[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fordim

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

Originally Posted by Fordim

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

Originally Posted by Fordim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SpM

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

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

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

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