COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Some here are talking about a line or two out of 11 hours of screen time. Thats focusing on a tiny detail and ignoring the big picture.

Oh, no. No no no no no.

These lines are *examples* taken from many, many many possible to illustrate a larger point: PBW completely failed to understand the characters, the way they think, theie cultural milieu, failed to understand that Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age is *not* the beginning of the 21st century- and, to boot, were utterly tone-deaf to the language Tolkien prized above all. This goes on for hour after excruciating hour- flat dialogue, characters 'improved' because PBW never understood them to begin with, PJ's utter cluelessness, his total failure to percieve what makes Tolkien Tolkien. He could just as well have filmed Terry Brooks.

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Oh, no. No no no no no.

PBW completely failed to understand the characters, the way they think, theie cultural milieu, failed to understand that Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age is *not* the beginning of the 21st century- and, to boot, were utterly tone-deaf to the language Tolkien prized above all. This goes on for hour after excruciating hour- flat dialogue, characters 'improved' because PBW never understood them to begin with, PJ's utter cluelessness, his total failure to percieve what makes Tolkien Tolkien. He could just as well have filmed Terry Brooks.

Well they are Aussies and still under the British Crown and all....

[Lalaith]

Blimey. You lot.

I really liked the films. I liked the way they looked, I loved the music.

However, I had some serious reservations. I thought a lot of the dialogue was a bit naff and cheesy. What I am talking about, Sauron, is the kind of dialogue which *sounds* deep and meaningful and portentous but actually isn't, but is rather silly, which is what a lot of people who don't know/like Tolkien assume Tolkien is like. Is that clearer? And I didn't like what happened to a lot of the characterisation. (Gimli, Merry, Theoden, Eowyn)

Clearly I am not nearly polarised enough to take a proper part in the discussion.

[Sauron the White]

Lalaith .. I am clear on your point. I respect that you and others you may speak with feel that way. You have a right to see things the way you see them. I cannot argue with that if a line does not ring true to you. I myself, have no such problem that is so disturbing to me that it prevents me from enjoying the films.

I have said it before and will say it again now .. and probably will say it more times in the future - Some people who have read and studied LOTR for decades and view it as near Holy Writ had a severe handicap when it came to enjoying the films.

If you know the books well enough so that you can sit in a theater and divide the lines written by JRRT and the lines written by the screenwriters, then there are far bigger issues than what is on the screen. The mind of that person is set in a mode of negativity and not receptivity. That person can never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you know the books well enough so that you can sit in a theater and watch every scene unfold and want to cry out "it did NOT happen that way. No no no no no". They you will never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you know the books well enough so that when Denethor bursts into flames and dives off the precipice, you calculate that he ran 3.2 miles to do it, then you can never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you have memorized the speech patterns and word usages of book characters to the point where they use a phrase in the film that you think is not in character even though nearly everyone else in the theater does not bat an eye, then you can never enjoy the films.


I run 2,000 miles every year and have done so for the past 32 years. I do so wearing very good running shoes, light clothing, and time my runs for the best possible environmental and traffic conditions that the day can present to me. If I ran in combat boots or sandals, a heavy coat, with a full stomach, and on a busy street during a snowstorm at rush hour I would be laboring under a severe handicap.

When you watch a film - any film - you have to do so with an open mind and be receptive to what you see on screen. Otherwise it does not work very well. Too many other things outside of the film can get in the way. For many here, there is a very big thing in the way - a 1,200 page tome that is constantly held up as a mirror to the films. And if that is not enough, they have all the wannabe Tolkien intellectuals who write the articles and help mold the semi-official Purist opinion.

There is a fundamental issue here that has been stated thousands of times but does not seem to sink in. I guess its that handicap that prevents some from accepting the basic idea that a book is one thing and a film is another. Each has its own properties, qualities, assets, liabilities, strengths and weaknesses. Each is governed by the reality of what is is.... and what it is not.

Until you are willing to accept that... and I mean really accept that and not just say you do but then vomit up all the same old garbage... then these endless debates will continue shedding far more heat than light.

It is more than interesting that pretty much the entire world embraced these films. The public embraced them with massive amounts of revenue. The professional film critics embraced them with very positive reviews. The film industry itself embraced them by showering them with their highest awards and accolades. That is a rare combination that does not happen that often.

But some cannot accept the films. Just like somebody in a wheelchair cannot run those 2,000 miles each year with me. Politically correct term or not - its a sad handicap.

[davem]

StW You'remissing the point here. As Lalaith said, its about the quality of the dialogue - not that it isn't in the book. The writer's dialogue is overwhelmingly poor. Its simply bad English in most cases, its twee & often embarrassing. That most of the audience don't get that is a refelction on the poor state of modern education. If it had been an original work, not based on any book those lines would still elicit a groan from an educated audience. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of Tolkien's original dialogue is used, which is of far higher quality.

Galadriel's slipping into colloquial English straight after Tolkien's original is another problem - it makes the 'Small person' line stick out like a very badly infected sore thumb. If she'd used colloquial English all along it would be less jarring. And the writers simply didn't get that.

The real point is that whenever the writers left Tolkien's original storyline & invented new stuff, or gave characters new dialogue, those changes were in every instance changes for the worse. Now, with The Hobbit adaptation they have Tolkien's original work to keep them afloat. With the sequel they don't. They'll be working on their own & given their current record they will mess up very badly. That they have the nerve to attmept it speaks more to their over-inflated egos than anything else.

[Sauron the White]

davem... I appreciate your patience and response. You started this by referring to Shippey and his comments about the line from Galadriel. Where did he state this and when did he state this? I would very much like to read it to gain a bttter understanding of his point.

The real point is that whenever the writers left Tolkien's original storyline & invented new stuff, or gave characters new dialogue, those changes were in every instance changes for the worse

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I have read mny posts both here and on other sites which give many instances where the films improved upon some aspect of the books. You and I have been involved in such discussions so you must be aware of this.

You state this as if your opinion is some sort of undeniable fact chiseled into stone by the Almighty Himself. Others would and do disagree.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem... I appreciate your patience and response. You started this by referring to Shippey and his comments about the line from Galadriel. Where did he state this and when did he state this? I would very much like to read it to gain a bttter understanding of his point.

I pointed to Shippey's comments on Tolkien's use of archaic speech. It was in 'Tolkien: Author of the Century'. It was published before the movies, so doesn't refer to them at all. I was merely pointing up a very interesting discussion on the right use of archaic speech. Rosebury also makes interesting comments on the subject - but he does make reference to the movies (though not specifically to Galadriel's words.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I guess its that handicap that prevents some from accepting the basic idea that a book is one thing and a film is another.

Poppycock.

I've acknolwedged it many times. However, it's getting very tiresome to see this chestnut trotted out like a get-out-of-jail-free card for PJ: that translation to a different medium constitutes carte blanche for any and everything.

If you're going to keep making this argument, StW, try to make it relevant. Please explain why the different medium requires the substitution of cheesy dialogue for Tolkienie's erudite grandeur, or perhaps why slightly antique verbal style isn't allowed in cinema (all those Shakespeare films notwithstanding). Or why the process of adaptation requires that the elderly but proud Theoden be transformed into a half-senile wimp, or the shrewd and subtle Denethor into a dribbling lunatic. Come on, tell us: what is different about film qua film that mandates this sort of meddling?

I would suggest that there is nothing at all. The reasons PBW did it have nothing to do with the medium, and everything to to with (a) treating the audience like simpletons, and/or (b) not understanding their source to begin with.