I do not fit the description that you hint at. Like many here, I found the books long ago. I first read them right out of college in 1971. I imagine I read LOTR at least a half dozen times before the Jackson films. And by that fact, you can see I am no peach-fuzzed 20something who was dazzled by the films and did not even know there were any books.

I have always been something of a contrarian, a rebel and an iconoclast. I greatly enjoy going against the grain regardless if it be rooting for the visiting team or being the only one in the room to advocate looking at an unpopular social or political position for the sake of discussion. I guess I am like another line from a song from Bruce Springsteen.. "when they said sit down I stood up".

So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me. It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits. It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

But its still not right.

[Gwathagor]

I don't know about YOU, StW, but I watch sports games for the intellectual high I derive from carefully and coldly analyzing the performance of all involved (from a purely objective standpoint). The excitement of supporting one team over the other strikes me as somehow...provincial and small-minded. Then I say to all those stupid yokels, "Look at me! I'm different! I choose not to enjoy this in the same way you do!" Then I laugh to myself because I am wiser and saner than they. Ba ha ha.

Everybody wears glasses of some color, StW.

[davem]

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse........


So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me. It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits. It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

But its still not right.

Yes, but you're assuming those of us who don't like the movies have taken a dislike to them on principle. I didn't. On the contrary, I wanted more than anything to like them. I dreamt of being able to sit down & be transported to the Middle-earth I knew & loved. Look, I reckon Ive watched the movies more than many of those who loved them. I saw FotR 3 times in the cinema, bought the theatrical version (on VHS) when it came out & watched it probably half a dozen times, same with the DVD extended version (probably more than that, as I also watched it with the commentaries. Same thing with TT & RotK. All that plus watching the movies a couple of times when they were on TV. Lal & I even spent one Sunday a couple of years back & watched the extended versions back to back.

Now, I think that shows that I've tried. I like bits, &, as movies, I find them entertaining enough - if I'm in the mood for that kind of thing. Thing is, now I find I'm very rarely in that kind of mood. The bits I liked originally have lost any interest for me due to having seen them a few times, but the bits that irritated me have become more & more grating.

As things stand (& this is something I've stated before) I'm not violently opposed to the movies. Actually, I find them dull, over-simplified & often illogical, but I can't really summon up the energy to get annoyed about them. I appreciate the effort of all concerned, & can only admire Jackson's persistence. I also accept that he loves the books - that kind of dedication & commitment alone would deserve all the awards & kudos he recieved. I just think that the movies are a heroic failure. They failed to present the M-e I know & love. And yet that isn't down to books & movies being different media. I keep going back to the BBC radio dramatisation. That was an adaptation into a different medium, but it was a faithful one, & when I listen to that I am taken to the M-e I know & love.

[Bêthberry]

And thanks, radagastly for the link. Seems that there's been more discussion on that thread since I last peaked in. But I still don't know why Tolkien makes a point of it...anyone have PJ et al's email address? Surely he'll know...

I can just imagine! If we go to PJ, we can be assured that he won't say yeah or nay. He'll probably realise that Tom B was the original Tomb raider and decide that Goldberry can be immortalized in a remake of Laura Croft. After all, if he can redo King Kong he can redo anything.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... yes, I do understand that there are people here who have definite objections to the movies as movies. That is fair and proper and I have no complaint with that. That is not to whom my comments are aimed at.

There is a sizable contingent here who simply object to the movies because they were not like the books. Period. It comes across again and again and again in post after post after post in thread after thread after thread. If you find that sentence repetitive, its intended to mimick the nature of those same carping posts produced by people blinded by their own prejudgments.

This thread is about movies and books. I am reminded of another fine book turned into a fine movie - THE COLOR PURPLE. There is a great scene where Celie is talking to Shug Avery about Celies abusive husband Albert. It seems that Albert is the lover of Shug and he is tender, doting and caring with her. He is not abusive in the slightest to Shug. And when the two women open up and exchange their very different experiences to each other about the same man, Shug cannot understand why Albert does what he does to Celie.

Celie sums it up in one concise sentence.

"He beat me 'cause I ain't you."

And that fits like a glove on the hand of many posters here. They do not like the movies because they are not the books. You do not have to wander far to find evidence of this. Simply look at this threads title.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's not because they were "not like the books" in the sense that the adaptation process necessarily changed certain things. My great disappointment (and it was truly that- I haunted TORC and TORN and lapped up every bit of leaked news, really looking forward to the release) stemmed from the fact that PJ so clearly didn't understand his source material. I was hoping for an epic-with-brains like Lawrence of Arabia et al, and what I saw (even in Fellowship, whose plot-alterations I didn't often mind that much) was instead a bigger, badder Indiana Jones movie. All of Tolkien's deeper currents beneath the shallow level of 'plot' had disappeared; and in the sequels were indeed frequently turned on their heads.

That I think underlies the distaste many book-fans have for the movies- we couldn't watch them without being painfully aware of how much was missing (not of the plot, but of the Tolkienian mental universe). And this isn't (at least in my case) due to some prejudice against movies or a lack of understanding of the cinemtic medium: I duly took 'History of Film' and 'Cinema as an Art Form' (and got A's)- so I'm reasonably aware of film's potential to convey a tremendous degree of intellectual content and subtext. A film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings didn't *have* to be superficial.

It's interesting that you bring up The Color Purple. *That* Spielberg, the Spielberg who also made Schindler's List, should have been the model, rather than that other Spielberg, maker of popcorn movies.

[Gwathagor]

StW: The thread's title is obviously self-satirizing.

davem: The BBC radio dramatization is truly, truly awesome; easily the best adaptation of the books to any other medium. I listen to it every Christmas, and it still sends chills up my spine. Every time.

In some ways, it's listening to the BBC radio version that makes me inclined to like the movies less than I might otherwise, because the radio series reminds me that however good the movies may have been, they could have been sooo much better. The BBC version, on the other hand, captures the spirit of Middle-earth in a much more complete and deep way. It's a demonstration and a reminder of what The Lord of the Rings films could have been, of the story's full potential for adaptation.

[alatar]

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.
And your previous post wasn't?!?

You have a point and I do understand it. And it does explain alot. Having said that, I would also say this. The concept of being a prejudiced "homer" is one that is foreign to me.
Note that I used the word 'bias' specifically, as to me bias is (quoting someone in Frank Herbert's writings) 'if I can, I will vote for my side,' whereas prejudice (pre-judgment) would mean that, 'regardless of any argument put forward, I will vote for my side.' In fact, before I even read your post or see the movies, I already know what I will think about them. davem's (like the one above) and others posts indicate that they may have a book bias, but were not prejudiced to the movies. Like them, I too wanted them to be great and yield the same thrill as the books. Maybe I set my expectations too high?

And, as my title suggests as my default position, I seriously doubt that you entertain no biases or prejudices. If you are human, then you got them with your DNA.

I view myself, and hopefuly people here, as intelligent beings who
I consider myself intelligent but don't really like chocolate and would not wear anything coloured purple if it were the last shirt in the drawer. Bias is not anti-intelligent. Bias is a filter we use to make decisions a little more quickly. Should I eat the carrot or the snail? Last time the snail made me sick, so I'll grab the carrot.

1) can use their minds well,
The cynic in me wonders if any of us do this. ;)

2) are open minded,
Open minded does not mean accepting all positions, or weighting them equally. Because we are intelligent, we have to sift the data for relevance. That said, because we are all unique, we can arrive at different answers given the same data.

and 3) strive to be free from the sort of prejudgements you speak of.
Sounds good, but striving does not equal attaining. It's been said that one should remove the beam from one's own eye before commenting on the speck in another's. But I hear ya.

What good does it do the advancement of knowledge, discussion, debate or anything else if we proudly stand up and say

... "well yes I am a provincial yahoo who admits I see things with blinders on and looks at the world with rose colored glasses on so I only see what I want to see..."
People who do this do not realize that they are doing so. Or, actually, persons who admit to wearing glasses are at least being honest.

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse.
Not a rationalization, but an explanation. If you grew up hating peas, no amount of argument is going to persuade you to enjoy the yucky green things. Rational? No. But noting that person with a distaste for peas was forced to eat them as a child at least sheds light on why he/she may not like them, even when they've been prepared in a more appealing sauce.

My question to you is: What do you want from these discussions (besides entertainment and some good thinking), and with whom are you really arguing? Earlier posts suggest that it may not be with those that love/prefer the books over Jackson's work, but with those that hold or are perceived to hold views with which you do not agree or think are rational/consistent/other.

For my part, I do not fit the description that you hint at. Like many here, I found the books long ago. I first read them right out of college in 1971. I imagine I read LOTR at least a half dozen times before the Jackson films. And by that fact, you can see I am no peach-fuzzed 20something who was dazzled by the films and did not even know there were any books.
:eek:

I have always been something of a contrarian, a rebel and an iconoclast. I greatly enjoy going against the grain regardless if it be rooting for the visiting team or being the only one in the room to advocate looking at an unpopular social or political position for the sake of discussion. I guess I am like another line from a song from Bruce Springsteen.. "when they said sit down I stood up".
And here we're getting closer to the real issue. So does this mean that on pro-Jackson sites you argue that he wasn't true to the books and should have included Bombadil? Again, I then see someone who is either arguing for the fun of the play, or is arguing with a voice from the past. Regardless, it's been fun.

So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me.
So I present evidence (however scant) as an explanation as to some, but not all, persons behaviour, and you, being open minded and a product of psychological Lasik surgery, cannot consider this to be even an approximation of the perfect truth. As I and others have said, we all wear glasses, and it's the coloured lenses that make life fun (most times).

It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits.
Please define "small-minded." The mind is the product of the brain, and not sure if there's been any volumetric data. And if that's not what you mean, I would think that this forum is open to all those that are civil and follow the rules.

It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.
Why does that bother you so? Was there someone or group that oppressed you in some way with a "my way or the highway" stick? People here like the books, or movies, or both, or hold obstinate views even when presented with airtight evidence to the contrary. Even I, noted for being exemplary in all matters large and small along with being most humble and unassuming, may, for a moment or two, hold onto a view or idea just for old times' sake. ;)

So what?

[Sauron the White]

from WilliamCH

we couldn't watch them without being painfully aware of how much was missing (not of the plot, but of the Tolkienian mental universe).

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

There is a part of Jackson which is the teen-age boy who loves action and "cool stuff". And when you listen to both his interviews and the extras on the DVD's that certainly came across. However, I would disagree with those who maintain that all that was included at the expense of the more sublime portions of LOTR, the more subtle moments, the softer and more emotional scenes and incidents. Its there if anyone just wants to see it.

[alatar]

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.
Ignorance is bliss, someone said. My wife, not reading the books ever! enjoyed the movies more than I when we saw them in the theater. Now that they've been in the house and on broadcast TV, and now that she's seen them more (still not having read those books) sees many more flaws and has actually used the word, "stupid" when viewing certain scenes. Yes, it's one data point, but our theory of TMU will want to be considered in light of this possible outlier.

There is a part of Jackson which is the teen-age boy who loves action and "cool stuff". And when you listen to both his interviews and the extras on the DVD's that certainly came across.
That makes sense. If only I could be a teenager again. :rolleyes:

the more subtle moments
There were so many...;)

[Sauron the White]

Alatar.... you post before my response to William came up after I posted. So here is one directed to your response to me... (this is getting complicated and where do I get a scorecard?)

I have always associated readers - and I mean avid readers - with those of higher intelligence. No data here to support that. No surveys or longitudinal studies bearing that out. Just my basic hunch and premise that I steer by. Avid readers seem to be the more sharper knives in the drawer.

Thus, I am a bit taken aback when I see those same intelligent beings prone to the same prejudgments and blinders that we (or I) normally assign to the more educationally challenged amongst us.

You seem to be saying that its okay to have prejudices and bias since that is part of the human condition ... and besides..... we were all confortable with our quaint ways long before you hit our sleepy little town ... so if you dont like it here .....

or as Matthewm once told me "just leave".

I do enjoy the exchange especially with you and several others and will stop at currying favor by naming names. It is fun and works the mind a bit and right now I need all the mental exercise that is available to me. ;)

My previous reply to you

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.

And your previous post wasn't?!?

I guess it was like that line in the Kris Kristofferson song ....

"I'm a walking contradiction
partly truth partly fiction".

Thought the winking smilie tipped that off.

Just thought you deserved a more literate reply to your longer post than "good luck".

[Raynor]

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.
We are handicapped by knowledge?? If PJ would have made a work comparable to the books, in depth, spirituality or morality, - but somehow with a different message, then this argument would have had some merit. But that was not his purpose nor his achievement. If I had to choose between knowing the books and somehow better appreciate their hollywoodization, the choice would be obvious for me.
Its there if anyone just wants to see it.My regards to someone who has this much imagination ;).
Even I, noted for being exemplary in all matters large and small along with being most humble and unassuming, may, for a moment or two, hold onto a view or idea just for old times' sake.
Great post, great ending :D.

[Sauron the White]

Raynor -- yes Yes YES a hundred times yes. Yes you are handicapped by knowledge..... if that knowledge of the books has the following effects on your ability to sit and enjoy the films ............

if you do not know the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the different elements and constructs of the two different mediums

if you refuse to accept the constraints and limitations of the mediums as they compare to each other

That is a huge handicap that some have here that prevents them from performing the most simple task ---- accepting something for what it is and not what it is not.

In addition, yes, voluminous knowledge of the books is indeed a handicap in enjoying the films IF it results in

you sitting before the screen making comments to yourself "the book was not like that".... or "that did not happen in the books"..... or "the wrong character is speaking those lines"..... or "what happened to my favorite character of _______" .... or "they combined several events together" ..... or "they left out some stuff" .... or any one of ten thousand other objections that basically mean "when I compare the medium of the book to the different medium of the movies, they end up different". As they say these days.. "DUH?"

Like Robert deNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

[Kath]

That is a huge handicap that some have here that prevents them from performing the most simple task ---- accepting something for what it is and not what it is not.
But it seems that in your world we aren't allowed to accept what it is and still dislike it. Comparison with the books aside, there are things in the films I sincerely dislike just because of what they are or who the actors are. My view on the films isn't entirely mediated by what I know of the books, though obviously it has an effect.

[Sauron the White]

Kath ... as I said to davem earlier, of course there are posts which find fault with the movies and that is good and proper. The thing that drives me to distraction is the opinion, voiced in many different ways and guises, which says "the books were not like that".

Perhaps thats because a move is not a book and vice versa.

I too find fault with the movies as movies. I absolutely loathe the scrubbing bubble green army of the dead as they wash clean the Pelennor of the enemy. In fact, loathe is too sublime a word for how I feel about that scene. I am no fan of bodily noise jokes in any film so seeing burps and gasseous explosions was not of my liking either.

[alatar]

Alatar.... you post before my response to William came up after I posted. So here is one directed to your response to me... (this is getting complicated and where do I get a scorecard?)
Why won't everyone just take turns...me first.

I have always associated readers - and I mean avid readers - with those of higher intelligence. No data here to support that. No surveys or longitudinal studies bearing that out. Just my basic hunch and premise that I steer by. Avid readers seem to be the more sharper knives in the drawer.
Knives are great for cutting, but useless when brushing one's teeth. I've worked with learned (note that I'm pronouncing the word with two distinct syllables - learn - ed) persons with advanced degrees who I would not trust to comb the dog or wash the car. Either they would spend/waste hours discussing the subtle issues, never getting to the work at hand, or get themselves hurt. Others without the desire to read 'stupid books' can be great problem solvers. With the mixing of DNA, results can vary (by design!).

So your hunch may be biased by your experience.

Thus, I am a bit taken aback when I see those same intelligent beings prone to the same prejudgments and blinders that we (or I) normally assign to the more educationally challenged amongst us.
How open-minded?!? Coming from a commoner background and working with persons from the ivory (and other bone coloured) towers, I've come to realize that we are all one big family and all prone to the usual issues.

You seem to be saying that its okay to have prejudices and bias since that is part of the human condition ... and besides..... we were all confortable with our quaint ways long before you hit our sleepy little town ... so if you dont like it here .....
Nope. Understanding that a bias exists does not mean that I condone it. I try to understand why people think thus, and know from familial experience that some hold dearly to views that are illogical, contradictory and otherwise crazy/foolish/harmful, and that try as I might (and I've quit trying), they will continue to hold onto these.

You are welcome in my town, but if you continually are trying to change a person's viewpoint time and time again even when your best arguments have failed, I'd have to start wondering after your sanity, as, well, you know that old saying.

or as Matthewm once told me "just leave".
How nice of him. :rolleyes:

I do enjoy the exchange especially with you and several others and will stop at currying favor by naming names. It is fun and works the mind a bit and right now I need all the mental exercise that is available to me. ;)
Much agreed. If we all loved the movies as you do, it'd be a slow day at work.

[davem]

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

Why should that be a 'handicap'? There was no reason the movies had to oversimplify Tolkien's work, excise central themes & characters & replace them with, frankly silly & certainly unnecessary scenes & motivations. Neither was there any necessity for stupid running gags about 'Dwarf-tossing' (or the whole Denethor human torch marathon). Of course, the former might not have grated on so many of us had we not known the books, but the latter would have annoyed me anyway - whether I'd read LotR first or not.

Anyway, I think 'handicap' a strange term in this context. These movies are hardly high art. Its not as if those of us who don't care for the movies have missed much - yes, Jackson et al put Minas Tirith, the Shire, etc, on screen, but they already existed in my mind anyway, so I didn't actually need to see them - not to mention that my own versions are different to Jackson's. Arguing that knowing the book was a 'handicap' because it prevented me truly appreciating the movies is kind of equivalent to arguing that having a good palate is a handicap because it prevents one truly appreciating a greasy burger from a dirty all night diner.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar ... lets look at our common ground --- if that exists.

Bias exists in everyone. Agreed?

We should accept that. Agreed?

We should try to realize our own biases? Agreed?

We should strive to overcome our biases. Agreed?

I guess thats why I keep coming back again and again much to the chagrin of matthewm... :) I view overcoming bias as an ongoing sturuggle and a very good thing which advances the individual.

You might say I am here to help you become a better person.:D
And to a lesser degree, you help me to improve if indeed you can find any faults that need work.

[Raynor]

you sitting before the screen making comments to yourself "the book was not like that".... or "that did not happen in the books"..... or "the wrong character is speaking those lines"..... or "what happened to my favorite character of _______" .... or "they combined several events together" ..... or "they left out some stuff" .... or any one of ten thousand other objections that basically mean "when I compare the medium of the book to the different medium of the movies, they end up different". As they say these days.. "DUH?"
As people here are continuously trying to point out, (by and large you can find that in my last post too), the problem is with the message of the movies, their substance. Let me ask you, do you agree that many persons, including those from the fanbase, find the concept of Hollywood-style depth (or philosophy, or morality), as seen in PJ's films also, as amusing, if not downright hilarious? This is a mass-targeted product, first and foremost, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As another Hollywood production has it, "take [all the money that] you can, give nothing back" (to one's desire for culture).

[alatar]

Bias exists in everyone. Agreed?
Yes, to the extent that we can know (there may be one person without bias, but he/she may not have internet access).

We should accept that. Agreed?
Yes. It seems to be a good fit for the data.

We should try to realize our own biases? Agreed?
Yes you should. ;)

We should strive to overcome our biases. Agreed?
No. Why? Why should I strive to like eating worms? People do, but if I have other choices, I'm putting worms at the bottom of the list. They're made of protein and other great life-giving molecules and probably taste like mushy chicken, and unbiased children eat them, but I just can't go there. Also I also believe in the merits of science and so that biases me to things like astrology. Should I strive to accept the tenants of astrology? It's one thing to consider new evidence and to update one's priors when indicated by the data, but without any priors we'd be lost. Children learn to avoid touching hot objects after finding out that the experience can be painful. Should they throw out their biases and assume that objects that appear hot are fine to be touched without any testing?

I guess thats why I keep coming back again and again much to the chagrin of matthewm... I view overcoming bias as an ongoing sturuggle and a very good thing which advances the individual.
To some degree. But after a while I know I find myself repeating the same old lines, and so work at finding a new game...like psychoanalizing StW. ;)

You might say I am here to help you become a better person.
Better...meaning? Once you attain a certain level, the amount of work to produce an observable effect may be considerable. :D

And to a lesser degree, you help me to improve if indeed you can find any faults that need work.
I humbly consider each post I write a philanthropic gesture of enlightenment to the world. But that's me.

[Folwren]

I've figured STW out. I figured him out as soon as I'd learned that he'd been a teacher and immersed in the public school system for, what was it, 30 years? After I heard that, I understood everything...perfectly. :smokin:

Yours Truly,

Folwren

[Sauron the White]

33.5 to be exact.

Since you have figured me out, I would love to be the beneficiary of your enlightenment so that I too can be fully informed. Seriously.

[Folwren]

Well...perhaps I haven't figured you out perfectly...I mean, your personal self, your real self, but I have figured out why your opinion is what it is and why you stand so fast by it, and that is all. And you probably know why that is, so I don't need to explain myself. :)

-- Folwren

[alatar]

Well...perhaps I haven't figured you out perfectly...I mean, your personal self, your real self, but I have figured out why your opinion is what it is and why you stand so fast by it, and that is all. And you probably know why that is, so I don't need to explain myself. :)
So close to revelation...and yet. Now I know how Gandalf must have felt when he was researching the history of the One Ring sans speaking with Gollum.

Having a bias about public school teachers myself, I was hoping to gain some confirmation from another set of eyes.

Did Peter Jackson ever teach in a school?

[Quempel]

rrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

this is like waiting for some big surprise and it turning out to be nothing much. :p

back to lurking.

[Folwren]

Hm. I'm sorry to have let so many people down, but I am not posting my personal opinion about why I think StW thinks they way he does based on my knowing he's been in the school system so long! It's just not polite, and it's not Tolkien related! I don't hold with gossip...not in public places.

Go ahead and feel like Gandalf, alatar. I don't care. And I'm not afraid of fire. :p (Well, if you threatened to burn me at the stake, maybe I'd talk, but I'm afraid you can't reach me - and you don't know where I live so mwahahahaha!)

-- Folwren

[Estelyn Telcontar]

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/images/chatskwerl.jpg

Too much chit-chat, too little content. Please find whatever remnant of the topic is still worth discussing - if possible - and devote yourselves to that. Thanks!

[Gwathagor]

You strike like the blind man, StW. 'Twas the boy who stole your food, and you'll beat the post.

For such an open-minded person, you seem to have a difficult time appreciating our positions. You construct straw-men (quite proficiently), talk around us, and generally flail about. Maybe you NEED glasses. Rose-colored vision (if you insist on calling it that) is better than your near-sighted blindness (particularly when you don't realize you are blind, and try to pass it off as a sort of higher plane of being).

The idea that too much knowledge is dangerous sounds hardly like your professed uncompromising open-minded objectivity.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar

I asked you

We should strive to overcome our biases. Agreed?

and you replied


No. Why? Why should I strive to like eating worms? People do, but if I have other choices, I'm putting worms at the bottom of the list. They're made of protein and other great life-giving molecules and probably taste like mushy chicken, and unbiased children eat them, but I just can't go there. Also I also believe in the merits of science and so that biases me to things like astrology. Should I strive to accept the tenants of astrology? It's one thing to consider new evidence and to update one's priors when indicated by the data, but without any priors we'd be lost. Children learn to avoid touching hot objects after finding out that the experience can be painful. Should they throw out their biases and assume that objects that appear hot are fine to be touched without any testing?

You are good at avoiding boxing yourself into a corner. A tip of the hat to you.

I do not think we are talking about changing your diet to include worms or converting you to the wonders of astrology. Nor do I want children to be introduced to painful experiences. So lets get beyond those easy things.

I do think that there is a bias here - or even a stronger prejudice - against Jackson and his films. Its not enough to say that is a right and thats just the way this community is constituted and thats the charm that makes you all so darn appealing. Without beating this to death --- okay - at the risk of beating this to death --- I do feel that there is a qualitative difference between some here who have issues with problems of the films as films and those who are simply head over heels in love with the books and will not even look at anything that smacks of Tolkien infidelity. If that sounds silly it was partly meant to. Partly.

There seems to be some kind of litmus test among the literary circle of Tolkien and a hatred of the movies seems to be part of that. I realize that very intelligent people within this community have told me that there are broad differences of opinion on many things within the Tolkien literary community but for some reason on this site it keeps coming up with the same number over and over again.

I do feel that it is imortant to overcome ones biases when it comes to things other than eating worms, astrology and inflicting harm upon children. I promise you that an increased appreciation of even one more scene in the Jackson movies will not damage a single child... or worm for that matter.

You just may gain something by it. As we all can. Myself included by listening and appreciating the other viewpoint.

[Gwathagor]

You know, this really isn't as big of a deal as you might think. You are probably spending unnecessary energy trying to persuade us/yourself that you alone are right. Allow for variance of opinion, and life will be easier.

[alatar]

You are good at avoiding boxing yourself into a corner. A tip of the hat to you.
Round rooms assure the desired result.

I do not think we are talking about changing your diet to include worms or converting you to the wonders of astrology. Nor do I want children to be introduced to painful experiences. So lets get beyond those easy things.
Surely. My point is that biases exist, are helpful for survival, and that we all have them, and that the bias may or not be logically reasoned.

I do think that there is a bias here - or even a stronger prejudice - against Jackson and his films.
Okay. I'll agree. A certain set of all the posting members here do not like the Jackson films. So? A set of the same do not like going to the cinema, would rather be along with a book than at a pub, and can type much faster in a nonnative language than I can in my own. Is that not their right to be thus? And just how many are in any set? And of those, how many actively post in the same threads in which you participate?

Its not enough to say that is a right and thats just the way this community is constituted and thats the charm that makes you all so darn appealing.
But of course. :D I'm not saying that it's right, but that it what we observe.

Without beating this to death --- okay - at the risk of beating this to death --- I do feel that there is a qualitative difference between some here who have issues with problems of the films as films and those who are simply head over heels in love with the books and will not even look at anything that smacks of Tolkien infidelity. If that sounds silly it was partly meant to. Partly.
We are in total agreement. And then...If you could talk them into loving Jackson, or even merely appreciating his films, then I'll have to have you over the house to talk my kids into wearing the clothing that I'd rather have them in, heartily desiring what I put in front of them for dinner and going to bed at a reasonable hour.

I think that we're seeing this from the same view, but you see it as an 'you're either fully with us or against us' set whereas I see it as more of a continuum. On the sides we get the love books/movies to the exclusion of all else, and with these your arguments are moot. There are those not on the extremes that are warmer or cooler to the books/movies and so may be more receptive to what you write. But that assumes that they even care.

Classical bell curve, albeit I'm guessing that the mean is skewed somewhat closer to the books.

There seems to be some kind of litmus test among the literary circle of Tolkien and a hatred of the movies seems to be part of that.
You see that. Do others? Do you think that those who do not like the movies, for whatever reason - prejudice, bias, snobbery, etc - are part of some cliche?

I realize that very intelligent people within this community have told me that there are broad differences of opinion on many things within the Tolkien literary community but for some reason on this site it keeps coming up with the same number over and over again.
I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that despite post after posting of persons demonstrating that they wanted to like the movies, tried to like the movies, like parts of the movies, you still think that its a small small minority that sees things anywhere to what you would consider normal? Is it data or your perception? I don't mean to be constantly questioning you (well, okay, I do, but that's me), but I'm always suspect when global claims are made. My wife does not post here, and I've offered her as an outlier. What of her criticism? If she posted here, would you think that she was a book snob a priori?

I do feel that it is imortant to overcome ones biases when it comes to things other than eating worms, astrology and inflicting harm upon children. I promise you that an increased appreciation of even one more scene in the Jackson movies will not damage a single child... or worm for that matter.
One has to work at overcoming biases, and you might consider that this issue isn't hot on everyone's list. To accept something without evidence - PJ made wonderous films - would be just as bad as knowing that he made complete garbage without ever viewing them. Can't argue with faith/belief, but can reason with reason.

You just may gain something by it. As we all can. Myself included by listening and appreciating the other viewpoint.
That's why I signed myself up to write the SbS. And that's why I both like and dislike the movies. They were okay, but could have been so much better. Lacking the wit to be truly creative I can pick up my book and see another way to 'let Theoden know that the Uruks approach.'

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Apparently this thread has become so inherently chatty that it is not possible to stem the tide even with a moderator's warning. I'm therefore closing it; any member who has an important contribution to make to the original topic (there was one, wasn't there?!) may PM me, stating the nature of that contribution, and see if I can be convinced to reopen it - in a couple of days.