Zigűr's point about the tonal differences between the books and movies is well taken, especially the shift from spiritual crisis to personal angst (alas, but the old chestnut about spreading around the Rep wealth pertains...). For me, this definitely seems crucial, but, oddly enough, I'm not sure how far to take it. I certainly think Jackson's take on Middle-earth is tonally off, but I'm in that weird little camp where I think it's close enough in the LotR that I still recognise his movies (esp. Fellowship) as
The Lord of the Rings--though I think you're right about a key part of where and why they break down from that--but do NOT recognise them as
The Hobbit.
Part of the reason this thread came about is because I've always been interested in adaptations (raging against the current ones notwithstanding). The process of what changes get made fascinates me, and I think the best way to ensure the future of the original work is to diversify its adaptations. Although I think dropping Tom Bombadil was one of the most sensible cuts Jackson made to the story, I also think he's essential to the story and the movie adaptation than can do him justice will be the one that really "gets" the LotR (perhaps this thread should have been entitled "Cognitive Adaptational Dissidence").
Much like the question of canonicity--to which this is closely allied--I think the answer is complicated about where I would draw the line in the sand. What I find really interesting is Tolkien's own interest in variant texts--look at the long and short tellings of the Narn, for instance, or the prose and poetry versions of Beren and Lúthien. But
The Lord of the Rings is much more of a monolith. The only retellings Tolkien gives us himself as so drastically curtailed as to be scarcely incomparable ("Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" and "The Tale of the Years") and even though they also tell the story of the Ringbearer's quest, they aren't
The Lord of the Ringsper se, because the LotR is more than just the destruction of the Ring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
Now the interesting thing about these characters is that all of the examples I came up with are people who are innately good and noble. Sometimes it is not obvious, but the goodness can be traced underneath whatever is covering it. Theoden was a decent King until Wormtongue took hold of him, and afterwards he was awakened. Smeagol still shows his face from underneath Gollum. Denethor could be a debatable case - as in it's debatable if he really comes back, and the extent to which he comes back. Isildur too - I do not remember the UT account that well, but I think it could be argued both ways. Then there are some people who are just people. Wormtongue. I can't say he's necessarily evil, but he just has no iron rod in his character that makes his stick to a moral code, or a duty. Destroying Rohan - well, he's a person without that much of a conscience, and he thought it was worth it. Killing Saruman - he was driven beyond the point of bearing it in silence. He doesn't really have a "true character", per se. I guess the big question here is if he was just big enough to cause trouble but not big enough to have the right backbone - and I don't have time to go into it as I have to return to my chemistry homework. It would certainly be an interesting point to come back to, although I'm not sure how far it will lead into such trivial questions as inherent good and evil, duality of human nature, and redemption. I think I'll leave off here before I get entirely sidetracked.  |
The goodness at the heart of all people is, I think, a major theme in the way Gollum is presented in the LotR, so I find myself disagreeing with your assertion that "some people [] are just people. Wormtongue. [...] I can't say he's necessarily evil, but he just has no iron rod in his character that makes him stick to a moral code or duty." Or, rather, I think Tolkien is trying to say that ALL people are just people in this respect.
Frodo and Sam--and the Hobbits in general--are just people. So much has been written about how the diminutive stature of the Hobbits is indicative of their position in the story (and note too their relative closeness to the modern day in the Shire) as the most relatable characters to the reader, yet their iron wills are no less than Aragorn's. That's what makes Wormtongue damnable, the same was what makes Saruman damnable: he didn't choose the right things.
In other words, I come down strongly against "inherent good and evil"--as a dual system.
