Why all the anger?

[The Saucepan Man]

I've read a lot on various discussion threads about people being really angry with the way in which the story was changed from the book to the films. I am curious to know why this is.<P>After initially being disappointed at TTT myself by the changes, I soon realised that, since this is a film made for the film-going public generally, and not just Tolkien fans, it was bound to be tailored to suit the wider (and probably more numerous) audience. The fact that these films have been made (and the story/characters altered) does not mean the books have been re-written. They are still there to be enjoyed. <P>So why the angry reaction?<p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Rimbaud]

Disappointment is a better word than anger here. Extant due to the fact, or at least the belief in the fact, that this could have been a great film, coming from such good source material, and unfortunately it wasn't. Not even close to being watchable for anyone with need for emotional connection or indeed, acting.

[doug*platypus]

For me it was more dismay. As in "Peter, Peter, Peter, why?" I wholeheartedly agree with changes to the book, when they are changes for the better. I've quoted a number of improvements that I think have been made, on other threads, as well as all of my gripes about things I didn't like.<P>But I think that in general the changes have confused and complicated the plot (e.g. where is Éomer going?), and simplified or misinterpreted the characters (see the Butchering of Faramir, also Samwise). A lot of continuity errors were brought in as well, and as we all know JRRT was an immaculate perfectionist with regard to continuity. It should be noted though, that I have an incredible amount of respect for everyone involved in the production (especially myself as an Orc extra!) and that I am very glad that the movies are still undeniably watchable, even for such a fan of the book as me.<P>Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hallo and Welcome, <B>Saucepan Man:</B><P>* enters, with the pipesmoke circling upwards matching the grey hue of his cloak trailing behind, bows a friendly greeting *<P>The January 2003 issue of the <I>Catholic World Report</I> contains an article touching on this very topic, called "Genius and Betrayal."<P>Actually, what I find to be the most revealing part of the article is where it quotes from Time magazine. Below, for your review, please find a quote-within-a-quote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the <I>Time</I> magazine review of the film, director Jackson openly admits that he strayed far from Tolkien's original intent, and gives at least this reviewer the satisfaction of recognizing that his trespasses against Tolkien qualify as "crimes."<P>Here is what the <I>Time</I> reviewer wrote:<P>BEGIN QUOTE The director readily admits that of the three films, Two Towers departs most from Tolkien's work. "We were aware that we were making films for the hard-core Tolkien fan base as well as everyone else," says Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. "In the beginning, it was a difficult tightrope to walk, but then we sort of abandoned thinking about it. If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book." END QUOTE<P>So there we have it, from Jackson himself. <P>The Two Towers is a great film by Hollywood standards. Yet Tolkien surely could consider Peter Jackson guilty of criminal negligence. One hopes in the expected "director's cut" DVD version of the film, Jackson will make amends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- The Catholic World Report, January 2003<P>At your Service,<P>Gandalf the Grey

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hail and Well Met, <B>doug*platypus!</B> <P>* bows, offers you a pouch of the finest Longbottom Leaf *<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How wonderfully witty! Welcome to the Downs.<P>At your Service,<P>Gandalf the Grey

[-Imrahil-]

Haha wonderfully put my friend.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Given the high quality of the source material, and the average quality of the movies, I can't help but think that Peter Jackson is some kind of weird alchemist, who has come up with a way to make cr*p out of gold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>FotR looked to be on the right track, they changed almost nothing from the books (okay Glorfindel so what?)<P>But TTT was such a departure. Nonetheless I enjoyed it so all I can say is "oh well"

[Gorwingel]

I enjoyed TTT completely, but I too found that many of the changes to me, were changes that did not need to be made. Everyone knows those ones (Faramir, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.), especially Faramir, that was one that if they would have gone the book route, would have still been equally entertaining to the Tolkien Purist, and the average moviegoer. I think some of the anger is understandable, because the movie did stray far from the book, much more than FOTR. I too expected it to be closer to the book. It was a good film, but it was not what I thought it would be.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, I could take the time to tell you, but that would only infuriate me and remind me of why I hate certain aspects/parts of the movies. You see, if you read carefully in some of the threads you will find out, but as for myself, I gave up on it. I just stopped seing the movie and stopped arguing about it. It just got me in bad moods to think about it. So I really don't visit this part of the forum that much anymore.<P>So if you really wan't to know, then just look over the 'overall impressions' thread and read carefully. You could probably find out the most about that thread.

[Liriodendron]

Eeeeeeew! Don't ask! They might vomit on you!

[GARY-the-White]

Doug how did yopu become a orc extra? and how much did it pay? did u get to see aragorn and legolas that kiks ***

[Kalessin]

Hmm ...<P>I understand fully that for each of us our experience of the books has created a personal and sacred bond with the works, and as such the movie can easily be seen as a flawed and incomplete reflection of what the narrative means to us. This could be argued for many literary adaptations, most of which have been decried by fans of the original literature. <P>But I think that, while we can all like or dislike any film, some of the criticism is disproportionate and is based on the premise that the film should somehow 'be' the book, or in any other way do justice to it. Even if this is what the film-makers intended, this is not how film works.<P>By way of illustration of my argument, here are Frank Herbert's reflections on the adaptation of Dune (by David Lynch) ...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>... I understand film to be a language different from English ...<P>To make a film, you <I>translate</I>, as though from English to German. You can say things in one language you cannot say in another.<P>The film of Dune <I>(and, you could argue LotR - K)</I> is the result of a paradox - product of an industry that pretends to creativity and shies away from risks. So many films are aimed primarily at early-to-late teens because this age group is more easily seduced by hype. These also are viewers with time and money ... <P>Don't condemn this out of hand. Never forget it's an industry.<P>Don't ask yourself if I (the author) succeeded or if the film succeeded. The only valid critic is time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Given the above, I would say the more valid comparison is NOT betweetn the film and the book - certainly not by those who invest such emotional attachment to the book - but between this film and other films, similar or different.<P>On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, <I>Star Wars</I>, or <I>Dragonheart</I>, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as <I>Ben Hur</I> or <I>Spartacus</I>. <P><B>The problem with any sort of re-make is that is a betrayal of sorts.</B> A rare exception would be Sturges' <I>Magnificent Seven</I>, but for a Kurosawa purist even that is no more than a pale pastiche. Perhaps <I>The Shawshank Redemption</I> qualifies also. And recently, the remakes of Nakata's <I>Ringu</I>, Mann's <I>Manhunter</I> and Philip K D1ck's <I>Minority Report</I>, among others, have all been pretty feeble in my view. I am told there is an upcoming remake of Tarkovsky's classic <I>Solaris</I>, itself a sometimes criticised adaptation of Lem's novel. <P>Of course, Legolas skateboarding down the steps at Helm's Deep would have been anathema to Tolkien, and was for me the most cringeworthy moment of TTT .<P>But as cinema, the two parts to date have merit, and anecdotally, is it perhaps true that the reactions of those who have not read the books but seen the films seem to bear this out?<P>Peace <P>Kalessin<p>[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Wow! Some very interesting and well considered responses. Thank you everyone. <P>I can understand disappointment/dismay. I too felt disappointed when I saw TTT that some of my favourite scenes had been omitted and that my interpretation of the characters was not necessarily reflected in the film interpretation (it annoyed me, for example, that Treebeard and co had to be tricked into attacking Isengard). <P>But, this was a film made for mass audiences - it had to be to pull in the money required for it to be made in the first place. Given that, it was never going to remain completely true to the book and there were always going to be aspects of it that rankled with the fans (I agree with you Kalessin about the Legolas shield surfing )<P>But is that enough to justify the anger?<P><B>Doug</B>: I agree that the continuity errors are unforgiveable on such a major production. I did not notice them myself, but I have seen many a discussion thread listing them. Again, however, is that sufficient to incur the wrath that this film has been subject to amongst the fans?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B>Gandalf</B>: I think this sums up the problem faced by anyone making a large production film based upon such well-loved books. Jackson is correct in my view - he made a good film and can be forgiven his "crimes".<P><B>Kalessin</B>: I like the Frank Herbert quote regarding the Dune film. I have read Dune and seen the film and feel about them much the same as I do about LotR: Great book, good film - but one cannot be compared with the other. Comparing FotR and TTT with other films of the same genre (and, indeed, other similar genres), I think that they stand up extremely well indeed.<P>So, I am still puzzled as to why TTT has generated quite so much anger. I can see <B>how</B> people have reacted, but do not really understand <B>why</B>, given that this is a film adaptation of the book for mass audiences. It is not the book itself, and takes nothing away from the book. Indeed, my impression is that the films have introduced many to JRRT's works that might not otherwise have read them. Is that not a worthy outcome in itself?

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Saucepan Man, thanks for starting this thread. I'm also finding it very interesting. Kalessin made some extremely good points that I hadn't considered before. Now that I think about it, PJ's movies *have* captivated me more than anything else I've seen in recent memory (except perhaps for Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind). Considering them just as movies, they are exceptional. Considering them as adaptations, I think they are ... good.<P>Maybe I'm not the right person to talk as I'm not particularly *angry* about the movies. I did feel hurt about some of the changes -- something along the lines of "You were doing such a good job until now, how could you do *that* and betray/disappoint me so?!"<P>I can think of a few reasons why people might be angry. Please keep in mind I'm not judging anyone. These are only theories and I hope I don't offend anyone.<P>1) People who liked the books before the movies came out may feel that their private haven is being perverted to appeal to what *they* believe is the lowest common denominator (e.g., people who think such-and-such character is "2kewl" or "*sooo* hott!!!!") These fans don't want the books to be popular at the expense of their intellectual content and resent being grouped with "Ringies". In fanfiction terms, they are angry at PJ for setting Mary Sues loose in Rivendell to molest the elves. Especially as they see them as *their elves*.<P>2) Some fans may resent PJ for the fame and glory he is receiving that they think he doesn't deserve. After all, he just "adapted" someone else's work (never mind what a difficult task it was). To make matters worse, PJ and co. have *changed* some of the work and (ill-advisedly) opined that parts are better than the original on the commentary track of the DVD. This stirs indignation in fans who believe Tolkien's genius is not being respected.<P>3) Some fans who have a deep emotional attachment to certain characters (*cough* Faramir *cough*) may resent what they feel is slander against their beloved. Especially because they *know* better but most moviegoers won't believe them. (Count me in this category. *sigh*)<P>I think deep down all of us realize/fear that the movies will be seen as *truth* by the people who don't bother to read the book, who are (let's face it) probably most of the people who see the movies. For most people it then becomes a replacement for the book and drowns out the voice of the original. <P>Now I'm depressed. <P>-Lily

[The Saucepan Man]

Lily, please don't be depressed. <P>I have been a firm Tolkien fan for some 25 years, since I first read the Hobbit, but I cannot resent people enjoying the films for what they are - great films. Some of these filmgoers won't bother reading the books - that's their choice - they're missing out. Some will, but will find them not to their taste (strange people ). And some will be introduced to the books by the films and fall in love with them. That is clear from the many postings at this site which are not of the "I luv orli hes sooooo cooool" type.<P>And so, if a new generation of readers is introduced by the films to the books, that is surely a very comforting thought indeed.

[Nieninque]

Thanks Sauce Man People need to realize that they can't change what's already been done. Me, I sort of 'blend' the two versions together into an LotR that I like. For instance, I love Aragorn's fall (not in the books), and I hate Haldir dying (not in the movie).<BR>If you're not odd like me and don't 'blend', I guess my only advice would be to not see TTT again if you hate it so much.

[The Saucepan Man]

I know what you mean, Nieninque. The films and the books "blend" in my mind in the sense that the visualisations of the characters and the locations (Helm's Deep, wow ) are, in most cases, almost exactly how I imagined them to be when I first read the books. <P>But, I have to say that, as far as the story is concerned, I keep them separate. The books are outstanding books. The films are great films. But the "true" story for me will always be that told in the books.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think deep down all of us realize/fear that the movies will be seen as *truth* by the people who don't bother to read the book, who are (let's face it) probably most of the people who see the movies. For most people it then becomes a replacement for the book and drowns out the voice of the original. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks Lily! I think that is one of the main things that "angers" me the most about these films. I don't want the masses to assume that what they are seeing is what Tolkien wrote. The movies fall far short of the grandness of his story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Darkside, you are right. The films cannot compare with the greatness of the books. But they are still good films.<P>And yes, many may go away (most probably having enjoyed the film) and think that's all there is to Tolkien. But so what? That's their loss.<p>[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Darkside]

I agree, Saucepan Man, it is their loss. I guess I just want Tolkien to receive more respect than that.

[Alphaelin]

This is a good subject, Saucepan Man. I have to say that my disgust at the TTT movie is two-fold. <P>In the first place, giving the 'masses' what they want is not always a good thing. PJ's adaptation of TTT just seems such a dumbing down of a brilliant source. It shows a lack of respect for both the audience that will see it and Tolkien himself. If PJ did not trust/respect the vision of Tolkien, why did he go to the trouble of making the films?<P>Much more personally, I loathed the change he made in the character of Faramir. I believe the arguement was that F. was a 'static character', which makes no sense to me. He had a different emotional battle to fight than his brother, as a good man who chooses the greater good of humanity over his family/people.

[numenorean]

Seeing the above posts I was really suprised that anyone was actually 'angry' at all. Anger and the works of Tolkein do not sit well together by any rationale I can imagine.<P>Darkside:You seemed angry due to a lack of respect thing going on? But Tolkein has never been more respected than he is now - in the UK at any rate. His works are being used as source material in English classes all over the world, and sales of all Tolkein books are soaring as legions of new readers materialise and find out for themselves just how magnificent the texts are. And this is a lack of respect?<BR>As Saucepan himself points out:<BR>"if a new generation of readers is introduced by the films to the books, that is surely a very comforting thought indeed" Right on.<BR>Alphaelin:Your 'disgust' is in part aimed at the 'masses' getting what they want at the expense of some of Tolkeins vision(?) With an open-mind you have to take these films for what they are, a loose non-elitist interpretation. <BR>I was initially gutted when they left out Erkenbrands charge and battles at the Fords of Isen, my friends though, (nonreaders that they are)said words to the effect of:<BR>"Chill out and be happy that anyone has even attempted to tell this massive story on film" so I chilled on it, smiled again and was satisfied enough to re-read that section of the book later - if anything I enjoyed the read all the more because it was so much richer in detail and plot.<BR>We all have favourite bits/characters that didn't make the cinema edit, but to use words like 'anger' and 'loathed' seems a bit harsh and self-defeating when you look at the bigger picture.<p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Numenorean ]

[aducirwen]

well, i am not so angry at the movies, because i've read the books, and i think that if you are dissiponted or angry at the movies you should read the books... They are really good. So, do not complain on the movies, read instead.

[aducirwen]

If you haven't read the books you missed very very much of what tolkien have to offer from his world.....<P>Or am I very wrong...???

[HCIsland]

I've read the books long before I saw the movies and there are certainly things that I would have changed, but I'm still confused by some people's dismay over the movie adaptations.<P>I think the makers of this film have shown respect to Tolkien. Name a large, complex novel that has been faithfully adapted to screen to the standards that many people here are expecting from Jackson. I don't think it exists. Plot and character had to be played with to make the films workable, not just for length, but more importantly for pacing. The respect part came in with the extraordinary detail they put into each and every scene. It's absolutely spell binding what these folks have accomplished and to belittle it because Faramir more rash then he should be ... it's wierd. <P>Name a major film maker that would have done a better job with this material. Try to put Lucus or Spielberg into Jackson's shoes if you want to complain about what PJ has done. When I first heard they were making LoTR into a major feature film, I was worried. What they accomplished is well beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected.<P>You like the books more. Great, so do I. The books are cannon as far as I'm concerned. I don't blend them together to for 'my' version of LoTR. There's Tolkien and nothing else. That doesn't stop these from being great movies.<P>Take the movies for what they are. Take the books for what they are and stop comparing them. They're two different animals. Appreciate them both.<P>H.C.

[eleanor_niphredil]

the first thing that I have to say is that nobody claimed that the new movie was going to be exactly like the book. It says that it is BASED on the works of JRR Tolkien, which is exactly what it was.<P>If you can do better than PJ, then go ahead, be my guest. But I have to say that I loved the films, still love the films and always will love the films just as much as I love the book.<P>One thing that people forget, though, is that PJ is as much of a fan of Tolkien as we are. Otherwise he would never have attemted to make a film. To say that he did it incorrectly just to put his own twist on the story is, sorry to whoever said it, utterly rediculas. <P>Last I would like to remind you that PJ is a person, not just a character in some book. Nobody is perfect. So just, chill out, okay?

[Liriodendron]

If you "hate" FoTR and/or TTT, do yourself of favor and don't go see RoTK. You can be happy without seeing the films. This constant ranting of "the books being ruined" is numbing. As someone already said, "It's already done!" (the movie being made) Either get over it, or ignore it! (or something) If you love ONLY the books, don't let the existance of the movies bring you down! Forget about it! <P>My husband has never read the books and until I made him accompany me to the films, he didn't give a hoot about Tolkien fiction. Now, he's interested, and I wouldn't be surprised if someday he picks up The Hobbit instead of the usual Abraham Lincoln books. What a great day that would be for him! As far as the character of Faramir, the film story is not finished yet, I'm keeping an open mind and looking for "the good stuff". <p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Lalaith]

I'm not angry, I'm frustrated. <BR>They got so much right in the films - and the bits they got right were the hard bits. With just a little bit of courage in the face of accepted commercial movie wisdom, and a little more faith in Tolkien's writing, those films would have been superlative. TTT is particularly frustrating. Like the little girl with the curl, when it was good, it was very, very, good, but when it was bad, it was horrid.

[Darkside]

Lalaith: Hear! Hear! I think that sums it up quite nicely!<P>Numenorean: I did have the word "angry" in quotes in my first post. (I was using the name of the thread.) I am not as angry as I was when I first saw TTT, I am now merely sad. I am glad that book sales have risen. I used to work in a bookstore and was always telling people to read LOTR. I do hope more people read the books. I would, however, have liked to have seen the real story on film. At the very least, something closer than what we have now.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hear hear, HC, eleanor and Liriodendron. <P>HC - Spielburg making LotR! Now, I'm sure that <B>would</B> have made me angry.<P>And Cazzie<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you haven't read the books you missed very very much of what tolkien have to offer from his world.....<BR>Or am I very wrong...???<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You most certainly are not.

[Liriodendron]

Wow! A lava lamp! That's way cooler than my "x"!

[Magician of Nathar]

Well, personally I loved the changes. They are quite fun, like a super huge fan fiction that's very exciting. I think if you wish stay perfectly ture to the books, you should simply avoid the movie. I think Jackson's changes in the film was perfectly reasonable. To make a movie sell you need all that stuff(romance, suspence, fast pace, main-character-almost-dead-again, you know what I am talking about) And his changes are not horrid, and it's fun to see how he interpret the story. I just love the new twist in the story. I don't understand about the people who are complaining. If the movie follows the book exactly, and you know every line the characters will speak, what fun would it be??!!!! Generally speaking. TTT is a good film. The only proble I see is the editing.

[Thor]

I was disappointed, but not angry, that the demands of making an action movie detracted from the nobility of several of the characters. The most obvious being Faramir but also Frodo, Treebeard and Gimli. I, however, greatly enjoyed the settings and costumes and the epic grandeur of a place I've always had a great reverence for. Also FotR was an absolutely wonderful movie and TTT lost a little of the magic in my opinion. Possibly it suffered from being the middle of an absolutely awesome story - it therefore had no beginning and no ending - always a handicap to any movie standing alone I would guess.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. I went to see the film for a second time this week and I've changed my mind. Not radically. I still think that its an excellent film and the visualisation remains its great strength.<P>And I can still understand why some of the storyline was changed and or simply left out.<P>What annoys me is that some of the scenes just don't make sense.<P>Why on earth, for example, does Faramir think its a good idea to let Frodo and Sam go to Mordor after all, when he's just witnessed Frodo almost giving it to a Nazgul? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think we finally understand each other, Frodo Baggins <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Surely he should have been saying "What the **** do you think you were you doing? Are you mad? Look. Give it here and I'll take it to Mordor". OK, a radical storyline change, but it would have made more sense in the circumstances.<P>And the Theoden Exorcism scene (cue Theoden head spinning and projectile pea soup). What the **** was Wormtongue there for, if Saruman could just possess Theoden himself?<P>And Aragorn going over the cliff wasn't necessary (did that Warg have lemming genes?). They could have put the Aragorn/Arwen scenes in elsewhere and a scout could have spotted the hordes of orcs approaching.<P>Oh, and I didn't like the Wargs - silly stuffed hyenas with lazy eyes.<P>Other than that, I loved it! <P>No, seriously, I do still think that it was a fantastic film. But now I do understand a bit more some of the irritation felt by others.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But now I do understand a bit more some of the irritation felt by others.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> Yeah!!! Thanks, Saucepan Man! That's all I ever wanted to hear from someone who liked the film. A wee bit of understanding towards the angst of the not quite purist. (I can't call myself a purist because I understand they won't make the movies word-for-word, but I can still dream! )<BR>I have always thought that the movies looked beautiful, but the story was lacking. A few minor changes are o.k. , but don't make silly, implausible stuff up and add it in.

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But, this was a film made for mass audiences - it had to be to pull in the money required for it to be made in the first place <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's all well and good and completely understandable. HOWEVER, Jackson made a point of saying at every opportunity that he was making these films "for the fans" of which he purported to be one. We all looked forward to them and after FotR we walked away saying, "OK, well some things were changed but overall it stuck to the story," and we held great optimism for TTT. Now, however, our optimism seems to have been proven misplaced and I, for one, feel not only disappointed but betrayed.<P>If I had not been lured into a false sense of security, I would have EXPECTED major changes - as happens with most book-to-movie situations. As it was, the changes shocked and disappointed me to a very great degree.<P>Yes, they are epic films and deserve kudos for the most part. I think if one could separate themselves from the books for 3 hours, they would be quite enthralled. I think the problem is that most Tolkien fans (and I mean REAL Tolkien FANS) can't do that. Not won't - CAN'T. These books are way too personal of an experience for us and the sort of tampering that has occurred feels very close to violation.

[Gorwingel]

Oh yeah, the Wargs really dissapointed me, they were defently unecessary action.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think if one could separate themselves from the books for 3 hours, they would be quite enthralled. I think the problem is that most Tolkien fans (and I mean REAL Tolkien FANS) can't do that. Not won't - CAN'T. These books are way too personal of an experience for us and the sort of tampering that has occurred feels very close to violation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So, are you saying that those of us who read and fell in love with the books many many years before the films were even twinklings in Jackson's eyes, but still enjoyed the films for what they are (films, that is) are not REAL Tolkien FANS? <p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, are you saying that those of us who read and fell in love with the books many many years before the films were even twinklings in Jackson's eyes, but still enjoyed the films for what they are (films, that is) are not REAL Tolkien FANS? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, no, no! Absolutely not! Take your meany-face back, Saucepan, I simply let my fingers move faster than my brain again! Poor choice of words - my apologies. There was absolutely no slur intended to anyone who can accomplish that separation, in fact I envy those who can. I know these are good films and I'm thrilled to see that they're driving people to the book stores to discover the joys of the true Tolkien. I simply don't have the intellectual capacity to disassociate myself from the books long enough to completely enjoy the films. My own failing, I know, but one I seem to share with many, many others.<P>Come on, now, Saucepan Man, forgive me? Send me a smiley.

[Bill Ferny]

WHAT? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, <I>Star Wars</I>, or <I>Dragonheart</I>, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as <I>Ben Hur</I> or <I>Spartacus</I>.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Alright Kalessin, now you really have me <I><B>ANGRY</B></I>!!! Far superior to <I>Dragonheart</I>? Maybe “a bit superior”, or just plain “superior”, but “far superior” sounds like an insult, especially since you placed it right next to <I>Star Wars</I>. Sean Connery, Pete Postlewait and Denis Quaid in the same movie, along with a dragon, swords, a red-headed Saxon babe, and guys with horns jutting out of their hats - not every trip to the theatre is that enjoyable! So far LotR edges out <I>Ben Hur</I> and <I>Braveheart</I>, but barely, and <I>Spartacus</I> doesn’t even come close as epic/adventure/action flicks go.<P>I’m not angry. LotR rules! (Who is this Tolkien guy you guys keep talking about?)<P>Naw, seriously, I like what Saucepan Man says about separating the movie experience from the reading experience. There will always be things in the movies that I’ll scoff at, especially this Hollywood thing for Errol Flynn sword fights; despite the thousands of re-enactors out there who could show them in a few hours a much more exciting, historically accurate, fight style, Hollywood just can’t get it right. Directors, producers, etc., etc. are, like Frank Herbert says, people “that pretend to creativity and shy away from risks.” (Thanks for posting that Kel; in light of that I forgive you for what you said about <I>Dragonheart</I>.)<P>I already have a low opinion of Hollywood, and its so-called intelligencia, so I take everything at the theatre with a grain of salt. That’s how I can sit there and watch fencing with Norman swords, and William Wallace have an affair with Isabella, even if the real William Wallace had ever had sex with the real Isabella he would be a pedophile (she was like, what? 6 years old when the guy died). Producers and directors will always make movies for the mob, just like the Caesars always made the circus for the mob. I’m sure the real Roman generals sat around scoffing at the gladiators, but the mob expected antics and drama, not the mundane mud and dysentery of the legions. So, like the Caesars, Hollywood lives by the rule: keep the mob happy, and the mob will keep you happy.

[Melephelwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why on earth, for example, does Faramir think its a good idea to let Frodo and Sam go to Mordor after all, when he's just witnessed Frodo almost giving it to a Nazgul? <P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> I think we finally understand each other, Frodo Baggins <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Surely he should have been saying "What the **** do you think you were you doing? Are you mad? Look. Give it here and I'll take it to Mordor". OK, a radical storyline change, but it would have made more sense in the circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think the "I think we finally understand etc." line was intended on the things Sam told Faramir about Boromir. And perhaps he saw that the Ring wasn't just going for "Me! Me! I'm son of of Steward of Gondor! I'm the best!" but anyone who could get it back to Sauron. You know, realizing that he wasn't <I>that</I> special to the Ring. And understanding that Frodo & Sam were the only ones who could get the Ring to Mordor without getting caught.<BR>But it doesn't belong in this thread, I'll go find a Faramir thread

[The Saucepan Man]

Weeeeeeell, Aratlithiel ... OK, then. <P>But, you might understand my reaction when you consider that I first read LotR age 10/11. At that time, I considered myself to be the BIGGEST Tolkien fan ever (I was amongst my friends and family). After reading it (and again, and again, shortly thereafter), I was desperate to hear more of ME and the characters that I had grown so fond of. I tried reading the Silmarillion, but found it heavy going, and there was little else around at that time. <P>Some 25 years later, I hear that a film of the books is being made. This is a mouth-watering propsect and I go to see FotR with glee. I enjoy it. Some changes are made, and bits are left out, but overall I am astounded by how the film captures this world just how I had imagined it all those years ago.<P>I read the books again. At the same time, my wife (who had never thought that she would be interested before seeing the film) starts reading the books for the first time, and loves them.<P>A year later, I see TTT. I am preoccupied by the changes, which are more radical than they were in FotR. But, on reflection, I can understand why changes needed to be made. I consider it a good film, nonetheless. I go to see it again and still enjoy it, while developing a slight irritation over the bits that I feel don't hang together (see above).<P>My fresh interest in JRRT's works, remains and I discover this site and make a renewed attempt on the Silmarillion (which I am currently thoroughly enjoying).<P>Just a potted history, but I hope it goes some way to showing where I am coming from. I enjoyed these films purely as films, and can see them as distict from the books on that level. But they have also re-awakened my love for the books and prompted me to go further in my exploration of them. They have also introduced my wife to the books, for which I am very grateful.<P>What you say does give me some understanding of why TTT has prompted so much reaction, possibly more than any of the other responses on this topic and many thanks for that . But, this is just a film. Whether you enjoy it or not, it in no sense devalues JRRT's works for those who know and love them.<p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Just thought that I would resurrect this topic, since there are a number of good points made here (both for and against the films) which might be of interest to those who post regularly in this forum (going by a number of recent postings here).<P>Also, I would be keen to hear the views of those who have joined more recently. In particular, I am interested in <B>why</B> you reacted to the films in the way that you did (whether positively or negatively) rather than <B>what</B> it was in the films that you particularly liked or disliked.

[Mariska Greenleaf]

As a relatively new member here at the Downs, which until now, I have enjoyed very much, I would like to ad my point of view.<P>First of all, I would like to tell you how I got to know Tolkien's work.<BR>I read the books when I was about 16, and I was immediately in love with it. But I must confess, this happens with a lot of books I read... <P>Still, the Lord of the rings was something different than other books I had read. I read a lot of fantasy books when I was a teen, but never did they have such an impact on me as lotr.<P>When I first heard that a film was made, I thought it would be totally impossible to do so. I couldn't imagine how on earth they could ever make a movie out of such a monumental work, not only the decors and battles, but also the story itself.<BR>Even with three movies, I thought it would be impossible to cover the book.<P>When I got to see the fotr, I was speechless. It was amazing. It was the best movie I had ever seen! Some time had passed since I first read the books, so after seeing the first movie about 5 times, I started reading the books again.<BR>The fact that PJ left out Tom Bombadil was a bit dissapointing, but still, I thought it was absolutely great!<P>So, I read the books again, and I couldn't wait to see TTT. I notice now that a lot of people have doubts about this second movie, about the changes PJ made, about the continuity,...<BR>I can understand and partly agree with those complaints. But...<P>My very first thought was that TTT is again a great movie, and it must have been a massive job for PJ and the crew to make it happen. I can only admire this, and I really have the feeling that, despite of the changes, this movie, just as the first one, is made by people who love the books, and are willing to do justice to them.<P>I am a huge fan, of the books, and of the movies. Maybe I'm even a little too fanatic, well that's what my family and friends tell me...<P> <P>Anyway, I can't wait to see the rotk, I'm sure it will be great!<P>(sorry if my english is a bit childish, but it is difficult for me to come up with proper sentences and hard words. Therefor I use easy words to express my thoughts )

[The Only Real Estel]

I think my reaction to it is better described as disapointment or dismay than anger. Sometimes when I am posting comments about the changes made to TTT I use the mad smiley face ( ), but usually that is only because it is the best way to describe my feelings toward it. Although I like FotR & can tolerate TTT, this is ONE of my reasons for disapointment/dismay. When I heard they were FINALLY coming out with the movies I was overjoyed, because now I would get to see the books on screen ( not word for word, scene for scene but you know what I mean ). When FotR came out, it was exactly what I expected, a bit left out here, a bit added here, but nothing earth-shattering about those things. I LOVED the movie. Then when TTT came out & made all those changes, I was thunder-struck for a while. Then I realized the reasons for the changes, although that didn't really help me much. Just one quick example: People say PJ 'ruined' Farimir to add more drama to the movie, but that really doesn't make sense. Which would add more drama, Farimir & the lame Frodo/Nazgul scene at Osgiliath? Or Shelob & Frodo (which they'd have had time for had they left OUT Osgiliath & left Farimir alone)? The same drama would've been created, if not more. It's all right when there is a genuine reason, but when people start to make up things, that is just pathetic.

[Elentári]

Ok, I first read Lord of the Rings when I was in year 6...about 11 I think, and The Fellowship came out when I was in year 9...so it looks like I'm a lot younger than some of the people on here...oh well, it's a great site, and there are great discussions on here.<BR>Then I read it again before I saw the Fellowship, and I thought that it was really quite brilliant...I was glad they left out Tom Bombadil, for me he was too...otherworldy, I guess, for him to be fairly portrayed.<BR>Then I read it another three times before the Two Towers came out, and I was distracted by the changes I couldn't concentrate on the film...my memory of it was slightly hazy. But then I decided that I should just forget about the books while I'm watching the film because they are completely different. So I did that the next two times and enjoyed it. But Faramir, frankly, is annoying. I was disappointed that they left out the 'Boromir's body in the boat' experience, but there is a rumour that it's in the Extended version, so I'm hoping it is...<BR>So why did I get annoyed? Well, I guess I was just thinking 'this is completely wrong! What the hell is happening here???' Especially when Aragorn was dragged off the cliff, and Faramir...I won't start.<BR>Oh, and someone made a comment about proper fans not being those rabid fangirls of Orli etc etc....well I love Orli, and I love the books, and I think the films are great. So what does that make me?

[Estella Brandybuck]

Great topic, <B>Saucepan Man</B>. Some really good points have been made in this thread. <P>I'm certainly not angry with the movies... it was only after seeing the first movie that I decided to read the books. Sometimes that leads me to believe (judging by other members' posts here) that I'm not a "true fan."<P>But anywho... After reading the first book, I thought that the first movie followed it very well. Any additions and subtractions were made for the good of the film itself (in my opinion, anyway).<P>However, I was a bit disappointed with TTT film as an adaptation. I loved it as a movie by itself, though. The portrayal of Faramir's character, the scenes in Rivendell, the whole Aragorn-falling-off-a-cliff thing - they really took away from the movie for me. But I understand why they were done, because this movie wasn't made only for the people who had been fans of the books before. That'd be rather selfish, wouldn't it? And besides - even if you were upset with the movie, it's not as though PJ personally went around and tore out pages in your copies of the books. Those books will always be there for you to enjoy.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If anyone keeps fussing about all the "unbearable/disappointing/dismaying" changes, then they should to go film school, get trained, and make a movie themselves. If they don't want to do that, then they should just shut up and stop whining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Finwe, while I am a great fan of the films and disagree with many of the criticisms that are put forward concerning the changes that were made, I am not sure that it is really helpful to tell people to stop whining and make their own films if they don't like them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I am quite interested to hear why it is that people feel the way that they do about the films, whether positive or negative. It's why I started this thread in the first place. <P>The purpose of this thread is not to engender criticism of those who hold opposite views, but to explore why it is that some people react with anger and/or disappointment and/or dismay at some or all of the changes that were made, while others are happy to accept them.<P>Edit: While I appreciate that you were seeking to defend your point of view in light of what Finwe said, Estel, the point made above goes for everyone. This thread is <B>not</B> for people to attack or criticise those who hold different views. If it degenerates into that kind of debate, I will arrange for it to be closed. Now, since I believe that would be a shame, I trust that this discussion may now proceed in more reasonable fashion.<p>[ July 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Niluial]

It was a disappointment but hey read the book! Don’t get me wrong the movies were good but I suppose it is hard to capture all that with out making it drag! At least we know the whole story when the movie fans only got half of it !

[Finwe]

Forgive me mellyn! I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post, and now, as I look back at it, I think that it was quite out of line. I'm really sorry if I have offended some people, and I sincerely apologize for that. I think that sometimes I have a bit of Fëanor's temper, and that does get me into trouble at times. I'm really sorry!

[Elentári]

Ah, don't worry Finwe...and I'm glad you said that in a way, because of that nice long reply the real Estel wrote, listing some of the minor changes, which I really needed some help on for my speech at school. And that long reply is a good argument for those people who actually mean what you said, Finwe, and don't mind offending people in the process.

[Ophelia]

I am really ok with the films . In any case it would not be too interesting to wach those films if they would be excactly done by the book (and it would take 36h long film to do so) . And there is one advice that never fails - if you do not like it do not wach those films . You will save a whole lot o'anger to your selves and especially to the others . <BR>And actually I had not even read the book when I saw TTT but I knew it was not what I was waiting for but that does not disalow me to enjoy the beatyful work and be greatful for the films are done extremely good by knowing todays audiences wish to see fights , blood , cliches and what else . But though a job may be done so good that there is no nothing to point out there will always be people to say that the job is fake or bad done or so . The only thing you can do is choose sides and remain there . <P>Pheew...... When I read this all over again I feel the need to ask pardon for my no-sence-making reply .

[Tinuviel of Denton]

Well, I've come late to this thread, as usual, but I will post my opinion anyway.<P>For myself, I really liked the movies, though I did make some nitpicky remarks when I watched them, but angry doesn't really sum up my feelings. Hurt, perhaps, or maybe disappointed. I thought that TTT would have followed the story at least as well as FotR, but...I will survive, and I can always read the books and make my own pictures in my head. When I'm reminded, I rant and rave about the differences, like Faramir, and the Elves at Helm's Deep, but mostly, I just enjoy the vision of ME come to life right in front of me. For the first time, I can <I>see</I>, with real physical eyes, Rivendell and Lothlorien and Minas Tirith. I appreciate the work that went into the movies, as an actress myself, I know how hard it is to really live up to a character in a classic story. I just hope that RotK makes up for TTT.<P>I apologize if this was garbled.

[Kaiserin]

FACT: The original books are more often, if not always, better than the film versions.<BR>I have to say that the changes in the films were rather upsetting - though not really angering. Great books are impossible to squeeze into a 3 hours of film. <BR>The alterations were at first appalling (Arwen rescuing Frodo, Faramir, the elf army, etc.), but I must admit that I <I>did</I>appreciate the synaesthetic appeal. If I consider the movies <I>apart</I> from the books, I would have to admit that those movies were good work: not-perfect-but-good actors, breathtaking sets, and extreme attention to detail (i.e., notice the petrified William the troll and co. in the background of FotR). <BR>Consider this: Jackson is himself a Tolkien fan, and the movies he made were just his expression of admiration. Think of his movies as "fan art". If several different Tolkien fans were given the opportunity (and resources) to make their movie versions of the same trilogy, I'm sure they'd come up with several very different interpretations. <BR>Still, <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> some of the storyline was changed and or simply left out.<P>What annoys me is that some of the scenes just don't make sense.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I feel the same way

[Lyra Greenleaf]

I go through phases- sometimes I mind the changes, sometimes I don't. Usually I have to say when I'm watching the film I fall into the world and everything seems real, believable and perfect... Well, everything except the hatchet job on Faramir, that came in for lots of gnashing teeth. It's only afterwards that things start to niggle. <P>Maybe it's because I wasn't a long time fan of the books. The first time I saw FOTR I was half way through ROTK (the book), so as you can imagine my impressions, ideas and thoughts weren't too settled. This means that although I can claim to be a book first person (just about), when I think about it most of my visions of people and places are pretty much impossible to disconnect from the film. By the time TTT came out, I'd read the books 5 times (I think) so I was more able to snipe at little things... Perhaps that's why I can never think of bad things to say about FOTR. Well, apart from Arwen, warrior princess.<P>I think I can understand anger coming from people who have had a fixed idea of what things should be, but the problem is that everyone's will be different and you couldn't please everyone even if you stayed strict to Tolkien. I mean people would start arguing about Legolas' hair or the Balrog wings again! <P>In the end, there's a simple solution if you hate the film: don't watch it. Or if you like the film, like the book but can't see how they fit together- try not to think of them together. Think of them as two different versions of a similar story. Try looking at the film as a certain interpretation and analysing whether it's good or bad on it's own terms. I have to say- I think it's great!

[Sirithheruwen]

I was disappointed more than angry at the way TTT turned out. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was an awesome movie, better than the first action-wise, but I especially didn't like how they changed Faramir. I loved his character in the book, and how nice he was to them, but in the movie he was horrible. I don't mind changing little things, because as you say, the book isnt being changed, but changing a whole character's PERSONALITY???

[Snowdog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I've read a lot on various discussion threads about people being really angry with the way in which the story was changed from the book to the films. I am curious to know why this is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Show me a movie made from a book that faithfully steps each and every of the story? It don't happen. I have to agree that I was <I>disappointed</I> in the way Arwen was brought into the story even though I <I>understand</I> why PJ did it. Other changes like those of Faramir was to bring him into a <I>cinematic</I> character vs his <I>book</I> character, and again I understand why PJ did it but am disappointed at <I>how</I> he did it. I hold hope that the ['book' Faramir' will emerge in Return of the King. But if not, I remember as I watch these films that this is Middle Earth and the tales of old as seen and interpreted by PJ, not b me, and I hold to my own visions and interpretations from what I have read from the same tales of old.<P>What I think <I>PJ did</I> in the movies that <I>enhanced my vision of the story?</I> one word: <I>Boromir.</I>

[The Saucepan Man]

Bumping this up for the post-RotK/RotK EE reaction.

Re-reading the thread, there are some interesting thoughts expressed both pro- and con- the films. It's a bit of a slog, given the formatting changes, but worth the effort. Hmm, perhaps I should heed HerenIstarion's advice and try tidying it up at some point.)

Given that the films still seem, on occasion, to generate strong feelings either way, I would be interested to hear further thoughts - from members new and old.

[Essex]

A few people mentioned their hopes in Faramir's character being restored to bookish proportions in ROTK. I think, especially in the EE, this has happened.

Reading this thread and, of course, the Gandalf v Witch King thread, I don't think I've ever put forward how I watch the films. Whenever they stray from the book or just leave passages out, I still have the book in mind when I watch the films unfold.

For example, the film Hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil (and therefore Pippin and Merry had amnesia when they mentioned the Old Forest when they were near Fangorn!!!). Therefore the Sword Merry has was the sword from the book which enabled him to unkit the WK's 'magic' and enable Eowyn to get the killer blow.

Therefore, the movie characters ARE the book characters to me when I watch the films. I still feel the same fellings when I watch emotional parts of the film, and if I hadn't read the books, the strength of my feelings would be NO WAY as near as they actually are. For example, I wouldn't have cried like a baby when Aragorn knelt infront of Frodo and Sam (aren't I clever? :smokin: ) in the movie if I hadn't read the books.

Therefore this is why I feel no anger towards PJ (and to be honest, in my opinion the main force of change was Phillipa Boyens watching all the dvd extras) along with the fact I mentioned in the GVWK thread that I now understand movie making a whole lot more than I did 4 years ago.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the reply, Essex. :)

My approach is different. I keep the book and the films separate in my mind, although I have adopted aspects of the films (particularly the imagery) into my interpretation of the book.

But it seems that, while there are many here who are prepared to vent their frustration (and sometimes quite forcefully so) over particular scenes (or include barbed comments about the films in their posts on book matters, where such comments rarely have much relevance), there are few who are prepared to explain exactly why, on a more general level, they feel the way that they do. (I do not, of course, include those who have replied previously to this thread).

Anyone have any further thoughts ... ?

[Boromir88]

I think one may express which one they like better, this particular scene in the book vs. the movie, or maybe, what might have worked better in the movies/books. (Yes this can work both ways).

I think the MoS is an example of it would have been better to treat like the book. Where he rides back in shame, and the banter between him, Gandalf, and Aragorn I deeply miss. I would just find that to be downright better then Aragorn simply chopping off his head.

Then on the other side...

I like that PJ switched some lines around. For example, instead of in the book Gandalf saying, "Too long have you (Grima) haunted her (Eowyn's) steps...etc." PJ gives this line to Eomer, which I think has a lot more effect hearing it from her brother, then it does from Gandalf. (Although that is rather insignificant I just think that line works a lot better with Eomer saying it, instead of Gandalf).

What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.

[The Only Real Estel]

My approach is different. I keep the book and the films separate in my mind, although I have adopted aspects of the films (particularly the imagery) into my interpretation of the book

I've tried to do much the same thing. Earlier in my barrowdowns days (full of now embarrassing posts :o) I would get extremely bent out of shape about all the changes (mostly Faramir); but now I try to keep them seperate as much as possible. Of course I am still disappointed in some changes, & some of the RotK changes I still need to get used to (mostly Denethor's death), but for the most part I try to remember that both are great in their own areas--the books are great books & the movies are great movies. It's not worth it for me to get overly caught up in PJ not putting Tolkien's books down on screen completely accurately, it ruined the expierence of the movies & made me mad when I read those parts in the books.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think one may express which one they like better, this particular scene in the book vs. the movie, or maybe, what might have worked better in the movies/books.Agreed. Although I was really trying to understand why it is that some people just dislike the films generally. As you know, there are many threads devoted to discussions of particular scenes. Having said that, it can be useful for people to give specific examples of scenes to explain why they did not like the films, or why those scenes 'tainted' the films in some way for them.


What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.Good point, and one that I agree with entirely.

[Nurumaiel]

Boromir88 said:
What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.

I too agree with this, Boromir88. And with the example of Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron fresh in my mind... as you and others have pointed out in your Was it out of character? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11576) thread, it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.

But there's another sort of anger that doesn't bother me, and that I indeed feel myself when watching the movies. Considering that the movies were based off of the books, it's not very unreasonable to be upset because the movies strayed from the books in one way or another. Using the same example, one of the reasons I don't like Aragorn's disposal of the Mouth of Sauron is because Aragorn of the books wouldn't do it. But I think there is a lack of absurdity in this because my complaint is not with this one scene 'because it wasn't in this books,' but with this one scene coupled with others that shows what my real problem with it is. Aragorn wasn't like this in the books, and I think there's a problem with the translation of his character from book to film.

To be brief, it's not a nit-picky little anger that says this scene is wrong because it wasn't in the books (that is, as Boromir88 said, trying to argue against the movie from the books' context, which can easily be out of context with the movie), but this character is wrong and so causes this scene to be wrong.

I have a slight fear that I'm not being exactly clear, so I'll try to phrase it once more to make sure.

From this my very post:
it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.

My anger is not that 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' but 'Aragorn in the book isn't such a thing, and so wouldn't do such a thing, and I don't think it was necessary for that to be different in the movies.'

Another example is Frodo. From the Fellowship, one little thing that bothered me was the scene on Weathertop, where he trembles, drops his sword, and falls helplessly to the ground, whereas in the book he actually took a shot at the Nazgul. My reason is not: 'Well, in the context of the book Frodo wouldn't have done such a thing,' because, if my memory serves me correctly, Frodo very well could have done such a thing even in the books, and the scene in the movie actually isn't even out of context. But Frodo is out of character, and that's the problem. It's only one of a few scenes where he trembles and falls back, when, in the books, he stood straight and fought.

For me, and perhaps for others, it isn't a problem of the scene being out of character (and book's context), but the character being out of character. And the anger from the point of view of the book, not from the point of view of the book's context, seems excusable.

[Guinevere]

I feel exactly like Nurumaiel ! It's the changing of the characters that bothers me ; above all Frodo, Denethor, Aragorn, Faramir and in RotK even Gandalf ! (Has any one else noticed that he is quite without hope in the last debate ?!)
When watching the movies I sometimes feel like I am surrounded by dear old friends affected by schizophrenia : they look so familiar and "right" but sometimes they suddenly talk and behave not like themselves at all.

Like I said in the thread about Gandalf and the Witchking: they made everyone more "human" because they apparently thought those "superhuman" characters, wiser, nobler and less flawed than we are, wouldn't be believable to the movie public. But in changing those characters, they changed something essential about the whole story. (Especially through the altered character of Frodo)

[alatar]

When watching the movies I sometimes feel like I am surrounded by dear old friends affected by schizophrenia : they look so familiar and "right" but sometimes they suddenly talk and behave not like themselves at all.

Did anyone else hear voices in his/her head when first watching the movies? No, not like that...I mean that as I had all of the dialogue from the books up in my head that when I saw the movies, I would either be (1) expecting specific dialogue or (2) expecting specific dialogue from a specific character. Constantly I would be thinking, "But he said that, not him..."

Luckily TTT started to diverge from the books, and I gave up hope by ROTK, and so there were less voices. My wife (who never read the books) and I would discuss the movies after our annual 'date,' and on the way home I would be ranting about how PJ had changed who said what.

And PJ said time and again that he might change the story (just a little?!?), but the Tolkien world would look right.

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting. Thanks for your comments. :)

It was inevitable that, to adapt the book to film, there would be changes, including changes in the characters, plotline etc. But I can understand that, when people who know and love the books see such changes as unnecessary, it can put them off. Personally, I think that most (although not all) of the changes can be justified on a film adaptation rationale. In particular, as far as character changes are concerned, they felt that they had to make changes in order to tie in with the themes that they wanted to emphasise and/or enhance the appeal of the characters for modern (non-book reading) film audiences. On the latter point, I have some sympathy for the view that perhaps they were under-estimating audiences and should have taken a punt with the characters as Tolkien wrote them. Although I can also understand why they didn't want to take a risk on such a big budget film.

It does seem to me that, to really enjoy the films (or at least not to feel anger, frustration etc at them), one has to either accept that they tell a slightly different story with slightly (or, in some cases quite markedly) different characters, like I do, or look for the book characters in the film characters, like Essex does. Even then, of course, there are minor points of irritation - for me these occur where the films are internally inconsistent or where a scene seems to me to be gratuitous. But then, few films, if any, can match the expectations of their audiences perfectly.


i mean that as I had all of the dialogue from the books up in my head that when I saw the movies, I would either be (1) expecting specific dialogue or (2) expecting specific dialogue from a specific character. Constantly I would be thinking, "But he said that, not him..."Yes but, like you, I gave up on this with TTT. I did feel uncomfortable with the changes when I first viewed it, but then it occurred to me that I should not view it as telling the book story, but as telling a slightly different story.


And PJ said time and again that he might change the story (just a little?!?), but the Tolkien world would look right.But to my mind, the films did capture the look of the world (almost) perfectly.