[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

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

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

An interesting thought. I'm not entirely sure I'd have gone to watch the films myself had I not been such a fan of the books; I can take it or leave it as far as big budget action 'flicks' are concerned. So it's a very good point that as readers it is inevitable that we will bring a whole pile of presumptions and expectations with us along to the cinema with the bucket of popcorn. Alas, expectations make for an uncomfortable seat after 3 hours, and when I saw changes made that quite frankly confused me, I was quite cross. 3 hours is surely enough time to get across the plot and characters correctly?

The quite amusing thing is that I have seen many adaptations of comic books which I have found immensely entertaining, only to be told by afficionados that such films are 'rubbish' (and stronger, more Anglo-Saxon words have been used...) as they do not stick to the originals. So it's not just Peter Jackson who mucks things around.

Still, I like the films, in fact, I love the films. I have watched them many many times and there are many things in them which delight me. So why do I get so narked and humpty about the changes to the plot? Because, as far as I can see it, there was no justification for such changes as the Faramir episode or Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny. I simply cannot see why certain stupid and frankly dumb things were included, when this time could have been given over to including the stuff which would have helped the films make more sense plotwise, the stuff from the books. Jackson showed he could make changes to some things and keep their integrity, but not to others. I got the distinct impression that the team got themselves into a tangle with their changes and could not really justify them.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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

I agree broadly with what Formedacil says here. It is indeed difficult to stick rigidly to a book when adapting it to a different medium, and I have yet to see a 100% perfect adaptation, but it could indeed have been so much better.

Perhaps I ought to stick to what I term 'pure film', where it is based on a new story, not on an adaptation.

Originally Posted by SpM

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

I still question just how small a proportion of the audience was made up of fans of the books. Are they not amongst the most widely read books in the world? Of course, some may have not picked them up for many a year, but they have still read them. And even the membership of the 'Downs includes a significant amount of people who can be called 'Film recruits' (with thanks to Snowdog's thread for the terminology ), who have since read the books. I wonder how this translates within the wider audience of the films? I certainly know many people who have become addicted Tolkienistas since the films came out. Strange thing is, a rather large proprtion of these new recruits also bring up the changed scenes and criticise them. So it might actually be a smaller proportion of the audience than we think who are confirmed (committed?) non-readers.

Originally Posted by Essex

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

I have to disagree! I don't think it follows the book any more closely than the LotR films follow the books. But the interesting thing is that Prisoner of Azkhaban also wanders away from the text, yet is the best of the three films in my opinion. I think much of the success has to do with the quality of the adult actors in the HP films, something which also was of great benefit to the LotR films, as I find little to fault in that respect.

Originally Posted by SpM

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

There are a fair few of these on the boards, surely? I often find some decent things being discussed, and I don't always bring my gripes to the table.