COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, dear, Sauron, are you really so tone-deaf towards the nuances of language? I'm afraid you might be one of those whom the good Professor trmed 'misologists.'

Do you not appreciate that "No living man am I" and "I am no man" are *not* the same thing?

[Sauron the White]

You nitpickers must be correct because now that I recall, I distinctly remember scores, nay hundreds, collectively tens of thousands of people rushing from the theater holding their bloody ears crying "oh foul use of the Kings English". Or was it "the Kings English has been fouly used"? Something like that more or less.

I also distinctly remember nearly every other professional film critic who ignored almost every scene in the 3 hour film to harp paragraph after paragraph about this mortal sin of language usage.

And who can forget the night of the Academy Awards when the Writers Guild themselves picketed the proceedings complaining loudly to anyone that would hear about the butchering of proper English.

Yeah, I remember all that.

I guess it took you two chaps six years to remember it also.

[Sauron the White]

One thing I find most interesting is that the line which so offended a small number of you is from the film FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. That year, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - Academy Writers Branch though so highly of the film that they nominated for a writing award. These were not actors, musicians, make-up technicians, best boys, gaffers or anyone else doing the nominating. This was done by the Writers Branch of the Academy. These are professional writers who make their living from use of language. They thought highly enough of FOTR - complete with Galadriel and her scandalous line - to nominate it for their highest professional honor.

It did not win that year but two years later the same writing crew was so honored with the award. But here in this thread we have some self important amateurs puffing out their chests and waving their dictionaries around with righteous indignation at the tragedy of it all.

Were it not for the absurdity of it all, this would be rather pathetic.

I have no doubt that - in your mind at least- this very minor thing means something to you. I have no doubt you are sincere in your criticisms. But as the great writer Oscar Wilde said “The worst vice of the fanatic is sincerity.” And your loathing of the films has approached fanatical proportions at times.

[Lalwendë]

Sorry but I entirely fail to comprehend how anyone could improve on anything a writer has written in an original work. Maybe if the writer was horsedung of the highest order, someone like Kathy Lette maybe, but certainly not if the writer was someone with a great mind, including anyone discussed in this thread, Tolkien, Lewis or Pullman. There may be flaws to this or that reader but nevertheless, what is the purpose of seeking to improve their flaws? How presumptious!

Suggesting that Tolkien could be improved on by Jackson or anyone else is rather like saying The Mona Lisa could be improved if only Banksy could maybe paint some eyeliner and lippie on her. It might be funny, it might make a point, it might be ironic or postmodern but fact remains, it's never ever going to be anything more than a version, a fan-fic at best.

Take Jane Austen. Her work has been adapted, modernised, rewritten, sequelled, fan-ficced and so forth to death. Some of it is very good, Clueless for example. But nobody ever suggests that her original work could be improved on if only someone else (probably the execrable Kathy Lette ) would go through it correcting her class bias or making Mr Darcy more sexay etc.

Dare I venture that this is because such things are viewed as Art and hence untouchable, while to many, Tolkien is still just Pop Culture Trash?

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.

I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.

In point of fact, there are plenty of people who have written posts over the past six years who make thier case that - for them - Jackson did improve some things in the film over the way it was presented in the book. That has been stated here in a variety of threads. It has been stated repeatedly and often on at least five other Tolkien related message boards as well over the last six years.

You may feel that this is impossible for you. But clearly others do not feel that way.

And it worth noting that the area of improvement is not in the books of JRR Tolkien. Peter Jackson and his writing team did not attempt to rewrite the books of JRRT. The process of adapting a book to film was well known to Professor Tolkien. He sold the rights with the knowledge that changes would be made. Nobody makes a change because they believe that the change will make the product worse. They make changes believing they are improving the product. JRRT was a very smart man and he fully was aware of how the process worked. And he sold those rights of his own free will knowing that he had no further part in the adaption process. The areas of improvement were in the medium of film, not in the books.

[davem]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here. The point being made is that the scriptwriters did not improve on Tolkien, & have demonstrated no evidence that they have that capability. Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism. The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

The success of all three films is a fact that is very relevant to this discussion. The purpose of a big budget film is to bring even more money for the studio that makes it. Beyond that, other considerations are secondary. The fact that the public loved it and made all 3 films very successful is important. The fact that ROTK is still the second highest grossing film of all time is important. The fact that the film succeeded by other standard measurements of success such as professional critics reviews and film industry awards is important. Those are the standards the world uses to judge if a film was successful or not.

And what is it that I am suppose to refute? Your contention about the Galadriel line? I have told you repeatedly that it is only a very small number of people who seem to share your ire about this concern. And that is some six years after the film was released with that line in it.

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

So what? While these films were made with the help of several serious Tolkien students, they were not made for that audience exclusively. The greater audience was the general public. And we already know the success the three films enjoyed with the public.

And I am not claiming the films to be superior to the book. I have said many times in many posts that the books and the films are very different things. One cannot fairly compare the qualities of a cinder block and an orange. Yes, I have said that the movies did improve in some ways upon the way things were presented in the book. Many other people have said the same thing here and in other places. That does not make them superior to the books. It simply means that the filmmakers did their job and came up with some innovations which improved the story as told in the medium of film.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here.

Oh really? And you or any others here never said anything about the real crime of Jackson was in the mistaken belief that he could actually improve on the books? You never said anything like that? Mr. Hicklin never said anything like that? Others here never said anything like that?

I could do a few hours of research and come up with it but lets save the trouble and just go the the post from minutes ago directly before yours. From Lalwende, whom I believe you know.

Suggesting that Tolkien could be improved on by Jackson or anyone else is rather like saying The Mona Lisa could be improved if only Banksy could maybe paint some eyeliner and lippie on her

I believe that Lalwende is indeed in her right mind. She comes across as a very intelligent person. But there you have it in the post right before yours --- someone saying that Its absurd to think Jackson or anyone else could improve upon Tolkien.

Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism.

Where and how did I state that Jackson was close to divine status or a god? Your position seems to be continually restating what you think my position is, or what you think it should be to better argue against.

The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

And you get this objective standard to judge a films success from where exactly? I have been attending films for four and a half decades. I have read countless books on the subject. I have even taught high school classes in film appreciation for what thats worth. I have never heard anyone use the standard of faithfulness to the book as the key element of a films success. Perhaps to you- but not to the world.

You have asked for refutation. I humbly attempted to oblige you sir.

[Lalaith]

I'm not a Tolkien fundamentalist, and as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things that work brilliantly in the films.
For example, Eowyn and Aragorn exchanging looks, with a fluttering banner of the white horse on the green field falling to the ground, combined with Shore's haunting Rohan theme.
That moment tells you a very great deal about Eowyn's concerns about the fate of the house of Eorl, about why she developed her "soldier's crush" on Aragorn, etc.
All *without* corny dialogue.

Then, there's scenes using Tolkien's language - Gandalf on the bridge, "Flame of Udun", for example, so memorably.

And moments that were not in the book at all but also worked, for me - Eowyn's lament over Theodred, for example. And, hell, yes, Arwen at the ford. It looked fabulous.


But I don't like film-makers assuming I'm stupid. I got that feeling a lot in the LotR trilogy....LOOK THIS IS HOW X IS FEELING RIGHT NOW all-spelt-out-in-your-face-dialogue. And, to get this thread back on topic, ahem. I also got it a lot in Compass. There, I felt the film-makers weren't even trying to talk to me, just show me a whole bunch of stuff, really fast so I wouldn't get bored. What with me being so stupid and having such a short attention span and all.

I didn't get that feeling in Stardust, in that movie it felt like the film-makers were treating you like an adult, and taking you into a private joke. But maybe I would have felt differently if I'd read the original Gaiman novel. I don't know.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.

I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.

.

What exactly is this hypothetical perfection that you seek though? Who is judging it? Why do you want it?

Art is not perfect. Fact.

Taking Tolkien apart to find the bricks and rebuild them into some perfect tower would for some involve the removal of Tom for example. To me, that would destroy it. Tom alas, is not suited to the modern taste. Tastes which are governed by all kinds of things which are not necessarily artistic choices.

Politics for example. I note that Jackson was rumoured also to be remaking the British classic Dambusters and there was plenty of discussion about whether he would rename Guy Gibson's dog; the conclusion was he undoubtedly would. And even Susan's treatment in Narnia may be something I hate but I would never be so presumptious as to think if her end were forever Bowdlerised out of future editions then it would be OK. Because it wouldn't be OK at all. It would be wrong.

But such things are entirely and utterly subjective.

Your improvements to Tolkien are not mine. Mine are not yours. Who is going to decide which is 'correct'? I'm sure you appreciate the kind of subjectivity and tail chasing this can only result in.

The easy answer to which improvements are 'best' or 'appropriate' is that ultimately, none are.

They are not 'improvements', it would be sheer arrogance to claim your own version was better. They are instead 'versions' or 'interpretations'.

[Quempel]

After reading this thread once again, I have to ask a serious question here, because the thread brought it to mind and for some reason I think I have been told this before.

Were not Tolkien's LoTR books highly criticized by his own peers...i.e. English Professors?