How many changes ? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 01-02-2003, 08:54 AM

Seems that as P.J. goes along he's making more & more changes in storylines, characters, events, chronology. Just how far can he go & still justify calling these movies Lord of the Rings? Seems to me that with all the fantasy novels out there that are just rip off's of LotR, maybe he should have made a movie of one of them. P.s Didn't like the bit on the commentary where one of them said they thought their depiction of Boromir's death was better than the book. Where do these people get off. Don't get me wrong, I love the films, as FILMS in their own right. But they aren't films of LotR.

GreyIstar · 01-02-2003, 09:24 AM

You try condensing 1000 pages of very dense literature into roughly 9 or 10 hours of film with out making significant changes.

Manwe Sulimo · 01-02-2003, 10:07 AM

Well, considering that you didn't even see Boromir's death in the book, I'd have to agree.

davem · 01-03-2003, 03:33 AM

Its not about the fact you have to adapt & compress the novel, its about how you do it. Also, maybe there's a point when in looking at a novel to adapt, you have to say, no, we can't do it, & leave it alone. What amazes me is the way they made such a fuss about keeping the title of the Two Towers, in face of the opposition, but didn't seem to worry about keeping the story - which is more important? And lets not get started on leaving out the Scouring of the Shire, an episode which Tolkien Rightly considered the most important thing in the whole story. The film makers clearly don't understand the title of the third book - the 'King' who returns is FRODO. The title is ironic. If you miss out the Scouring of the shire, you can't call the film The Return of the King, can you, if you leave out the story of the King's return? As I said, I think the films are wonderful, they're just not films of LotR. Also, if Tolkien left out the actual fight between Boromir & the Uruk Hai, my feeling is that that's what he intended. Clearly, whether its better the way its depicted in the film is a matter of opinion. I lean toward Tolkien's sense of what works, & I'm not sure we need to see as much graphic violence as we do in the films.

Arien · 01-03-2003, 04:24 AM

Ok first of all you have to realise that films need money to run..... So there is some reason in why PJ put all that stuff in with Aragorn falling of the cliff and showing Boromir and the Uruk Hai...so it would have more action scenes and therefore attract a bigger audience.... That is the only reason I can think of... Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that the books are boring....but to people who havn't read the books, it pleases them, and they are the larger audience.....you just have to realise that.....P.S...After seeing TTT I was like, what the hell happened there...but then I began to love it, and for me its hard not to...

dragoneyes · 01-03-2003, 06:06 AM

Don't quite see your point with Frodo being the king, it's easy enough to believe that by that title they mean Aragorn (he being the actual king and all).I personally think the Boromir death scene was good as the people who hadn't read the books wouldn't know what had happened, otherwise it would just be like: action action action and somewhere along the way Boromir died. It being a film, there isn't enough time to get to know all the characters therefore seeing him die a noble death gets our sympathy much more than if they just come across him half dead.

doug*platypus · 01-03-2003, 06:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The film makers clearly don't understand the title of the third book - the 'King' who returns is FRODO. The title is ironic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I like what you're saying here, and I'd like to believe it, I really would! Mainly because the Star Wars Trilogy were cleverly named to have two meanings. The Two Towers can certainly have more than one applicability, as admitted by JRRT. Fellowship? I dunno, unless you talk about the physical and the emotional fellowship. But The Return of the King? How is Frodo a king? Unless you're trying to work in a Jesus analogy, Jesus being known as "King of the Jews". Do you think that this is the return of Jesus to modern fiction? That Frodo is "king" of the Shire (despite the fact that the highest office he ever holds is Temporary Assistant Mayor)? I'd have to say at this point in time, I'm with the Elvis enthusiasts and eagerly await the soundtrack.Yes this is a little off topic, but I think this question is much more interesting than the original point. I'd be interested to hear your ROTK theory, davem (and I like your name!).

davem · 01-03-2003, 08:49 AM

The idea that Frodo is the King who returns is an idea that struck me recently. I haven't formulated it completely, but the more I think about it the more correct it seems to me. There is a strong echo, but in a negative way, between Frodo's return to Hobbiton & Aragorn coming to Minas Tirith. I will have to think more deeply about why I'm so certain that Frodo is the 'king' who returns, but I can't shake the feeling its correct. Especially when taken in conjunction with the poem The Sea Bell (subtitled 'Frodo's Dreme'). It's all about Frodo, really, the whole tale. Frodo is the one who actually returns (back to the Shire). Aragorn doesn't really 'return' so much as arrive at M.T. Also, its just occured to me, the Hobbit subtitle - there & back again, about a journey & a return. I wouldn't want to push the Frodo = Jesus analogy, but Frodo is a kind of Everyman figure. No, I won't go back on it - Frodo is the King who returns! It makes sense to me. I'm prepared to be contradicted, but then maybe Tolkien did intend a comparison between Aragorn & Frodo, & the way they were recieved by 'their' people. Tolkien did contrast characters - ie Aragorn/Boromir, Gandalf/Saruman, Frodo/Gollum. I want someone to absolutley contradict me, & deny Frodo is the King who returns. I have a feeling that there's really something to it. Plus, if I am right, The Scouring of the Shire HAS to be put in the final movie, or it CAN'T really be The Return of the King.

GreyIstar · 01-03-2003, 11:21 AM

It is an interesting notion but a speculation at best. Especially since the book was written as one book then split into 3 books against the ideal of Tolkien.As for the changes they have eveything to do with cinema. PJ would do it exactly like Tolkien if he could but he can't.

Vardadurwen · 01-03-2003, 12:15 PM

Obviously the books can be interpreted in any fashion, so I think your idea is rational, davem. And the more I think about it, I can see that it would make sense on a very subtle level. We'll probably never know whether Tolkien intended for Frodo to be considered a king or not, but seeing as though there are hidden subtleties throughout the book, it could very well be that he meant for Frodo to be a king in his own right.However, I don't know if PJ necessarily thought of that. The word on the street is that the scouring of the shire won't be included in the third movie, so I wouldn't count on that too much if I were you. I doubt that there will be a referance of any kind to Frodo being called a King, just because I don't think that PJ would have wanted Frodo to be elevated or anything like that. So, even if he had thought that Frodo could be considered a king, I don't think he would have used that idea.As for the Frodo = Jesus deal, I don't agree with that just because I personally don't associate religion along with Tolkien's works.

davem · 01-04-2003, 03:27 AM

I think I was maybe a bit 'forceful' in my original statement - but let me state my main point - The Movies Are Wonderful! I love the movies. Its very rare that I watch a movie more than twice & I must have watched Fellowship a dozen times in each version. B*U*T They aren't Lord of the Rings. There are too many changes, in mood & atmosphere, characters, motivations, etc, etc. Beyond a certain point, you aren't adapting, you're rewriting, telling a different story. How many people have said that, for instance Tom Bombadil & the Old Forest wouldn't have worked in the movie? And they're right, because the mood of the film wouldn't have made it possible to include them. But if Bombadil works in the book, & fits perfectly into that world, then if the movie had caught the spirit of the book, Bombadill would have worked. And that's just the most obvious example. As the series goes on, the movies move further & further from the book - that doesn't make them BAD movies, but it does mean they aren't movies of LotR. And As for the Frodo = the King who returns, all I can say is that I can't shake the feeling that I'm on to something, & I need to think about it more deeply before I can fully set it out for the sceptics. I might try putting it out as a thread on the books forum.

01-02-2003, 08:54 AM	#1
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	How many changes ? Seems that as P.J. goes along he's making more & more changes in storylines, characters, events, chronology. Just how far can he go & still justify calling these movies Lord of the Rings?<BR>Seems to me that with all the fantasy novels out there that are just rip off's of LotR, maybe he should have made a movie of one of them.<BR>P.s Didn't like the bit on the commentary where one of them said they thought their depiction of Boromir's death was better than the book. Where do these people get off.<BR>Don't get me wrong, I love the films, as FILMS in their own right. But they aren't films of LotR. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-02-2003, 09:24 AM	#2
GreyIstar Wight Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Dallas Posts: 116	You try condensing 1000 pages of very dense literature into roughly 9 or 10 hours of film with out making significant changes. __________________ Keeper of the site Ring Lord. "Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."

01-02-2003, 10:07 AM	#3
Manwe Sulimo Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Taurelilómëa-tumbalemorna Tumbaletaurëa Lómëanor Posts: 553	Well, considering that you didn't even <I>see</I> Boromir's death in the book, I'd have to agree. __________________ "Monkeys learn sign language so they can tell the dolphins they love them."

01-03-2003, 03:33 AM	#4
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Its not about the fact you have to adapt & compress the novel, its about how you do it. Also, maybe there's a point when in looking at a novel to adapt, you have to say, no, we can't do it, & leave it alone. What amazes me is the way they made such a fuss about keeping the title of the Two Towers, in face of the opposition, but didn't seem to worry about keeping the story - which is more important? And lets not get started on leaving out the Scouring of the Shire, an episode which Tolkien Rightly considered the most important thing in the whole story. The film makers clearly don't understand the title of the third book - the 'King' who returns is FRODO. The title is ironic. If you miss out the Scouring of the shire, you can't call the film The Return of the King, can you, if you leave out the story of the King's return?<BR>As I said, I think the films are wonderful, they're just not films of LotR. Also, if Tolkien left out the actual fight between Boromir & the Uruk Hai, my feeling is that that's what he intended. Clearly, whether its better the way its depicted in the film is a matter of opinion. I lean toward Tolkien's sense of what works, & I'm not sure we need to see as much graphic violence as we do in the films. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-03-2003, 04:24 AM	#5
Arien Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London/Leeds UK Posts: 417	Ok first of all you have to realise that films need money to run.....<BR>So there is some reason in why PJ put all that stuff in with Aragorn falling of the cliff and showing Boromir and the Uruk Hai...so it would have more action scenes and therefore attract a bigger audience....<BR>That is the only reason I can think of...<BR>Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that the books are boring....but to people who havn't read the books, it pleases them, and they are the larger audience.....you just have to realise that.....<P>P.S...After seeing TTT I was like, what the hell happened there...but then I began to love it, and for me its hard not to... __________________ "...still, we lay under the emptiness and drifted slowly outward, and somewhere in the wilderness we found salvation scratched into the earth like a message."

01-03-2003, 06:06 AM	#6
dragoneyes Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Completely lost track, sorry! Posts: 733	Don't quite see your point with Frodo being the king, it's easy enough to believe that by that title they mean Aragorn (he being the actual king and all).<P>I personally think the Boromir death scene was good as the people who hadn't read the books wouldn't know what had happened, otherwise it would just be like: action action action and somewhere along the way Boromir died. It being a film, there isn't enough time to get to know all the characters therefore seeing him die a noble death gets our sympathy much more than if they just come across him half dead. __________________ "We might succeed in roasting Pippin alive inside." - Frodo.

01-03-2003, 06:41 AM	#7
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The film makers clearly don't understand the title of the third book - the 'King' who returns is FRODO. The title is ironic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I like what you're saying here, and I'd like to believe it, I really would! Mainly because the Star Wars Trilogy were cleverly named to have two meanings. The Two Towers can certainly have more than one applicability, as admitted by JRRT. Fellowship? I dunno, unless you talk about the physical and the emotional fellowship. But The Return of the King? How is Frodo a king? Unless you're trying to work in a Jesus analogy, Jesus being known as "King of the Jews". Do you think that this is the return of Jesus to modern fiction? That Frodo is "king" of the Shire (despite the fact that the highest office he ever holds is Temporary Assistant Mayor)? I'd have to say at this point in time, I'm with the Elvis enthusiasts and eagerly await the soundtrack.<P>Yes this is a little off topic, but I think this question is <B>much</B> more interesting than the original point. I'd be interested to hear your ROTK theory, davem (and I like your name!). __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

01-03-2003, 08:49 AM	#8
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	The idea that Frodo is the King who returns is an idea that struck me recently. I haven't formulated it completely, but the more I think about it the more correct it seems to me.<BR>There is a strong echo, but in a negative way, between Frodo's return to Hobbiton & Aragorn coming to Minas Tirith. I will have to think more deeply about why I'm so certain that Frodo is the 'king' who returns, but I can't shake the feeling its correct. Especially when taken in conjunction with the poem The Sea Bell (subtitled 'Frodo's Dreme'). It's all about Frodo, really, the whole tale. Frodo is the one who actually returns (back to the Shire). Aragorn doesn't really 'return' so much as arrive at M.T. Also, its just occured to me, the Hobbit subtitle - there & back again, about a journey & a return.<BR>I wouldn't want to push the Frodo = Jesus analogy, but Frodo is a kind of Everyman figure. No, I won't go back on it - Frodo is the King who returns! It makes sense to me. I'm prepared to be contradicted, but then maybe Tolkien did intend a comparison between Aragorn & Frodo, & the way they were recieved by 'their' people. Tolkien did contrast characters - ie Aragorn/Boromir, Gandalf/Saruman, Frodo/Gollum.<BR>I want someone to absolutley contradict me, & deny Frodo is the King who returns. I have a feeling that there's really something to it.<BR>Plus, if I am right, The Scouring of the Shire HAS to be put in the final movie, or it CAN'T really be The Return of the King. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-03-2003, 11:21 AM	#9
GreyIstar Wight Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Dallas Posts: 116	It is an interesting notion but a speculation at best. Especially since the book was written as one book then split into 3 books against the ideal of Tolkien.<P>As for the changes they have eveything to do with cinema. PJ would do it exactly like Tolkien if he could but he can't. __________________ Keeper of the site Ring Lord. "Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."

01-03-2003, 12:15 PM	#10
Vardadurwen Wight Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 102	Obviously the books can be interpreted in any fashion, so I think your idea is rational, davem. And the more I think about it, I can see that it would make sense on a very subtle level. We'll probably never know whether Tolkien intended for Frodo to be considered a king or not, but seeing as though there are hidden subtleties throughout the book, it could very well be that he meant for Frodo to be a king in his own right.<P>However, I don't know if PJ necessarily thought of that. The word on the street is that the scouring of the shire won't be included in the third movie, so I wouldn't count on that too much if I were you. I doubt that there will be a referance of any kind to Frodo being called a King, just because I don't think that PJ would have wanted Frodo to be elevated or anything like that. So, even if he had thought that Frodo could be considered a king, I don't think he would have used that idea.<P>As for the Frodo = Jesus deal, I don't agree with that just because I personally don't associate religion along with Tolkien's works. __________________ 'In this phial,' she said, 'is caught the light of Earendil's star....May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out...' - Galadriel 'Now there's an eye-opener and no mistake!' - Samwise Gamgee

01-04-2003, 03:27 AM	#11
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	I think I was maybe a bit 'forceful' in my original statement - but let me state my main point - The Movies Are Wonderful! I love the movies. Its very rare that I watch a movie more than twice & I must have watched Fellowship a dozen times in each version.<BR>BUT They aren't Lord of the Rings. There are too many changes, in mood & atmosphere, characters, motivations, etc, etc. Beyond a certain point, you aren't adapting, you're rewriting, telling a different story.<BR>How many people have said that, for instance Tom Bombadil & the Old Forest wouldn't have worked in the movie? And they're right, because the mood of the film wouldn't have made it possible to include them. But if Bombadil works in the book, & fits perfectly into that world, then if the movie had caught the spirit of the book, Bombadill would have worked. And that's just the most obvious example.<BR>As the series goes on, the movies move further & further from the book - that doesn't make them BAD movies, but it does mean they aren't movies of LotR.<BR>And As for the Frodo = the King who returns, all I can say is that I can't shake the feeling that I'm on to something, & I need to think about it more deeply before I can fully set it out for the sceptics. I might try putting it out as a thread on the books forum. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."