Smell this, I think it's expired...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

These events are there for cinematic reasons - there is no thought about whether what happens on screen makes sense, only about whether it looks good.

I don't disagree with you. For better or for worse, it's pretty standard with most "blockbuster" films these days. I recall thinking during the second Indiana Jones film, when Indie is running along the mine-cart tracks being shot at, how unbelievable it is that he does not get hit. Even if all of those shooting were the worst shots in the world, the law of averages would dictate that some bullets would hit him. Much the same thought occurred to me recently when I watched the first Star Wars film again and wondered at the inept marksmanship of the Imperial Stormtroopers firing on Luke and Leia in the corridors of the Death Star. And the same issue occurs in FotR when the Fellowship come under a hail of Orcish arrows as they run from the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought.

But you are right. There are things in the films that don't make sense when you stop and think about them (although I would not necessarily include the Gandalf/Witch-King scene in that category, for the reasons that I have stated on that thread). What can I say? Maybe I just don't think about these things so deeply. I don't think that one is supposed to with these kinds of films.

Originally Posted by Aina

So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes.

Maybe you are just too used to the original. If one is used to a certain "pattern", then it is bound to seem strange if that pattern is disturbed in any way.

Many posts back there was discussion about FotR being more 'magical'. I do think that it is; but I think there is a good reason. FOTR is about Frodo's flight from Ringwraiths, rescued by elves, taken to the home of elves, traveling thence through Moria to another Home of Elves, Lorien. It's a very elvish movie, I think the most elvish of the three. As lmp would say, it's good fairy-tale. (Well, okay, not genuine, REAL Faerie, but... *cough* to continue.)

Despite the appearance of Haldir & Co at Helm's deep, TTT is very much about men; men, and orcs. Ents too, but they evoke (in the movie) less Magic than the elves do. They are Neat and Cool, but not magical. Aragorn talks about "The world of Men." Gandalf does too. Saruman does too. The elves are already half forgotten; bah, they're leaving anyway, right? Gandalf and Saruman don't provide the atmosphere of enchantment like the elves do; and besides, they are both obsessing about men, as they must. A few hobbits and wizards can't turn TTT into a non-mannish film. Meanwhile, Frodo travels through Ithilien: more dealings with Men.

RotK isn't about magic or enchantment anymore; it's not even just about Men; it's about guts and glory, loyalty, duty, perseverance and, well, perseverance. And isn't the whole point of the ending of RotK, the departing of the eold enchantment?

I guess that's one reason why most of my daydreaming took place either pre-war or early war. Who wants to go there when the elves are gone?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought.

If I'd seen the movies before I read the books I think I'd have been blown away by them. If I'd seen them after one or two readings of the book I might have felt the same way. I think PJ's vision matches mine when I was a teenager & it was all about battles & magic & beauty. PJ captured that side perfectly.

Maybe I've just read & thought about the books too much - & I may be going against my argument in other threads here - I'm not sure. I think, though, that my problems aren't caused by dragging in too much primary world baggage, but rather by my increasing awareness of the deeper themes Tolkien was dealing with. the accusation I read in one review keep coming back into my mind - that PJ seemed to think LotR was an action movie in book form. He touches on some of the themes I'm talking about, but never goes into them in the kind of depth necessary. Either he doesn't understand them or isn't interested in them. Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

He also doesn't seem to know where to stop. There's a nice interchange between Aragorn & Eowyn about Dwarf women ('Its the beards.') which would have been fine of he'd stopped there, but he couldn't & has to have Gimli falling off his horse! Or later where he takes one of my absolute favourite scenes from the book - Gimli's rescue of Aragorn at HD - 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad Aimenu!' ('Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!' - even writing that brings tears to my eyes!) & replaces it with Gimli falling into a puddle & having to be lifted up by Aragorn.

LotR isn't an action novel, & so shouldn't be turned into an action movie. It reminds me of the 'Hamlet' skit in Last Action Hero.

I think what I missed was the sense of loss that pervades the book. Its almost (in one way at least) a meditation on loss & bereavement - perhaps coming out of Tolkien's own experience of loss - of his parents, of friends in the war, of the countryside he loved, of the values he held, & I suppose we respond to it because we've all experienced some such loss ourselves & become more aware of it as we grow older - though I'm not going back on my statements that we should try & leave the specific baggage we carry with us at the door when we enter the secondary world. Our own experience of loss will enable us to empathise & connect & be enchanted by the story, specific memories will pull us out of the secondary world.

I suppose LMP's points about the loss of Eden are significant, I think, because the deeper feeling of loss - the loss of wonder & beauty & magic which we all feel (more & more as we get older) is perhaps not down to personal experiences of loss, but due more to a sense of 'exile' from we know not what, but symbolise for ourselves as 'Eden' or the Elves. Along with that sense of loss & exile goes the 'belief' (if its not more than that) that its possible to find our way 'home' again: 'Still rond the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate, & though I oft have passed them by, a day will come at last when I, shall take the hidden paths that run, West of the Moon, East of the Sun.' This is what I feel overwhelmingly when I read LotR - loss & hope (even if that hope lies 'beyond the circles of the world'). I also get it when I listen to the BBC radio adaptation, but not from the films. Perhaps that's the faut of the medium, the (inevitable) fact that the events are presented in real time, & with a sense of immediacy, as though its all happening as I watch, rather than, as with the book & the radio series (which is more of a dramatised reading), it being something that happened a very long time ago to people who have long since passed into the West.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

LotR isn't an action novel, & so shouldn't be turned into an action movie.

But surely it is, on one level. You yourself say that this is how you read it as a teenager (much as I did). That reading wasn't "wrong" in comparison with the way that you read the book now. Just different.

And if the book can be read, on one level, as an action novel, why shouldn't it be capable of being made into an action film? Provided that one recognises that this is, in essence, what these films are (albeit beautifully made ones), one can derive great enjoyment from them.

And, should a film be made that explored the deeper meanings of the book, then I am sure that I would enjoy that too, provided that it was well done.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But surely it is, on one level. You yourself say that this is how you read it as a teenager (much as I did). That reading wasn't "wrong" in comparison with the way that you read the book now. Just different.

Because, looking back I think my early reading of the book was (perhaps inevitably) simplistic. I think if my reading wasn't 'wrong' it was certainly shallow. I'd say that's the case with the movies. If PJ was 16 years old I'd find it easier to accept his version. I don't think LotR is on any level an 'action novel' - any more than War & Peace is. That it can, & often is, read as one, merely shows the limitations of the reader. Art often has to be grown into. I think PJ tried to make a movie which would appeal to the widest possible audience. Tolkien wrote a book that appealed principally to himself, without any real thought of who might read it. Its interesting that Tolkien succeeded where (for many of us) PJ failed.

I don't want to come across as someone who just dislikes the films on principle - I so wanted to love them. I just can't. I'm simply not moved by them. I wish I could be. It would be nice to have more of Middle earth. I've watched them a good few times - FotR maybe a dozen times, the others a bit less. I even spent a whole Sunday a few months back watching all three EE's. Afterwards I suppose I felt that I didn't really dislike them a great deal, I just didn't care. I don't think I'll watch them again. There's something I can't really define clearly that's just not there. Its not 'Middle earth' for me.

[mormegil]

Davem if I may interject here it seems that you apply different standards of what art is to different mediums. The movies failed in your mind because of obvious primary world ideas you had of them, however you are very vocal against doing that when reading a book. You further say that if anybody is pulled out of the book enchantment than it is his own fault. You suggest that PJ failed--while the film appealed to many--and yet the book didn't because you weren't pulled out and those who were "well there just not reading it correctly".

There is a great inconsistency in the way you are judging the two. Admittedly I love the books far more than I do the movies. However I think the movies are more or less great in their own medium. Sadly we tend to compare the movies to the books too much (I am guilty of this at times) but the book cannot be translated perfectly into film. It is too deep, too powerful, and too well written to do such a feat. Not if we had 6 films could it even be done.

The difference being that books have a way of evoking our imagination and we are able to see, in a way, what we want. Whereas with the movie we are shown what we are seeing and little imagination is left. It's not that PJ per se but that he is operating under a different medium.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

Davem if I may interject here it seems that you apply different standards of what art is to different mediums. The movies failed in your mind because of obvious primary world ideas you had of them, however you are very vocal against doing that when reading a book. You further say that if anybody is pulled out of the book enchantment than it is his own fault. You suggest that PJ failed--while the film appealed to many--and yet the book didn't because you weren't pulled out and those who were "well there just not reading it correctly". .

Maybe you're right, but....

I can't see the films as things in their own right, only as attempts at telling a pre-existing story, so what I'm referring to here is where & how (for me) the films fail to communicate the story, where they stop making sense in terms of Middle earth. The films are not an equal but different ways of telling the same story - what I mean by that is that we're not dealing with a pre existing myth or legend that Tolkien wrote a version of & PJ filmed a version of. LotR is Tolkien's story, as Tolkien told it. Any adaptation should be judged on whether it communicates the spirit & essence of the story well or badly. It doesn't have to put everything on screen exactly as it is in the book, but it must remain true to the source. If you're not going to do that, why adapt at all - why not write & tell your own story?

In essence this is my chief quibble. They didn't have to make these movies.

You are absolutely right as regards anyone watching the movies as movies - either because they don't know the books or because they are able to leave that 'baggage at the door. So, as I say, I am probably guilty of double standards in my criticism. I can only say though, that what the movie makers have done is to tell their own story not Tolkien's but by using so many of Tolkien's names & his basic storyline they make it inevitable that anyone who knows the original will be forced, whether they want to or not, to make comparisons between the book & the films. This is the risk all adaptors take.

Originally Posted by SPM

For someone who dislikes, or at least is ambivalent towards the films, you seem to have watched them (FotR at least) many more times than me.

Well, as I said, I wanted to love them. I also wanted to give them a chance to grow on me - which is why I spent that whole Sunday watching them. I've had to accept now, with some regret, that they do nothing much for me

Davem, I disagree with you profoundly when you seek to devalue your early reading experience (or so it seems to me), but that is to be expected given our differing views on the reader v author debate.

I don't so much 'devalue' it as recognise that while it was the starting point I've moved on in my capacity to appreciate & understand the work. In some ways that saddens me, because there is a loss of innocent 'wonder' which I struggle to recapture when re-reading. But that's been replaced with something else, which in this context I suppose would be have to be called 'informed' wonder - just as deep, if not deeper, but at the same time more 'profound', or so I like to think.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I think that I can explain the lapse in "flowiness". In The Fellowship of the Ring (book), it truly does flow. You begin with a few characters, and as the story continues, you meet more, but they are continually working together, doing new things, and headed off to save the world. That sort of thing. It's one group (growing, though it may be), that's got one agenda. And so, easily enough, the movie can follow that same idea.

I'll post more later (my ride just got here early) but it'll be along the lines of "and then in book/movie two, the plot lines split which makes for inevitable choppiness in the flow of the film". You can't expect flow when you have two separate plots going on.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I disagree with you profoundly when you seek to devalue your early reading experience (or so it seems to me), but that is to be expected given our differing views on the reader v author debate.

Its interesting that Tolkien succeeded where (for many of us) PJ failed.

I would say that they both succeeded greatly in achieving what they set out to achieve, athough I agree that their intentions were, in many respects, very different.

For someone who dislikes, or at least is ambivalent towards the films, you seem to have watched them (FotR at least) many more times than me.

Edit: Quite mormegil. It seems that, if one were to replace the reader v author debate with a watcher v director debate, davem and I would find ourselves in agreement.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Either he doesn't understand them or isn't interested in them. Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

Finally started watching the Appendix material found in the ROTK EE DVDs last night, and could not agree more. It seems that they went to the Tolkien LOTR buffet, selected from the various dishes/themes, and used those willy-nilly in the movies. "Hey, that Faramir quote regarding Numenor is really shiny...we need to have that in the movie! Now who can we pin that bauble on? Hmmm...Eowyn has room for more LOTR jewelry, so pin it on her."

What absolutely kills me is when the writers assert that they were being true to the "vision" and "theme" when they have added scenes, storylines, have mixed up dialogue and generally show limited understanding for the deeper themes. They just had to do it the way that it was done for reason x. It was almost like saying that it was completely out of their hands and also that no other idea would have worked.