Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film.

Sounds like your dispute is with JRRTolkien and not Peter Jackson since JRRT authorized and licensed his books for just that purpose.

Or another way to look at it that an orange is an orange with all the properties of an orange. However an orange can be turned into juice. It is now something else. An orange is an orange while orange juice is orange juice. Does that mean that an orange should never be turned into orange juice?

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

One can criticise the quality of the orange juice, particularly if it was made from the highest quality fruit, but tastes like its been through a dead cat.

[Sauron the White]

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable.

I've yet to come across a 'professional movie critic' who wasn't in the job purely because they weren't capable of making a useful contribution to society.

I'm sure 'Professional movie critics' would have been first on the 'B' Ark:

Golgafrincham is a red semi-desert planet that is home of the Great Circling Poets of Arium and a species of particularly inspiring lichen. Its people decided it was time to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population, and so concocted a story that their planet would shortly be destroyed in a great catastrophe. (It was apparently under threat from a "mutant star goat"). The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers*, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone".(Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy -from Wikipedia)

[Sauron the White]

Allow me to add school administrators to that list of the useless. I taught in high school for 33 years and never could figure out just what they did to make more money than a teacher when they never taught a single child to read, write, count or think. Education is a very funny profession. The further you get away from children, the bigger your office, paycheck and title. I used to say that a good administrator was worth their weight in gold. And remember - gold is a rare commodity.

Have to make my post topical .... I would not put JRRT on that list of the useless. And I notice that in his professional academic career he was a hands on teacher and not an administrator. Bravo!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In fact he was both- Oxford in his day being run by faculty committees and college boards, all of which comprised dons. The full-time 'administrator' was yet unknown there. Tolkien spent a great deal of time on such administrative tasks, heavier than most because he was a chaired Professor ( a very lofty title in Oxbridge).

At the University of Virginia, the arrangement was similar until 1904 when the post of President was created- and even then he was expected to carry a full teaching load.

[Kath]

In need of something to entertain me for an hour or so I've wandered through this thread and picked up on some things. It's a little random, but it's kept me busy.

Originally Posted by Annatar

You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

But then, none of the characters mean anything to those that haven't read the books. Frodo means nothing to them, neither does Gandalf, not even Sauron. They are included and given backstory and so they do start to mean something. There is nothing to say that the same wouldn't be true if Bombadil or Imrahil had been included in the films.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army.

Why? There are any number of ways he could have learnt about the size. As a king going into battle he would surely have sent scouts out. There was no need to have Aragorn go leaping off into his own side story when the same shot of the advancing army could have been used in a different way. It didn't further his character development, and the time could have been used to further someone elses.

I agree with Folwren on the idea that though a film can't be based word for word on a book and still be seen and enjoyed by millions, a mildly condensed version such as she described would work. PJ's visuals were stunning and quite remove the need for any verbal expansion on them, and that cuts down a fair slice of the books. However:

Originally Posted by Folwren

Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond.

Why? If the prologue was left as it was done in the film then a good section of the Council of Elrond has already been done and it wouldn't be a strain on the films to do the rest of it. You wouldn't need Bilbo's story, indeed in the book that's cut out, because it's already been explained as much as it needs to be for the film and the same goes for the information about Gollum and other things, so that really you'd be left with pretty much the same scene as we already have. As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done. Have the hobbits being trapped by Old Man Willow, have Tom save them, have the conversation where he reveals the ring has no power over him, have the hobbits go off and get trapped by the Wights and have them be saved by him. It needn't be an overlong section and if he gets them to Bree as in the books it would still be continuing the plot, plus you'd have the sword Merry is able to stab the Witch King with in there too, another important plot device. It wouldn't bore the viewers as with the Wights in there would be action, and it would reinforce the idea that the hobbits are in danger even before they've left the Shire.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

Now this I disagree with. Boromir accepts what Elrond told him, even if he has his own private misgivings, and from the moment he joins the Company he plays by the rules. Think of when they became trapped on Caradhras and he and Aragorn force a path through the snow, carrying the hobbits on their backs. He cares about the people he is with. He is certainly not ignorant. His mind may be weaker than his body, and that is why the Ring has more influence over him than the others, but it isn't missing. He is strong-willed and holds on to his opinions, that doesn't make him ignorant, just stubborn. I find it very easy to find sympathy for him when he dies. He made a mistake with Frodo, one which he was aware of immediately afterward and went and told Aragorn what had happened, and he atones for it by protecting Merry and Pippin with his last breaths. The film made him honourable, in the books he was human.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion.

Drama and emotion don't need to include battle scenes, and can be put across to an audience very effectively via talking. Think of something like Donnie Darko, which is all about very complex ideas that are almost entirely explained by talking.

Originally Posted by davem

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for.

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough. I think you're right when you say she is more effective as the mysterious figure in the background whom Aragorn loves so much he will turn down anyone else.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor.

Da Vinci Code anyone? They may have changed it but in essence it is still a film about an exploration of Christianity. Same goes for The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Even Indiana Jones fits the theme. All these films combine discussions of morality with action and draw in huge audiences.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

Whereas having Aragorn lop limbs off an Uruk-hai who then impales himself and forces our hero to have to chop his head off isn't gruesome in the slightest.

Finally:

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.