Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Consider the vast improvement in the character of Boromir including his far more touching death scene in the movie over the book.

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.

Plus all the expository material that comes out of the Council of Elrond chapter is far superior in the film.

In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

Arwens expanded role connected with many of the filmgoers - a majority of which turned out to be female - and I think that was not coincidental.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.

The changing of Boromir's character was a good thing. The hypothetical changing of Sauron's character, however would not have made the movies better than the book. On the contrary, it would have made them worse.

In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

The Council of Elrond would have been simply too long in the movie. It would have killed it even worse than Bombadil. Long scenes of exposition slow down the action and bore the audience. The "shouting match", as youy call it, was the only way to make it work, showed the drama of Frodo's decision, and also showed the Ring's influence seeping into Rivendell.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

That's your opinion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The changing of Boromir's character was a good thing. The hypothetical changing of Sauron's character, however would not have made the movies better than the book. On the contrary, it would have made them worse.

In what sense 'a good thing?' The movie Boromir is not the Boromir Tolkien created. The idea of praising the scriptwriter's 'skill' in making movie Boromir's death more moving than in the book is a bit odd as its only more 'moving' because they've turned him into a nice guy corrupted by the Ring, as opposed to Tolkien's thuggish, overly proud warrior.

The Council of Elrond would have been simply too long in the movie. It would have killed it even worse than Bombadil. Long scenes of exposition slow down the action and bore the audience. The "shouting match", as youy call it, was the only way to make it work, showed the drama of Frodo's decision, and also showed the Ring's influence seeping into Rivendell.

It was dreadful. Of course, modern movie-goers do get bored by 'Long scenes of exposition slow(ing) down the action', because generally they have the concentration span of a senile goldfish - & producers/directors are eager to cater to them. Condense one of the most important chapters in the book to a three minute shouting match, & get on with the beheadings & the 85 minute fight with the cave Troll......

That's your opinion.

No. Movie Arwen was a dull, wet, simpering annoyance & one of the worst things in the movies. "Blub, blub, blub, Woe is me!"

[Sir Kohran]

they've turned him into a nice guy corrupted by the Ring, as opposed to Tolkien's thuggish, overly proud warrior.

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

It was dreadful. Of course, modern movie-goers do get bored by 'Long scenes of exposition slow(ing) down the action', because generally they have the concentration span of a senile goldfish - & producers/directors are eager to cater to them. Condense one of the most important chapters in the book to a three minute shouting match, & get on with the beheadings & the 85 minute fight with the cave Troll......

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Also, much of the discussion in the Council is taken care of elsewhere in the movie - the story of the Last Alliance was placed as the movie's prologue, Gandalf's escape from Saruman was shown interspersed with the travels of Aragorn and the Hobbits, and Bombadil wasn't in the movie to begin with. Things like Sauron's messanger tempting the Dwarves don't need to be included; they have no real relation to the general plot. Boromir's account of what's happening in Gondor was stripped down probably to create more interest from the audience in Boromir's far-off, much-talked about country. Add all these together and you get a smaller, tighter sequence.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

But he plays a very important role, showing the decay of Gondor, from the height of its numenorean ascendence, of which Aragorn is an exponent and a reviver, to the level of Rohan, under the rule of the stewards. As Faramir said:

Originally Posted by The window on the west, TTT

- Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days. So even was my brother, Boromir: a man of prowess, and for that he was accounted the best man in Gondor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book. And if you rewrote Theoden's character to make him a nasty piece of work his death would be less moving.

And if you gave the Ring the voice of a little girl with a cute lisp we'd all be a little sad when it went into the fire - but that's not what Tolkien wrote. As far as Boromir goes, Tolkien gave us a very specific type of person in order to explore the effect of power on someone like that. The scriptwriters basically took the easy way out in order to get an emotional climax to their movie.

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Well, that's only true if the audience you're aiming at is a spotty 17 year old ...

[Finduilas]

The counsil could have been just as long as in the movie, but more to the books character. I'm not a.... purist? It doesn't need to be word for word. Leave out Bombadil, shorten the counsil, I don't even mind a slight change in Boromir. But to have all your main characters, excepting of course Aragorn, Frodo, and Elrond, argue like children is foolish, and destroys, mostly, the nice change you were talking about in Boromir.

I think the movie focused to much on the Ring's power to twist characters. After all, Bilbo got it, practically cheated with it, used it, and still felt sorry for Gollum. Only 60 years later(60 years, that's a long time) was he a grump grasping for the Ring. And he was still a nice guy.

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

[Folwren]

Heh...Finduilas and davem are doing a fine job. I don't think I'll put in my two cents of opinion here.

-- Folwren

[davem]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for. Unfortunately the writers don't seem to know what to do with her - the 'XenArwen' idea fell flat on its face (her scenes were removed from Helm's Deep, & thus the only justification for Elves being there was lost) & had two unfortunate consequences - first we lost Glorfindel from the movie, & second we get this odd change in Arwen's character, who at first appears as a 'warrior' Elf, wielding sword & defying Ringwraiths, only to subsequently become this simpering 'girly' Elf, who can only wave her big, brave warrior off to war, & then spend the rest of the movie sobbing her eyes out begging Daddy to help her get him back. Book Arwen weaves her 'magical' banner for Aragorn, &, though she remains in the background, is a powerful, mysterious 'force' behind the scenes. I can't recall such a 'weak' female character in any recent popular movie. Tolkien has often been accused of not being able to write convincing female characters, but he never made such a pig's ear of a female character as the movie scriptwriters did of Arwen. Where is the inner power of this descendant of Melian, Luthien & Galadriel?