Split Personality?

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Interesting, I like that interpretation. And davem talking about Frodo's 'writhing' reminded me of Boromir's own struggle with the Ring. And I think Boromir's situation is much like Gollum's, only Boromir's impulses are a bit different.

I can't see Boromir's situation at all like Gollum's, excluding the fact that they both wanted the Ring. Their situation is entirely different, with completely different motives. Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.

Boromir's flaw of pride is entirely different. He was a warrior. Fighting for Minas Tirith is what Boromir lived for. He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did, he was not shunned from his society as Gollum was in his younger days. Quite the opposite, Boromir was Gondor's "celebrity". Another huge difference- Gollum was a treacherous murderer, evil from the start. Boromir was never evil. The Ring tipped him to the edge, playing on his pride, his initial good intentions for his home. The Ring also played on Sam's intentions in just the same way, although Sam, obviously not having Boromir's way of life and status, was able to resist it. I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.

[Boromir88]

Matthew, well I wasn't exactly meaning that Boromir was a vicious and hated murderer, I meant that what they had gone through (with the Ring) was rather similar. They both faced the same struggle, there were just some different impulses between the two.

Smeagol wanted the Ring as a birthday present. Boromir wanted to use the Ring as a weapon and thereby win 'glory.' So, yes their impulses were different, but the way the Ring used them all the same.

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality. The difference is Smeagol already had seeds of evil, even before coming across the Ring, which is my guess as to why he almost instantly kills for it and instantly starts using the Ring for 'malicious and wicked' purposes.

Boromir already had his own weaknesses, which made him a target of the Ring, even before coming across it. Gondor was bearing the brunt of Sauron's attacks, he loved Gondor, he wanted victory for Gondor, he was also a 'glory-seeker,' and this is what the Ring uses to corrupt Boromir. The Ring used different ways to 'woo' Boromir and Smeagol, but in the end it's all the same. Boromir falls to the lust of the Ring just as Smeagol did.

We can look at a character such as Denethor who was like Boromir 'in face and pride'. Also as mad as Denethor became, he never gave up in the struggle against Sauron (until the very end when his mind was overthrown), because he, like Boromir, loved his country. Denethor doesn't even come close to seeing the Ring, yet he desires it:

'Nay it should have been kept, hidden, hidden dark and deep. Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp,...'~The Siege of Gondor

So, there are people who are simply predisposed to the corruption of the Ring; because of their desires.

The point in comparing Smeagol and Boromir was that their character before even knowing about The One Ring is what made them targets of the Ring. The Ring doesn't create any impulses within the individual, it uses what's already there. The Ring didn't create 'Gollum' in Smeagol, Gollum was already there:

'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'

The Ring didn't create any impulse for Boromir to use it as a weapon in defeating Sauron and winning his own glory. The Ring used those impulses already in him. Just as Denethor already wanted to use the Ring and he never even saw it. It didn't even have to be a Ring, bottomline is Boromir and Denethor would have used anything that promised them victory over Sauron. It could have been a chicken foot, if that chicken foot could be used to destroy Sauron, Boromir and Denethor would have wanted to use it.

Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.

But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?

'He would have stretched out his hand to this thing, and taking it he would have fallen. He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.'~The Siege of Gondor

Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did...

He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. Look at Bilbo he's ready to fight Gandalf over the Ring (that's certainly un-bilbo like). Boromir was consumed by a madness:

He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship

This is just my own personal interpretation, but I imagine Smeagol's situation quite the same. The Ring got Smeagol into this 'blinding rage' and Deagol was unable to get away. Boromir was in this same rage, lucky for Frodo (and him), Frodo (and the Ring) were able to escape. When the Ring's out of Boromir's grasp, the madness passes. What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.

But Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf all had the same desires as Boromir did. They too wanted to use the Ring as a weapon, but they all came to the conclusion this was not the answer and so were able to reject the Ring. True they are the 'wise' ones, but hey Sam, Faramir, and even Isildur to a point, all reject the Ring. Yes, there is an evil that the Ring exudes, but the individual has just a big of a part to play. Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

[littlemanpoet]

Alatar, an interesting reading. Almost persuasive. However, it reveals a PJ Sméagol of modernist, overly psychologized sensibilities. I find the Tolkien version more subtle and true to life.

SaurontheWhite, my problem with what you say is that PJ claims to have tried to stay true to the theme and spirit of Tolkien's books, and utterly failed to do so. I don't think PJ was trying to undermine Tolkien's LotR; rather, he just didn't really "get it", and under the rationale of trying to "make a good movie" and "tell a better story" (yes, he actually said that), he ruined Faramir, psychologized Gollum, Gollumized Frodo, demeaned Sam with a supposed "Gollum rivalry", and demeaned Aragorn's nobility. PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either.

Originally Posted by Boromir

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality.

Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring. This cannot be true because Tolkien makes it quite clear that no-one is safe, certainly not even Gandalf. "Do not tempt me, Frodo!"

Every character in LotR had desires. The Ring's modus operandus is to work on them. Sam dreams of becoming "The Great Gardener". Boromir imagines himself as the revered savior of Gondor. Saruman wants to be the new and better Sauron. Denethor wants to secure the Ring to overthrow the old supposedly extinct line of the ancient kings and set up his own line as the new kings of Gondor. Frodo wants to be home safe. Gollum unabashedly wants the Ring to slake his lust for riches.

So the success of some characters in rejecting the Ring is not based in personality, but in will. Frodo, though repeatedly tempted by the Ring, fell to the temptation only a few times because his will was strong enough to hold firm, though weakening as the Ring approached Mordor and strengthened. Gollum was predisposed to murder for the sake of the Ring because he had already committed evil and had a will to do more evil.

No personality is immune. Every character in Middle Earth, having desires, would have had choices to make when/if confronted by the Ring. The test of their character would be whether they had the will to withstand the temptation or not. This is one thing PJ just didn't portray with any consistency.

[Nogrod]

I do agree with you Boromir with the point that the Ring wanted different things with different creatures it fell upon. But it's aim stood the same all the way even if it had to apply different tactics with different chances it was given.

I'm not sure if I'm corrupted by PJ's films but I do tend to think the One Ring is a power of it's own as well - even if in the end swaying to the ways of its master Sauron - and ready to use whatever way it has to attract creatures to be found. And there is also the kind of fatalistic world-view of Gandalf and others (Tolkien!) which leads us to think that everything that happens happens for a purpose eg. every encounter with the ring is somehow predetermined.

So the Ring might take on the creed or vanity of Gollum in the beginning - or of Bilbo as well. But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?

With Isildur and Boromir the temptation is somewhat different from Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond as they know more and decide not to lay their finger on it. After a struggle against yeilding to the will of the Ring (or Sauron) - or to the temptation of the power of the good - the latter refuse and the former try to conquer.

To Gollum it gave security and during the centuries identity as one who is not seen and who does not want to be seen. To Boromir it offered a way to defeat the enemy under the pressure of his father. To Gandalf or Galadriel it represented the frightful power which might win but also consume the one who used it and thus turn evil with the power of the power.

Also the ring had different ways of catching the "mighty" than catching the "non-cognizants". To an average person it promised success, to a military leader it promised victory but to the wise it promised the final frontier. Although "wisdom" seems not to be the key here as Sam was not a "wise-hobbit" even if he was the most imortant person in the story, "Samwise" indeed and practically was the "wisest" of all (well, that's just my opinion).

~~*~~

But coming to the original question...

In the end I think Tolkien was working around the themes of acceptance and power, of the difference between personal identity and the communal approval of what one has to do, of the challenge between personal liberty and responsibility in face of others, of personal might and duty vs. surrender, believing in one's own cause against all the odds and the personal survival vs. the inevitable-loking fate of death (that it must have felt in the trenches).

It's easy to see why Isildur or Boromir are so real. Looking at the trenches of the WW1 kind of makes it paranoically real.

Would you use a ring to make you invisible in a war? Would you use a ring that would quarantee a good fighting position against an overwhelming enemy? Would you use a Ring to make sure the enemy does not run through your trenches or nail all of you down with their artillery or machine-guns when you attack?

Would you use a ring if you knew - or believed - that the enemy might use your ring-gathered force against you?

Could you say no to the Ring?



Would you dream of the ring that made you invisible or all powerful?

[Sauron the White]

from littlemanpoet

PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either.

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".
So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is. Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".

I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that this was not a stellar moment for Mr. Clinton, as there is only one meaning of the word, "is".

So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is.

"IT" is Tolkien's themes and spirit, which PJ said he was trying to emulate.

Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

If "purist" means "true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien", then I gladly accept the appellation. The point is that PJ said he was trying be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and completely failed. I was actually cutting him slack by suggesting that he didn't really know what he was doing. LotR is not merely an "action/adventure" flick, even though PJ stamped it that way for millions of viewers. When the story Tolkien wrote didn't fit the genre clichés, PJ decided that Tolkien was wrong and "improved" the story. Frustrating.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

You do not help your case by invoking Clinton's Saruman-like blandishment on truth and fact. And all I can say to your probability is, "more's the pity".

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

This does not speak highly of the world.

As to why Gollum looks like he does in the movies, PJ's original intention was to have him look like the classical representation from the books; but when Andy Serkis did such an amazing job of acting the part, PJ asked his animators to mix together Gollum with Serkis' own face. The result was to create a face from Gollum that reminded Serkis of his own grandfather.

Funny, I found the "cat coughing up a hairball" speaking technique for Gollum in the movie to be difficult to understand, distracting, and unfortunate. Ah well. Minor issue.

"Cute!?!" What a shame. No, I cannot accept that the medium alone explains all the differences as "necessary". There are too many movies made that are too well done for that to explain the entirety of why (not if) the movies are inferior to the books.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .......... I remember my early high school English courses where we were asked to read some classic story and surprisingly enjoyed it. At least we thought we did. Because, much to our collective surprise, we often found out that the story we thought we read was not really what it was about. There were all these deep and dark secret themes, messages, double and triple meanings, allegories, metaphors and other stuff that the teacher soon held court expounding upon. We read a story and liked it for what we thought it was only to be told "you stupid idiots --- its not that at all". By the time most of us got to be seniors our attitude was "screw it - just tell me what you think it was so I can throw it all up back on the test."

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

It has been my understanding that each person brings to the table what is in themselves and uses that to experience what they encounter in life. When I read a book, and you or others read a book, we do not always walk away with the same opinion. At least not if we are thinking people who have not been programmed, educated or outright brainwashed to the ways of proper and acceptable thinking.

[Lalwendë]

lmp - I agree with you that I don't read Lord of the Rings as an action/adventure either, but to be fair on PJ, not every book fan is like us! For one, a friend of mine says he enjoys the action and the adventure most of all in the story, and that's what he centres on (plus he likes all the weapons ) - he hasn't seen the films for the simple fact that he's blind!

I wonder how much PJ brought out the other aspects that we get from the book? Maybe only someone who saw the films first could answer that properly as we will have watched with 'an agenda', like it or not!

I also wonder how someone who was introduced to Tolkien via the films first would see Gollum in the text? More or less sympathetically? My own personal introduction to the fella was via the pages of the Hobbit and although I found him really frightening because he had scared poor Bilbo to death, after reading Rings I began to find him much more sympathetic and began to feel quite sorry for him - and over time this feeling has only grown. Would my reaction be more or less like someone who met him via the films?

[Sir Kohran]

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

I'm afraid that there's quite a bit of snobbery from many Tolkien fans where the movies are concerned; their constant statements that their interpretations of the story are 'right' and PJ's and the rest of the world's are 'wrong' are annoying - for instance, in the book the hobbits' room in The Prancing Pony is attacked and vandalised. The book leaves the incident unclear - we don't know if it was the Wraiths' agents or the Riders themselves that attacked. PJ chose the latter option. Anything wrong with that? No, he just chose one of two perfectly possible options. However, one raving book fan on a different site said that having Mordor agents in Bree being mentioned in the previous chapter was 'undoubtedly' foreshading to the attack and therefore PJ was 'wrong' to have the Riders do it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

ugly and smug ... look down their aristocratic noses ... contempt for their ignorance ... programmed, educated or outright brainwashed

Perhaps you might like to dispense with the "name calling" and stick to arguments? I harbor no ill will toward you personally, but I hold a strong opinion. I would appreciate the same respect in return.

[MatthewM]

Like lmp said, everyone was subject to the Ring's power. It played on others different. Yes, Boromir's motives made him vulnerable from the start- however, I still would not compare Boromir and Gollum so closely. Their situations are completely different, and although they both wanted the Ring, they are on opposite spectrums. You know when someone is so bent on making connections between things to fit what they want to see? That is how I feel about someone trying to compare Boromir and Gollum. The only thing similiar to me is that they both fall to the Ring at some point.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?

That's a rather un-fair question though, isn't it? Boromir probably would not have been able to keep it that long, as he is completely different than Gollum and he is a warrior who would be so often in battle that the chances of loosing the Ring would have been that much greater than spending all your days in a cave.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

We all know Faramir's words, and yes, Boromir would have been different, doubtless. He would be carrying the Ring of Power, making him subject to none. But you isolate Boromir here. Anyone who claimed the Ring would be changed and different.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't.

Yet it didn't happen, and "murderer" was not one of Boromir's qualities.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

Smeagol's murderous tendencies were still there. He was evil at the start. If Deagol escaped, he probably would have found him again and murdered him anyway.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

Yet they all would have fallen to the Ring. Even Faramir eventually would have fallen. These "targets for the Ring" were simply the first round of combatants if the Ring was not destroyed.

Although I agree with parts of your post, I still can't compare Boromir's situation to Gollum's. They are so different, in my opinion.

[Boromir88]

You want to argue on the merits? Fine. I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.~Sauron

That was me who brought up that stuff, not elempi.

Anyway, as Lal said, the teleportation was a joke to poke fun at exactly how the Elves got there. As it creates a distance problem with the movies. (One noticed not just be the 'book people' but many many movie fans who question the same thing). In the movies Gimli at the beginning of TTT says they have been on pursuit for 3 days (this would be from about Amon Hen and into Rohan).

The Elves presumably came from Lothlorien, which is much farther than the distance Aragorn et all were able to travel in '3 days.' Yet in the films the Elves manage to arrive their overnight? Plus as Lal says they would have had to of gotten past the Uruk-hai army...so how do they do it? This isn't explained in the films and you see it does create a problem with distance. So, I made a joke that the Elves teleported there as that is the only explanation I can think of how they got there so fast. This wouldn't create a problem in the movies if Jackson didn't feel the need to change things around and throw in a bunch of Elves. Why couldn't he have used the 2,000 Rohirrim soldiers who were fighting in Helm's deep? This has been noticed by many many people to and has been a consistant question in the Movie forums.

The Uruk dude Aragorn kills at the end of FOTR is Lurtz. There is no such character in the books. The Uruk-hai's are led by Ugluk and the group from Mordor is led by Grishnakh. In TTT it is Ugluk who leads the Uruk-hai, but for some reason Jackson invented this Lurtz character that got pep talks from Saruman and then gets killed by Aragorn in FOTR. So, I see it as Jackson inventing his own character.

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende.... I am sorry to appear to tar everyone with the same brush when many do not deserve it. Thank you for pointing out the diversity within the Tolkien community. I will certainly keep that in mind when making future observations. I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

Boromir ... sorry to confuse your remarks with someone else. Allow me to discuss your reply.

The Elves in Helms Deep distance problem: It only becomes a problem when you calculate the distance based on the knowledge of the books because the films never make a big issue about it. And even if someone does put it all together based on the distance that others traveled then we have the situation of Elves being able to go without sleep and perhaps would be a great deal faster than mere humans. If people can accept that a short stocky untrained Dwarf can run 140 miles in 3 short days, I would think they would believe almost anything reasonable involving travel from Elves. Both are examples of willing suspension of disbelief. Some are willing to extend it to one area of the medium but deny it to the other.

Neither the book nor the film is perfect. They both contain errors and mistakes and holes.

Lurtz: yes, I know who that character is. Where in the film is he named? As far as I can remember, he never is. What is so wrong about the Uruks having a field commander? How is that some serious violation of the book? So what if Jackson invented an Uruk and gave him more personality, even an off screen name? He knew that the audience would better latch on to one identifiable Uruk than a whole slew of nameless orcs. Lurtz comes to personify the might and brutality of the Uruks both in his slaying of Boromir and in his battle with Aragorn. Having an identifiable character you can hang your hat on means so much more to viewers than waves of unwashed orcs outside of a major battle scene.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir

I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

I agree that he is the exception to the temptation of the Ring, but do you think he is the exception based on personality, or will, or something else?

Originally Posted by Boromir

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by SaurontheWhite

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

If one is going to use such obvious sarcasm, then one is going to be seen as attacking people instead of their opinions. Nevertheless, I'll deal with both the exaggeration and the actual question that lies underneath: First, to the exaggerration. No, I don't consider LotR to be Holy Writ. And no, I don't consider it to be sacred scripture. And no, I don't see it as Divine Inspiration, although I do consider it to be inspired. Now, to the underlying question: Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did. He did say that he would be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and then he proceeded to improve upon the story when it didn't fit the clichés he wanted to use. The result was to (to varying degrees) compromise, needlessly, some of the strongest characterizations Tolkien achieved, notably in Aragorn and Faramir.

Originally Posted by STW

What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something?

Not a thing. But then admit that is what you are trying to do.

STW: Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

LMP: This does not speak highly of the world.

STW: I do find that to be smug and very condescending.

Mea culpa. It was an overgeneralization. I grant that LotR-the-movie was an impressive feat of moviemaking. There are scenes that I love from it (Balrog vs. Gandalf at the beginnig of TTT). I cheered when it won the oscars it did. However, there are points at which I cringe because Jackson simply did the story a disservice. Most notably in my mind is Faramir's character, and to a lesser degree the psychologization of Gollum.

Originally Posted by STW

I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

You have me confused with Boromir. I actually don't object to Lurz as a representative leader of the orcs. I do wish, however, that Ugluk and Grishnakh (what a great evil character!) had made it into the movie; I simply can't see why they were excluded. After all, Lurz dies at the hands of Aragorn, and then the orcs are shown for the rest of the "run to Isengard" with nameless leaders. Why not include the names and characterizations of Ugluk and Grishnakh? Surely there was money to spare to pay two more actors to play such intriguing bit roles! Grishnakh has to be one of the most effectively realized characters in the entire story. He's my favorite orc.

Hmmm..... I didn't realize that Lurz is never named in the movie itself. So apparently that must have been for marketing purposes. And that orc that serves the role of Grishnakh in the movies, I was really, really disappointed that he wasn't Grishnakh. What would it have cost the story to include him? Bummer.

Originally Posted by STW

I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

[Sauron the White]

from lettlemanpoet

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Where did Jacksons films improve from the book version of LOTR?

I would have to sit down and watch each of the three films - some 11+ hours to give you a thorough answer. But off the top of my head..... and this is just my opinion based on a recent viewing of FOTR and reading that portion of the book...

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

-- Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep. For me, it worked. The blowing of the horn announcing their arrival, their march through the gates, that great pivot and turn, their bravery in battle... it all worked for me. I thought that was an improvement. I did not so much see this as a Jackson complete new invention as much as combining a story element that he did not have time to show with one that he was showcasing. ( I realize this is from TTT and not FOTR but it was a subject in your post)

-- Putting more emphasis on the character of Arwen was an advancement. With the exception of Eowyn, its pretty much a male "let me save you" story. Thats probably fine it is day. But in these times women and girls need something more to relate to. Giving them a female character in a leading role who is more than just arm candy was a wise move.

-- Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film. I only wish JRRT had done the same. To this day I see no value in the dancing hippie with the doggerel sing-songs. The idea of introducing the Ring and how its power corrupts everyone, and then you showcase a being who is beyond its power, and THEN DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT was not the strongest part of the story. To me its pointless. Even if you get rid of the silly clothes and screwball songs its still pointless. For Jackson, this was addition by subtraction.

-- Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film. In the 21st century, we are used to the anti-hero, the figure who is not comfortable in his own skin and the role he has been cast into. It also makes for a significant character arc as Aragorn can build up his resolve and comfort level with his savior role over thre films. I am sure that Cecil B. DeMille would have had Aragorn as the penultimate HERO from minute one of the film and he would have never had a doubt about anything. That was fine for the first half of the 20th century but there is too much water under that dam to go completely back now. So I looked upon the character developemnt of Aragorn as a positive and more interesting than the Aragorn of the books.

-- And then there is the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth that was near perfection. From the Shire to Isengard to Minas Tirith and everything included. You have to give the Jackson team credit for bringing ME to life.

And thats just from FOTR. Please give me more time to watch the others.

Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did.

Obviously you care about this deeply and it means something to you. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what Jackson said in an interview, press release, or any other bit of pre-release information. All I wanted was a great film. That is what I felt I got. Further, I do think that Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly. But I view this as just part of the film business and its means nothing to me or my feelings. Its the final product that counts. Like Shakespeare said "the plays the thing"... not how it was written or the anguish of getting it right.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think this is a complete 100% cut and dry situation. Every reader is free to read and bring to the table what they have in themselves. Every reader closes those 1200 pages and internalizes and interprets what they read for themselves. But I would bet that Jackson feels that he was as faithful as he could possible be given the change of medium from a book to three films. You and he would probably never agree, but I guess he feels he was true to the books as much as possible.

In these discussions, it seems that there may be a difference in priorities. Many people I would characterize as Purists, seem to place a very high priority - maybe their highest priority - on being as faithful as possible to the books. I do not know of any filmmaker who would agree with that as their highest priority. Their priorities would include
-- making a good or great film
-- making a profit for the studio so they can keep on working
-- making a film that is praised and will advance their career

I recall the admonition that Ernest Hemingway gave to other authors when selling their work for adaption as a film. Hemingway said there was only one way to do it. The author and producer meet on a deserted beach late at night. The author tosses the book to the producer. The producer tosses a briefcase filled with money to the author. And they never bother each other again.

I think Hemingway had it right and understood the realites of the film business.

Tolkien himself said he did not think the book was filmable. Christopher is still clinging to that fiction. But he went ahead and sold the film rights anyways (and you have to wonder about the ethics of that... "sure I will sell you the rights to build a high rise on this marshy swamp land" hahaha) thinking he could have it both ways keeping the cash without having to see a film made. He may have been right in his time ... but technology caught up with the process.

But Hemingway was right then and Tolkien should have read about it.

I hope this post is more in the spirit of a honest debate and intellectual exchange without name calling or meanness.