Split Personality?

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet... it would seem that there is some middleground here that we both can stand upon with a degree of comfort. I am glad to hear you say that you see that some of the things Jackson did were better for the film.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

I see it pretty close to the way you do regarding this scene. A book does not have to be as dramatic and as emotional as a film does. What JRRT wrote was excellent for the book and worked extremely well. For the film version, it would have bordered on underplaying the whole moment. So Jackson made it more dramatic, more poignant and it turn took on more emotional resonance with the audience. And of course, that was Jacksons intent.

I see it much the same with the expanded role for Arwen within the LOTR story (as opposed to the Appendices). The entire Arwen-Argorn story is far more emotional in the film than it is in the book. In the book that type of showcase for the love story may have distracted from the rest of the tale and tried to turn the book into something it was never intended to be. But for the movie, what Jackson did worked well and it helped make the movie the success it was.

Perhaps the difference in how some of see these things is the perspective we are coming from. Allow me to explain how I have always seen this.

A book is one thing and a film is quite another. Each has its own internal laws, rules, constructions, devices, approaches, techniques and methods that further and aid in creating the world that it becomes. And each of these elements are somewhat different when you go from one medium to another. What makes for a great book does not always make for a great film.

I accept that and do not expect my films to look like my books.

I also accept the economic and business realities of the film making business and harbor no fantasies about what the true bottom line is and what the purpose of any film is.

In the end, I view the LOTR as a magnificent tale told by two different story tellers using two very different mediums. The story tellers are divided my more than half a century in time, and separated by different sides of the world. One had complete control of their end of the tale while the other had to work within from an established and beloved template and within a corporate and team concept. One had to answer to only himself since it was his own creation. The other had to answer to a host of masters, some of which had far different agendas.

So we end up with two LOTRs. The books and the films. Of course the books are THE LOTR. No doubt about that. The films are merely an adaption and can never supplant or gain the authenticity of the books. But having said that, the films are out there and were most likely seen by more people than who have read the books. In the minds of many, the LOTR has become the films. The story as portrayed in those films - for some viewers - is the LOTR. Sheer numbers have made it so.

The books are dearly loved by me ever since I read them right out of college in 1971. Among my most valued and treasured possessions are first editions - US sadly - of both THE HOBBIT and each of the three volumes of LOTR. I have the record album of THE POEMS AND SONGS OF MIDDLE EARTH with the actual signature of JRRT himself that came from the collection of a very well known and legitimate collector. I have lost count of how many times I have read the books and THE SILMARILLION over the last 36 years. And I have in the same room, shelf upon shelf of stuff from the films. I love and appreciate both for what they are.

The same story told by two different storytellers each emphasizing different parts and different characters but largely the same. At least, that is how I see it.

In reading many posts over the last six years on many sites, it is obvious that some people do not see it that way at all. And that is fine.

The one area we can debate about seems to be the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STW
Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

from littlemanpoet
What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Ends justifying the means? Who knows? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I certainly do not believe in cutting off peoples limbs but I certainly can also concede the need for it given certain medical situations. Lots of things are like that. The older I get, the less I cling to rigid principles, absolute black-and-white right and wrongs, clear cut moral choices and all that.

If we are going to engage in a discussion as to IF Jackson lied and seduced Tolkien fans with his early remarks it would probably be a good idea to find those exact remarks and reproduce them. To accuse someone of "base betrayal" is a pretty damning charge. I give you credit with the comparison to Saruman - its very cute and clever but we both know that Jackson is not Saruman or any such creature. He is a filmmaker who took on a task that even JRRT himself that was not possible. Jackson is not evil in the sense that Saruman was.

You ask if I think PJ was guilty of that. NO. What I do think happened was that Jackson wanted to make the best series of films he could that made the most money both for his studio and for himself. To do that he did not want to alienate hardcore and longtime Tolkien fans. He tried to enlist their support early on. Did he lie? Dunno. Does everybody "lie" when they promise to love someone forever and then things end sadly apart? A lie is not the words but what is in the heart as the words are spoken. Only Jackson knows what his intentions were.

Based on all the stuff I have read and watching all those features on the DVD's, it is my individual opinion that Jackson tried to satisfy all his constituencies as best he could given the realities of the situation. And that would include Tolkien fans.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny.

This is a sore point with me that you may have seen on another thread here. Having been a long distance runner for the past thirty plus years, the idea of an untrained dwarf running 140 miles in three days over rough terrain is simply ludicrous beyond anything remotely approaching reality. Sure, JRRT throws in the obligatory comments from other characters to help explain and justify the superdwarf feat that Gimli is undertaking, but its absurd just the same. And I do not give a single whit about how "hardy" or "strong" dwarves are. Running and especially ultralong distance running - is a world of its own that has nothing to do with strength or hardiness. I do not view the handling of that three day run any better in the film than it was in the books. But at least in the film we were spared a daily listing of milage which only added to the impossibility of it all .

from Boromir 88

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

I would mostly agree with your statement here. I too enjoyed the book Boromir more after seeing the films and picked up far more of the subtle nuances that Tolkien employed in his devolopemnt. If the film helped make that possible for both you and I, as well as others, then it is saying something very positive. You make a good point about the childish of Boromir being contrasted with is later growth as a character and that is valid. However, in the films, we have several other characters, dare I say more important characters, in their own stages of growth and development. Perhaps Jackosn felt that you could only have so much growth and development in changing characters and some had to be more constant. Especially in a character who is around for pretty much only the first film.

from Boromir88

Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Well, at least he had some explaination for it..... and I say that a bit sheepishly. There are mistakes both in the book and in the films and this could well be one of them. I do think that given the physical gifts of the Elves, you can make a far more rational and logical case for a squadron of trained Elven warriors to make that journey than you can for a squat, chunky untrained dwarf. But I do understand the point and concede some of its validity. I do think - and some will crucify me for this - that there is a "now thats cool" factor in movies. When we see something totally cool - like the Elves marching into Helms Deep - it aids to our willing suspension of disbelief and we push those nagging milage questions to the back of our mind. Perhaps only to be resurrected a few years later on sites like this one.

from Boromir88

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there.

Nice to see we agree on the film TB- or non-TB. I realize that this thread is not the place to discuss TB in detail. Perhaps you can refer me to where this has already been hashed out? Having read the books countless times I still see no actual purpose in him. If you excise him from the tale and come up with a different way to save the hobbits from the barrow wights, what is lost? Is that TBs main purpose? If not what is it?

from Boromir88

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that).

If that is happeneing, then it is sad that they do not see the beauty, depth and complexity that the books offer. I quickly concede the point that there is much more action and fighting in the films than in the books. But I thinks its an unfair oversimplification to hang the label of a mere action flick on the films. Just yesterday I was watching FOTR with my six year old grandson and the amount of slash'em up fighting is rather small. There are large portions of the film which move rather slowly and have nothing to do with violence or fighting. Of course, the battles are the set pieces of the last two films, but we still have lots and lots of exposition, character development and other bits of business that the standard thud and blunder film never has.

Again, the books are one thing. The films are quite another. I am glad to see there is some middle ground here for many of us.